I started and stayed mostly confused during this week, but I also liked what was going on. I read and re-read Plato, and in the end I went to secondary sources to help me understand what he was trying to say. I ended up reading a lot of other people's analyses of Plato and his work, and finally think I got a grasp on the material. Kant was easier for me. I ended up using a recorded reading of another translation of the preface, but I don’t think that altered my understanding of the material. Here I also used other sources to contextualize my understanding of his points.
The lecture we had concerned mostly Kant, and very little Plato. I did have some trouble following along during the lecture, since there were a lot more concepts than my brain could handle at the time. The main question I left the lecture with was “How is it possible to consider any knowledge to be a priori, since we as humans exist in the world and therefore are influenced by it from birth?” It’s a question I still feel I don’t quite have an answer to, but I’m definitely closer than I was before.
During the seminar my group mostly spent time on two things. One, we tried to reach a consensus on what similarities and differences there were between to two philosophers. That took a while. In the end our understanding was that while both Kant and Plato believe that the way we view the world is based on our perceptions, Plato thinks that that means that we should try to eliminate the senses and their influence and use pure thought. Kant meanwhile is of the opinion that since we can’t ignore our senses we should use them instead, and experiment with the world as we perceive it.
The other thing we spent time on was a discussion about whether one can say that there exists such a thing as a true world. If everything we perceive is effected by us perceiving it, how can we even know how things would be if we were not perceiving them?
During the discussion in the large group we again drifted to the concept of truth, and whether that has any meaning. I argued that perhaps it doesn’t, because as far as we can tell there is no objective truth of the world. At the same time there has to be something akin to a concept of truth, because otherwise the way we live our lives and the things we strive for are kind of meaningless. If we were to use the modern way of thinking, someone argued, then truth would be what most people could agree on. A table is only a table if there is agreement on what a table is, otherwise the discussion is meaningless.
Hi,
SvaraRaderaWhat astonished me is that you found Kant an easier read than Plato - I experienced it totally the other way around. But I felt exactly like you after the lecture, I had a hard time understanding how a priori knowledge should exist without a posteriori knowledge! I was in another seminar group and we focused our discussion mainly on these two Kantian concepts, that helped me a lot! But I also find it interesting to read your reflections on the discussion about truth.
Hi Linnea!
SvaraRaderaI experienced that the text by Plato was a bit easier to read than the text by Kant. But when I read the texts I also used other sources to understand the meaning of the text. It seems that you have understood the concept well after the seminar and that you have made a good work comparing the two texts. During my seminar we didn't discuss the concept of truth so much but I think your reasoning about it was interesting.
It's impressive that you found Kant easier than Plato. I found Plato a little bit easier to understand, because the dialog helped me follow his thoughts. Socrates is also known for his method to give birth to the knowledge of his discussant. In his dialogs he pretends that he doesn’t know anything about the subject, and through questions lead his discussant to knowledge. This method is also used nowadays in the education.
SvaraRaderaAnyway, It was interesting to read your post since in my seminar we didn’t discuss so much about the concept of real truth.
Hi!
SvaraRaderaGreat blogpost! I think it is really good that you explore other sources to help you understand better, very cleaver. I think you and your seminare came to a really good conclusion when comparing Plato and Kant by saying that "Plato thinks that that means that we should try to eliminate the senses and their influence and use pure thought. Kant meanwhile is of the opinion that since we can’t ignore our senses we should use them instead, and experiment with the world as we perceive it". It made me understand their two different views a bit better :)
Hey!
SvaraRaderaFirst i should say that is a great blogpost! I have the same question you mentioned in this post, and i am very agree with what you said in the end "At the same time... truth would be what most people could agree on." What is the truth of the object? but does it matter in sometimes? That make me relate to one thing which called "myth" in the second theme. Why the myth can be widely accepted for people in that time? Does it really tell the truth? No, but it gave a reasonable explanation for that people in that time. People will afraid the things they don't know, sometimes they just need a rule that they can accepted within their cognitive range to follow for live. That is what i think, thank you again for you great post :)
Hej !
SvaraRaderaI think that your concern about « How is it possible to consider any knowledge to be a priori? » is very relevant and has arisen in my mind too. It would have been good for you to express what you understood about that and not only put this question in your post-seminar without answering it. But I agree, it’s not an easy one.
In our seminar, we discussed this question and here is the answer: Kant says that knowledge presupposes knowledge and we can’t apprehend the « first » knowledge. So he designed a table of categories which has to be used to understand an object of experience. This table doesn’t exist in our brain when we are born, but as concepts are so intuitive, we know them even if we have never experienced them. It is what we call a priori concepts.
