Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science-reflection

This week we have had a lecture and a seminar based on reading matters about Plato’s Theaetetus and the Preface to the second edition of Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Even though that the reading matters are written long time ago, but it is still applicable on our society today. It was a bit harder to understand those reading matters from start. The reading matters is concerned with the “knowledge”, since in my opinion the knowledge is more like mathematics and physics. It is all about rules and formulas, we can calculate what we want by using it. But the”knowledge” has no definition in this philosophical way, that just like as Plato’s Theaetetus is concerned with the question “What is knowledge?” Though the dialogue never fully answers the question.

The Kant’s text was written from the viewpoints of philosopher, and many terms which I couldn’t understand (for example, metaphysical). I never have read something about the ideology of philosophy before, therefore I got really big problem with Kant’s text at the start. Then the lecture we had with Johan, he talked about some terms (naturalism, theological, mechanical etc.) which I need google it at first to understand. Then I had to read the text over and over again to prepare on the seminar. The seminar was good and helped me to understand a part of the Kant’s views. Kant draws two important distinctions, between a prior and a posteriori knowledge and between analytic and synthetic judgments. We associate a priori knowledge with analytic judgments and a posteriori knowledge with synthetic judgments. The knowledge can obtain from experience, but also the knowledge is independent of experience. Therefore the objects always necessary conform to our cognition.

Dialogue by Plato was more understandable than Kant’s text, because Socrates discussed and explained his own views with Theaetetus who was a mathematician. Therefore they used more understandable terms and meanings to explain them own views. During the seminar we discussed some interesting topics, which are about how can a blind person since who was born to perceive the color, how an infant perceives the world. I would like to say, what we perceive, it is totally based on our own bodies, experience and knowledge. The blind person has different perception with the color compare a normal person. I cannot imagine if I am blind, maybe the perception as I am familiar with which will totally to be overturned.

Even we talked and discussed a lot about readings by Kant and Plato during the lecture and seminar, it is impossible to understand all things for me. But it gives me a new enlightenment about what is knowledge.  

Theme 2: Critical media studies

1. Dialectic of Enlightenment

a. What is "Enlightenment"?

Max Weber mentioned “Enlightenment’s program was the disenchantment of the world. It wanted to dispel myths, to overthrow fantasy with knowledge.”

Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed tutelage which is the inability to use one’s own understanding without another’s guidance. The purpose of enlightenment is let us use our knowledge to research natural creations instead of myths.  

b. What is "dialectic"?

The dialectic is a basic methodology for materialism. The purpose of the dialectic is to find the truth of questions. Every question can be divided into two sides which is the positive side and the negative side. Then participants discuss the questions with differently disagreement and this requires participants to perform critical reflection. Which means they need judge their own opinions to be flexible and able to change those opinions. At the end they will obtain the truth as they are seeking.

c. What is "nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?

Wikipedia: Nominalism refers to either of two metaphysical positions regarding what exists. Nominalism may refer to a position that denies the existence of universal entities or objects, but accepts that particular objects or entities exist. It is a bit harder to explain what nominalism’s significance, though I read it on Wikipedia. Therefore I found an example which is quite easy to explain the nominalism. For example human is a rational animal, every human represent the possibility of being a rational animal (everyone having the potentiality of being a rational animal is a human). For nominalists essence do not exists, they are only a label decided by man, therefore you can decide to call a category of people men and exclude another. Therefore words express a universal which can be found in the thing itself.

It is an important concept in the text, because it can against the mainstream media. Everyone has their own potential for them to develop themselves. We can use our own knowledge to research everything which doubt we. We do not need just believe what the mainstream media say. This is same as enlightenment, use knowledge to research the truth instead of just believe the myth.  

d. What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?

Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology. By this, Adorno and Horkheimer mean that the historical progression of the enlightenment tradition has actually subverted its original intentions of. They argue that the enlightenment tradition has been bound up with myth at the beginning. Myth arises as a response to mystery and the domination of man by the natural world. Thus, the mythological scheme produces a kind of classification, a seeking for origins and reductionism, even though not self-consciously. By the other hand, just like enlightenment, myth seeks to explain.    

