After having
finished this weeks theme, I can in hindsight tell I initiated my discussion
with the aim of finding specific elements of defining knowledge. After having
analysed and discussed the concept further during the lecture and seminar it
becomes obvious of how fluctuating the idea of “knowledge” is, depending on the
time and circumstances while it’s being discussed. It has become clear how
analyses and science in general demands a definition of what sort of result
and/or answers they are looking after, as the perception of an object can be
interpreted in various ways. This might intervene with the objectivity of the
study, but being a reasoning human in a set period of time and space will still
affect the perception of the object, whether it is conducted within a defined
method or not.
I have
presented in the seminar my conception of how objects loose their meaning
without human interaction and their perceptions, and I believe it’s in our
human nature to seek an explanation to knowledge as a phenomenon very much in
the same way as we can produce mathematical answers with reason. However, even
mathematics in itself, however objective they may be perceived, is a cultural
depiction of us producing knowledge.
To reach this
understanding of the nature of knowledge, perceptions and science it has been
vital for me to partake in the discussions in order to broaden my mind.
Although reading the text provided for this theme, it has been necessary to
reflect upon the concepts in order to reach a fuller understanding of them.
Simply reviewing others understanding of them haven’t been enough, especially
as the text are written in contexts in many ways different from ours.
Personally,
it has been interesting for me to get an understanding of primary- and
secondary qualities and the how perception and conception is cooperating in
order to create knowledge according to our faculties of knowledge. I think this
has been the closest we’ve gotten to actually being able to speak of knowledge
as a reasonable concept. From this springs the discussion of what is actually
perception or illusion, insanity or above all: sanity. How are we to understand
sanity knowing our minds percept things differently from each other – and that
they are even capable of deceiving ourselves?
Obviously this is a topic that can be
discussed further and in many other directions. What I have done during this
week has helped me to form an understanding of what elements are considered
important in the scientific studies and search of knowledge. I assume that the
utility of this understanding will be more evident in further analyses on
different topics.
Thank you for your accurate observations! I agree to the thought that things without human perception does not have any meaning. As it was said in the lecture "Conception without perception is empty", thus my world does not exist without me. Furthermore, your question about how we can understand sanity or insanity if we perceive things differently, made me think that we probably do not have pure definition of sanity and insanity (as many more other terms) as we live in a moral society that has its own norms and rules. Thus, we filter our knowledge and understanding about different matters through the common sense of what is good and what is bad as it is implied to us from when we are born.
SvaraRaderaWhen I read your first blogpost I saw that you already understood quite well the concept about knowledge as perception and the understanding through, but not with the senses. In your second blogpost you build up on your first post and give more perspectives and accesses to it. I like it that you are drawing a connection between the content from the texts and lectures and its influence on science and research. I agree with you that there is a demand of defining the result or answer you are looking for, but I think that looking at current researches in the fields of media theory these basic questions about how knowledge and how to perceive it are not essential anymore. These discussions and general questions are being held on a different level.
SvaraRaderaFurther I like that you are giving a kind of "preview" on where these discussions about different knowledge and different perceptions of the world might lead.
All in all I think that you have a good understanding of theme 1 and you are even able to start connecting it to topics outside of the course content.
Hej, we can see that you took the time to make reflection on your own about knowledge, perception and conception and how they are related. I really appreciated reading about your thoughts on what becomes an object if the human would come to dissapear.
SvaraRaderaI agree that "knowledge" can be a fluctuating reasonning but isn't it the point of being a human being ? Even though we may be wrong or very far from what this concept actually is, the process of understanding is something on it's own that makes us what we are.
I might disagree on the mathematical point, it may be a depiction of us producing a knowledge but it stays true for a long time. At some point, there must be something objective, otherwise we shouldn't be able to talk about objectivity, if there is no such thing.
I do agree however that this discussion can be talked about further and in many direction !
SvaraRaderaThanks for commenting on my blog! I agree with you that it is important to be critical and use our judgment when exposed to ads, but I am afraid that we subconsciously can start to perceive these images that we, with such a frequency, are exposed to, as ”the truth”. I also liked how you in your comment connected my text to theme 2, by adding the concept of mythology.
Regarding your post, I think your connection to modern science as well as the insights in how fluctuating the idea of ”knowledge” is, show that you have a very clear understanding of the concepts.
I don’t agree with the thought that things loose their meaning without human perception. In Kantian terms I would approach the subject by saying, ”Lets us climb down from us pretending to be gods”. What indicates that meaning arise from a human interacting and perceiving an object? It might create meaning to you, but I think there is a big difference.
Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.
SvaraRaderaThank you for extremely profound and careful reading especially in the first blog post. You really made an effort explaining Kant's and Plato's concepts, which I believe gave you a lot when in comes to adopting information. In addition to that, the discussion was the most eyes-opening method for truly understanding the dimensions of such concepts as knowledge, pure reason, priori or a priori knowledge, logic etc. You even left some questions unanswered for future discussion, which would be interesting to continue. When it comes to sanity, for example, one could say it is a structure – people need to be able to categorize everything, even the human mind. The more you think about it, the more insane it begins to feel like: why are we obsessed with categorizing what is "insane" and what is not? Who are we to say that? 'Insanity' is just another label invented by us.
SvaraRaderaYour reflection on objects loosing their meaning without human interaction is truly tempting. If I may continue the discussion, the concept of "meaning" is actually quite defining in itself. One should first define what they mean by meaning: is value created in human interaction, with someone, or can "meaning" exist without human perception? Is "meaning" of an object the same thing as "purpose"?
All in all, well-argued and profound thoughts – thank you for them.