I hope that this explanation has helped you to understand this question.
Hi!
SvaraRaderaThanks for an interesting read in your posts for this theme. I believe you express something which was rather common among us students when you state that this week was confusing - but intriguing. I thoroughly congratulate you for having had the time and engagement to delve deeper into the subject, since I agree with you that it is quite thought-provoking and developing for oneself. It might also have been, as you mentioned, the fact that there was little discussion during the lecture and seminar on the Plato text, and a larger focus on Kant’s, which lead to many of us not getting quite the grasp of Plato as we had of Kant. Also, as you mention, the Kant text does refer to a lot more different concepts of psychology-related manner, which makes it probably more in need of a pedagogical approach (as was seen in the lecture and seminar).
As for the a priori judgements made synthetically, I don’t necessarily think it is something one must “get” in order to move on with the discussion. The way I see it, the question you ask yourself on how it’s possible to know things a priori is basically answered by coming to terms with the fact that there is no “world” without our perception. The concept of “the world” is simply something we’ve constructed, and thus, it obeys the forms and categories Kant lays down in his text. Furthermore, as you discussed during your seminar, the table which can only be seen as a table if the concept “table” is known to all is the same thing as the world. For the world to exist, there needs to be an agreement on what the world is and means - otherwise there would be no such thing as “the world”. I realize now as I’m writing this that I speak of this as if it was some sort of truth, though what I mean is that this is how I thought of the discussion you put forth - I’m not certain as to whether it’s “right” or “wrong”, if there is such a thing in this area...
Hi!
SvaraRaderaTo start off, I liked your blogpost and found it interesting. As many others have commented, I also found Plato easier to read so I'm impressed you found it the other way around! And I also agree that it was great to read others interpretations on these texts, it helped a lot to gain understanding.
I agree with your question “How is it possible to consider any knowledge to be a priori, since we as humans exist in the world and therefore are influenced by it from birth?”. It's a question that is relevant when applying these philosophers on the reality - how we actually percieve and live in the world. I wonder if not these cathegorizations of the world that esepcially Kant did, would rather be a way of cathegorize the way we think, and accepting that we don't know everything. Human is influenced from birth, but if we say that we only take up a small place in the world then maybe everything isn't after all about how we perceive it but how it exists in itself, with or without us?
An interesting subject to discuss, and I think we could continue the discussion for a long time and learn more from the philosophers out there without coming to an answer.
Hej :) You did a great job trying to explain both Kant's and Plato's perspective in your first blogpost, although you said that you didn't got everything they said at first. Seems like you put a lot of effort in comparing the two views, which I think helps a lot understanding them both. I also agree with you, that Kant's view of the world is more suitable when compared to nowadays way of thinking. Plato's explanation of great minds is in my opinion a very abstract way of trying to find a solution to the cornerstone of knowledge and truth. As you have written in your after post discussing whether there exist such a thing as a true world, I think that this is maybe the most difficult thought about the two concepts of Kant and Plato. For me I really had to try hard to not get on the wrong track by focusing to much on the definition of truth, knowledge and the true world. It is important to always keep in mind how the author of the text lived that days and how his perspective on the world was influenced by history and the time he lived in. The lecture for theme 2 helped me a lot by understanding how important it is to know something about the author and its history and standpoint.
SvaraRaderaHi! To me it seems like you have realy grasped the thoeries that Plato and Kant had! It is always smart to use secondary sources to understand better, get another perspective or just clarify what you have already understood. I did so myself and it helped a lot with the confusion I and as i seems also you felt when thrown into the world of philospohy. Regarding your question:
SvaraRadera“How is it possible to consider any knowledge to be a priori, since we as humans exist in the world and therefore are influenced by it from birth?”
I myself thought about this and as I understood it we get a priori knowledge when our experiences, that has formed concepts, from another event can be applied as knowledge in another case. But this may not be true, it may only be a part in your own solving of this problem so I hoped it helped!
Hi,
SvaraRaderaI am curious that you think Kant’ paper is easier for you to understand. I think what Kant wrote is pure theory, and it is really hard for me to understand! While Plato's dialogue is obvious easier to read and know the content.During the discussion in the seminar group, we also discussed about the concept of truth, you mention that as far as we can tell there is no objective truth of the world. At the same time there has to be something akin to a concept of truth, because otherwise the way we live our lives and the things we strive for are kind of meaningless. I think you really have a philosophical thought. Keep it up!