Before attending the lecture and seminar of
theme 1, first I tried to read some essays which mainly talk about Kant and
Plato’s method. After that, I read Critique of Pure Reason written by Kant and
Theaetetus by Plato while it is still hard to get understanding of their ideas.
Although the professor gave a detailed explanation about knowledge and
objectivity, Kant’s Copernicus revolution and some typical examples, I am still
confused with comprehension. During the seminar, Group discussion help me get a
greater understanding of concepts in the text.
One question came forward during our group
discussion is that what is the meaning of synthetic a priori judgement? We find
some concepts from lecture note related to this topic as a priori, analytic judgement,
synthetic judgement. A priori means naturalism such as mathematics formulas. In
case of Analytic judgement, knowledge results from analysis and no more
knowledge can be added. The example mentioned in the lecture is that all bodies
have extension. While synthetic judgement is equal to conclusion which can be
expanded. For example, there are 39 pupils in this class. So If I put these separate
concepts together, whether can it be the most convincing explanation of synthetic
a prior judgement?
Although too much confusion I have to deal
with about Kant’s method, the motivation for Critique of Pure Reason is
devoting us to reflect on “What can I know?”. Kant wants us to using different and
dialectical ways to think about everything, even the world we live with.
Hi,
回复删除First of all I think it is a good idea to first inform yourself with essays about Kant's and Plato's method, something I will definitely consider for the next theme. Furthermore, I have to admit that I also had difficulties to understand the key concepts after the lecture and that the seminar group helped a lot to comprehend the key concepts of the first theme. After reading your pre- and post-blog I miss a bit the relation of a priori knowledge and the ideal of objectivity.
Hi Jing Yang,
回复删除thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts. In both of your blog posts, it becomes obvious that you have put a lot of work in it. I also really enjoyed your reflection. I also understood, that our world will always belong to us. In addition to these “basic” forms such as space and time you have mentioned, we mentioned higher categories such as race and gender. Great Job!
i also have a hard time tell apart these terms "synthetic a priori judgement" , "analytic judgement", even "posteriori" and so on
回复删除but i have to agree that the point of kant is too expand our knowledge and to questions/investigate the world about everything whether starting with a priori or not.
Hi!
回复删除I hope that some of your confusion got cleared, which also seems to be the case, after this theme's week. I don't really follow in your text what you mean by "a priori means naturalism such as mathematic formulas". Maybe you could try in your upcoming blog posts to further explain what you mean by stating a fact like that! It would be nice to follow your reasoning a bit more :)
Anyway, it seems like you have gotten a lot out of this theme, and that you really have put down time to understand these complex concepts that were given to us! Well done, and keep up the goof work!
Hi, I think that you made a very appropriate comparison of foreign languages, that it is not enough to hear in order to understand. I had also some issues understanding synthetic a priori judgment. After the seminar I would define synthetic a priori judgment as the basics to get knowledge,synthetic a priori makes a structure of our concepts which is necessary to understand the world.
回复删除You say that "A priori means naturalism such as mathematics formulas" which I guess is right. But what I think is an easy way of thinking about what a priori knowledge is that if you can verify a theory by thinking, then it's a priori. An example from the lecture was that all objects takes up space. If you know what an object is you can verify that statement.
回复删除Great post! Keep it up!
Hi Jing!
回复删除It is an interesting question proposed in your group discussion that ‘what is the meaning ofsynthetic a priori judgement?’ However, I don’t really get what you mean by "a priori means naturalism such as mathematic formulas" in your reflection. I guess it is not a wrong statement, but it would be better if you could illustrate ‘priori’ in a bigger picture, or give more evidence to support your opinion. Still, it is a very good and inspiring thinking to try define the term ‘priori’. Thanks for your sharing. Good job on your reflection and keep it up!