For the first theme I would say that I got
to understand the questions a bit better than before the lecture and the
seminar. On the other hand I think that I wasn’t terrible off course from what
the essence of the text mainly discussed.
We actually touched on theme 2 with the
introduction of nominalism to further discuss Kant’s viewings that the object
must conform to our knowledge, or intuition and not the other way around. I
think the seminar was very much informative and you got a chance to test your
own conclusions with other people in smaller groups. We had a good talk and our
group’s collective point of view conformed well to the general seminar opinion
in the matter at hand. In the end, I think it is very hard to change your own
mind to open up to other methods of thinking and argue when you have been
slowly injected with experiences and knowledge all your life up till now. I
believe that there is something in the saying “Why change a winning concept”
and the quick answer would surely be “Because maybe there is a better way?” .
interesting reflections. i didn't realized that we had touched on theme two a little bit on the 'nominalism'. i'm not sure if i got your last part right where you mention the winning concept and the better way. but i do think that we can have new knowledge base on old knowledge. the new knowledge might provide a better proof of concept ? is that what you're saying ?
SvaraRaderaI like how you connected nominalism with Kant's theory.
SvaraRaderaI think it is crucial to challenge the way we are thinking in order to expand our minds and grow as a person.
It seems good you touched on nominalism, because for my own part that was the concept in the second theme's text that I least understood - or at least that was least applicable to my experience of academic pursuit in the past few years. I would be interested to know how that relates to Plato and Kant's text, and the various concepts introduced therein.
SvaraRaderaI like how you connected Kant’s view to nominalism. Here, I have mainly commented on your text for theme 1 before the seminar, as I believe you have very interesting things in the text. I got to say that I liked you text, your arguments are quite solid and you have discussed the main framework of both Kant and Palto’s text.
SvaraRaderaI like how to draw an analogy about your thesis and compared it with the reading. And I agree that the value of a mere number is just relative, it gains more meaning when it is observed within a context. When it is compared to another or several other numbers.
The final paragraph about you being sacked from a Christian Sunday school is just an amazing piece in your text. And questioning the Bible is the pearl of your text. Why wouldn’t we ask? why shouldn’t we question things or the bible for that matter. In my opinion, what can not be tested should be doubted. I also agree that one of the most important thing that can be taken from the readings is being open and trying to see things from different angles. Surely, be shifting the way we look at things we can change our perception. Cheers!
I like the fact that you use the terms presented in the texts when you are discussing the answers to the questions.
SvaraRaderaI think it would be interesting to read some more about what you feel that you have learned or what concept you think of differently after the seminar and lecture. It would also be interesting to hear some examples of what you discussed during the seminar :).
Cool seeing concepts in theme 2 being brought up here! Interesting to see how that made you expanded on what had already been said in theme 1. You were very much not terrible in the post prior to this theme, but you kind of explained the essence of the text with words and phrases from it which can make it hard for the reader to follow! Try to simplify, and if you can do that it really shows that you've understood the concepts/meanings of the text.
SvaraRaderaNice reflection nonetheless!
Keep it up!
Hi,
SvaraRaderaThanks for your sharing. It is interesting that you think "nominalism" in theme 2 have a connection with Kant's viewings that the object must conform to our knowledge, or intuition and not the other way around. Good job! In the meantime, I think you can try to understand what is the main content in articles and speak out your confusion. Keep it up!