After the first week I think I might have a better understanding of the context of the texts. The lecture really started shining some light on things that was in the dark for me.
Things like analytic judgement, where you will know after investigating something (aposteriori knowledge), sounded quite intriguing.
On the seminar I didn't really talk too much, and this mainly because I didn't really understand all that was being said, and also because, since the lecture, I thought I'd got a clearer picture of what was said in the text by Kant. I feel as though this is, mostly, is not very useful to me, but it gets you going early on in the course which could be a good thing.
I did read the text by Kant once, and skimmed through the dialogue between Socrates and that other guy. I didn't print the texts so I couldn't mark unknown words and concepts, and maybe that made it even harder to make sense of what I was reading. For theme 2 however, I printed all texts and started early with reading them since I had to travel to Spain for a competition (world cup) in trampoline, which is the sport I'm doing at a high level.
Going back to the theme. On the seminar we spoke about things like;
A priori knowledge about life is having aposteirori knowledge about death.
Also that a theory is a priori if you can verify it by thinking about it. So for example the theory that all bodies have extensions can be verified a priori since we can think about the concept that bodies have to have extensions, and thus our theory is verified a priori.
Also to round things up; Kants question about how we can obtain knowledge about knowledge of the world is answered with his theory about that very question. The world is structured in a correct manner, with categories of understanding.
I find it interesting that you have learnt about some reading methods that work more or less well for you during this theme. The texts we are reading are quite difficult and I also had some struggles with finding a good reading method. In the end I printed the texts out and started highligting key parts that I had extra trouble with. I also read som reading summaries online which helped me understand the meaning of the texts.
SvaraRaderaI do not think you are alone about feeling that the texts are confusing (at least I felt the same way). Sounds like a good thing to mark words and concepts in the texts while reading them!
SvaraRaderaI think that maybe you can use some examples or further explanations about your thoughts in your blog posts? It seems like you have thoughts about the different concepts in the texts, and it would be interesting to read what they are :).
I have a question about where you wrote:
“Things like analytic judgement, where you will know after investigating something (aposteriori knowledge), sounded quite intriguing.”
Do you mean that an analytic judgement = aposteriori knowledge?
I might be mistaken but I interpreted it to be that:
Analytic judgement = a priori knowledge
And
Synthetic judgement = aposteriori knowledge
I also felt that it was hard to understand what the theme really was about before the lecture and seminar, and frankly I think most of us did. You wrote one thing about a priori knowledge that I feel really made me understand it fully. That a theory is a priori if we can verify it by thinking. That really made it clear to me what a priori really means.
SvaraRaderaIt would be nice to hear a little bit more about what your thoughts are on the different topics discussed on the seminar and lecture.
Also, there are several programs were you can comment directly in the pdf on the computer. For example adobe reader. Just a little tip!
Good job!