2. "The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity"

a. In the beginning of the essay, Benjamin talks about the relation between "superstructure" and "substructure" in the capitalist order of production. What do the concepts "superstructure" and "substructure" mean in this context and what is the point of analyzing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?

Superstructure: It is not directly to do with production which includes media, law, economic, state etc. In this context mean the ideology of art.

Substructure: It is a production which produces tools, machines, factories, raw materials etc. In this context mean movies, books, paints.

From Marxist perspective is cultural production which can describe as superstructure. They (e.g. businessmen, officials etc.) use their own rights to ask for mass product from other people which can describe as substructure (e.g. workers, handworkers etc.). Thus, only a small proportion of the population will enjoy comforts. The majority lives below the poverty line. This is the point of analyzing cultural production from a Marxist perspective.

b. Does culture have revolutionary potentials (according to Benjamin)? If so, describe these potentials. Does Benjamin's perspective differ from the perspective of Adorno & Horkheimer in this regard?

Yes, the culture have revolutionary potentials. The movie and photography are most important during revolution. It made the function of art no longer for a small group of people, because it much easier to publish than before. More people will easier obtain sense of art, news of world and ideology of other people. The world will be opened for everyone, so the perspective of Benjamin is similar to the perspective of Adorno and Horkheimer.

c. Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and historically determined. What does this mean? Give some examples of historically determined perception (from Benjamin's essay and/or other contexts).

The perception can be naturally determined means we perceive the perception through our bodies. For example, the pitch exists in everywhere for long time ago (sounds of wind, water, season etc.), we only can use tools to imitate the pitch. The pitch still has same value until now since human has discovered it.

The perception can be historically determined means as the change of time, personal values and social progress then the art also will change its value. The art (most is paints) was more about sense of value (understanding or perception) in ancient times, but it is more about commercial value (the value that a thing would have if it were offered for sale) for us now.  

One example of historically determined perception is about the ancient statue of Venus as gives of Benjamin.      

d. What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?

Benjamin means the term “aura” is highly significant that in order to explain what this concept implies for objects such as artworks. The sense of distance between people whatever how long of the distance.  

There are different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects. I think the different between them is the art objects are more about worship, because the authenticity of arts always have most sense of value for archaeologist and commercial value for collectors. The natural objects are fair to everyone, we just need perceive it through our sense.    

Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

1. In the preface to the second edition of "Critique of Pure Reason" (page B xvi) Kant says: "Thus far it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to objects. On that presupposition, however, all our attempts to establish something about them a priori, by means of concepts through which our cognition would be expanded, have come to nothing. Let us, therefore, try to find out by experiment whether we shall not make better progress in the problems of metaphysics if we assume that objects must conform to our cognition." How are we to understand this?

 In my opinion what I understand is, the new cognition always comes from the old cognition. When we are trying to explain a new phenomenon, we are going to use our old cognition to explain it what it can be. We maybe cannot make good progress in the explanation of the new phenomenon, then we have to change a new angle to see that new phenomenon. This would be just like the first thoughts of Copernicus. The definition about new phenomenon is already existed around us, we just need find out it by through different paths (different angles, different depth and breadth of knowledge).

 2. At the end of the discussion of the definition "Knowledge is perception", Socrates argues that we do not see and hear "with" the eyes and the ears, but "through" the eyes and the ears. How are we to understand this? And in what way is it correct to say that Soctrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?

Eyes and ears are just tools for us to see things and listen what other people say. But everything we see is a perspective not the truth and everything we hear is an opinion not a fact. Each person has his own perspective and opinion. Socrates mentioned about the cold:” Now is the wind, regarded not in relation to us but absolutely. Cold or not; or are we to say, with Protagoras, that the wind is cold to him who is cold, and not to him who is not?” In his standpoint we can understand, we see same thing and listen same discussion, but they will be totally different among different people. By using through our eyes and ears to acquire knowledge then we use our mind to perceive that. Empiricism is a theory which states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience (Wikipedia). Sensory experience is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. Since we cannot perceive knowledge by just our own seeing and hearing, because everything has different angles and human perceives it differently. Also eyes and ears just organs which cannot perceive things. We are using our mind to perceive things. Therefore human need a lot of observations or experimentations to obtain knowledge (from seeing different things and hearing from different people) “through” the eyes and ears. At the end we will understand what we really see and what we really hear.