After the lecture and seminar I
have a better understanding of Kant’s & Socrates theory, according to Kant
our world is formed in different categories (quantity, quality, relation,
modality) When we sense something, we express this by using these faculties to
explain it. An example is: I see a chair -> I see a blue chair.
With my senses (eyes) I can see
that it is a chair, but I can’t say anything more about this chair (raw data)
without these faculties and that applies for everything. I understand that our
senses and these faculties can’t do without each other, or how the guest
lecturer explained it ‘perception without conception is blind and conception
without perception is empty’.
One of the faculties within the
category ‘relation’ that we discussed during the seminar is ‘community’. We
discussed how the digitalization has changed this faculty and how this has
affect the way we think and perceive things.
An example was social media-
before social media, body image was not that much of a big deal, as it is now.
There was no Photoshop or other tool to change yourself into a person you are
not, people perceived each other as they were and accepted that. Nowadays it is
not like that anymore- we can change ourselves with a simple click on a button
to make ourselves look the way that we want people to see us.
Because we always perceive the
world around us and don’t see the world as it is. I would say that no matter
what we do or how hard we try, we will always be subjective, cause most of
those factors that affect our judgment are things that we can’t get rid of. I
learned that we ‘humans’ are objective and that has to do with the fact that we
all have our own 'backpack' (gender, race, ideology, culture etc.) and all
these factors affect our judgments.
In the group discussion during the
seminar we discussed how we make up rules, values, norms (human rights) and we
expect everybody to live according to them. But what we don’t often consider
is, not everything that we in Europe see as normal, is normal in let’s say Africa
or in the Middle-East. But these rules (human rights) are made for people all
over the world. These rights have to be lived up to by everyone in this world,
because we (who are not totally objective) think that these rules/rights are
normal. It made me realize how we expect people to think in a certain way and
if they don’t, then we think that they are strange or we start thinking ‘how
can you think like that?’ Just because it isn’t my way, I expect it to be the
wrong way. We discussed that being open-minded helps to understand why the
other person is thinking different.
To conclude I can say that these
texts made me think about how I see the world around me and what I believe to
be the truth. It made me realize that I should question myself sometimes (not
too often), as my interpretation of the truth is not by definition true. And by
keeping this in my mind I can also obtain ideas from other people with another
perceptions to add to my knowledge.
I believe your last piece of texts where you draw your conclusions is exactly what Kant wants everyone to think. I liked that you applied Kant’s och Plato’s theories on the modern society with the example of social media. Do you think that the modern society limits us regarding our perceptions of truth? As you mention, nowadays we can easily edit ourselves using for example Photoshop or adding a filter to our pictures which can be perceived as the truth when, in fact, it is not.
ReplyDeleteGood job on your reflection!
Hej, Very nice thoughts and critique about human society and how we interact with each other. You do bring up a point that I really like : We do think and comment on people based on how WE percieve things. Therefore, this is how judgements are made. If you find a clothe somehow very disgusting and that someone wears it, the first thing that comes to mind is "How could she even wear that". I think this is exactly what you mean by "But what we don’t often consider is, not everything that we in Europe see as normal is normal".
ReplyDeleteThe example of the "Barbarian people". They are barbarian based on our vision of society. But do they consider themself barbarian ? I don't think so.
Illusion is the burden of our society, I agree.
I like how you admit that it is important to use critical judgement and question ourselves sometimes, I definitely agree on that. In relation to what you are saying about social media and how we interpret images online, I believe it is vital these days to be able to distance ourselves from the images and question our perception.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I am wondering about is whether you mean we are truly objective, or that we are subjective and deceived by our experiences/background etc. when we perceive things? I would agree with you to say that we are affected by our conditions (subjective), but at the same time there are situations where our backgrounds doesn't affect how we interpret something (e.g. math). It would be interesting to read what you think about this. Overall, a very nice summary and discussion!
The way you reflect on Kant's category "Relation" is interesting. I too believe that the increased digitalization (and perhaps even more; mediatization) has had great influence on the way we humans interact. We have new social schemes, and we thus arrange and reflect differently upon the world today compared to earlier times.
ReplyDeleteBut is it really legit to say that body image was "not that much of a big deal" before this digital revolution? Human kind seems to enjoy organizing the world, and I am convinced that it was the same mechanisms that today have created unreasonable body ideals (especially for women) that led to e.g. the aristocrat's corsets. In other words, I believe that it is incorrect to say that this notion of modifying ourselves to fit into societal conceptions or norms (i.e. putting ourselves in relation to it) is a new thing. Rather, I believe that social media has provided a new (and yes, perhaps increased) way of doing it.
In the comments student u1j8du7c talks about how our backgrounds does not affect how we interpret e.g. math. I don’t agree with that statement.
ReplyDeleteEven if math is linked to analytical, a priori judgements, we still conceptualize the subject ”math”. Have our parents showed positive or negative feelings towards math? Have you been encouraged in school to learn math? It affects your motivation towards the subject. Even if the subject is based on facts, we are still humans and interpret the ”facts".
I appreciated how you applied the theories into discussing rules, values and norms in the world and the difficulties of conforming to one set of ”universal norms” as the human rights could be considered. I don’t agree with body images not being that much of a big deal throughout history. I just think there are different norms now, and that we to a greater extent are exposed to images. If people just perceived each other as they were and accepted that, I don't see why we have had wars and controversies throughout the history?
On the first question I think you had a good general explanation of what Kant meant with your own reflections and examples. It would, however, have been nice to hear your interpretation on 'a priori' and how it is connected to the matter.
ReplyDeleteThe second answer was a bit unclearer to me. For example, what do you mean by "seeing and hearing is also an experience that you get ‘through’ your senses and not ‘with’ them"? How does it differ to the previous explanation? And the last thing you say is that you think that Kant's and Socrates' arguments are contrary. What gave you that impression? When I read the texts I got the impression that their versions were pretty similar.
Good job on the reflection. I enjoyed reading what was said during the lecture and what you were discussing on the seminar.
All in all well structured and argued texts, your reflections opened up to me and I could see you point of view. I also enjoy the concrete examples you mention in your text. When thinking about Kant's faculties of knowledge, one notices they are very much existing still today. From where I see it, they are connected to psychological phenomena and concepts such as Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with digitalization and technological development in general seems to be that people tend to exaggurate it. We talk about the technological revolution as it had changed everything, as people didn't care about their looks or social relations that much before social media. I don't think that is true at all. When we think about the basic needs of a human kind, they have been very much the same for thousands of years. This is, of course, if you're allowed to argue other scientific areas on this one. However, my point was that the sense of community or the need to be loved or even the concerns about looks have been same long before the modern communicating technologies were invented. Yes, they had different significance or meaning, but the very basis was the same. The rise of social media did not entirely change the way of perceiving the world, it just changed the tools used for that.
Thank you for an interesting reflection and summarizing of your thoughts! :)