This week's theme has been a bit less philosophical as compared to theme 1, which makes it more my jam. I feel like it was easier to actually get a grip of this week's concepts since the questions were not so abstract.
I did not know of any of the concepts we discussed, prior to reading the texts and answering the questions, so I have definitely learned something this week. Prior to this week, for example, I did not know that enlightenment was something other than the Age of Enlightenment. I did know that the world started caring more for knowledge and sciences, however that a person could reach enlightenment was something I did not know, or perhaps had forgotten since I last studied history in school. It is very interesting how the rise of myths could in a way conjure such a big movement to search for true knowledge, "truth", using reason and dialectic, which is a concept that I did not know of either.
I never quite thought of two people trying to discuss with a mutual goal, such as trying to find out the truth about something. Normally, you just see debates on the television which is a completely different kind of discussion where one part tries to "win" the other one over with their arguments for their opinion. Relating to all of the debates going on in the US because of the presidential campaigns, it would be extremely interesting to see Clinton and Trump go up with each other using dialectic, not against each other in a discussion to solve a problem - and that without trying to heckle one another. Who knows, perhaps they could actually reach a solution to a problem and not just verbally bash each other?
Nominalism was to me the most difficult concept to grasp during this week's theme. Without reading my own blog post about what it was, I actually had a hard time remembering what it meant just now. Up until the seminar, I was not quite sure what it actually meant, but having discussions around the concept at the seminar made everything clearer. Before the seminar, I did not really think about how time and enlightenment really related to the concept, however a lengthy discussion around the subject did clear things up. We talked a bit about how the concept of God prior to the enlightenment could have been an image of a man above the clouds, making decisions about what would happen around the world. After enlightenment, as we cannot prove that a God exists, neither can we prove that a God does not exist, the whole concept of a person above the clouds is shattered as our view has changed. I believe this is one of the reasons why nominalism exists - universals and abstract objects do not remain the same as time passes, which makes it a point to reject them since they are ever-changing.
I did not know of any of the concepts we discussed, prior to reading the texts and answering the questions, so I have definitely learned something this week. Prior to this week, for example, I did not know that enlightenment was something other than the Age of Enlightenment. I did know that the world started caring more for knowledge and sciences, however that a person could reach enlightenment was something I did not know, or perhaps had forgotten since I last studied history in school. It is very interesting how the rise of myths could in a way conjure such a big movement to search for true knowledge, "truth", using reason and dialectic, which is a concept that I did not know of either.
I never quite thought of two people trying to discuss with a mutual goal, such as trying to find out the truth about something. Normally, you just see debates on the television which is a completely different kind of discussion where one part tries to "win" the other one over with their arguments for their opinion. Relating to all of the debates going on in the US because of the presidential campaigns, it would be extremely interesting to see Clinton and Trump go up with each other using dialectic, not against each other in a discussion to solve a problem - and that without trying to heckle one another. Who knows, perhaps they could actually reach a solution to a problem and not just verbally bash each other?
Nominalism was to me the most difficult concept to grasp during this week's theme. Without reading my own blog post about what it was, I actually had a hard time remembering what it meant just now. Up until the seminar, I was not quite sure what it actually meant, but having discussions around the concept at the seminar made everything clearer. Before the seminar, I did not really think about how time and enlightenment really related to the concept, however a lengthy discussion around the subject did clear things up. We talked a bit about how the concept of God prior to the enlightenment could have been an image of a man above the clouds, making decisions about what would happen around the world. After enlightenment, as we cannot prove that a God exists, neither can we prove that a God does not exist, the whole concept of a person above the clouds is shattered as our view has changed. I believe this is one of the reasons why nominalism exists - universals and abstract objects do not remain the same as time passes, which makes it a point to reject them since they are ever-changing.
Hej!
SvaraRaderaI enjoyed reading your reflection blog on theme 2 a lot. You are really honest with the reflection about what you didn't know before and learned throughout the week. I like your idea of a dialectic discussion between the US presidential candidates. Actually I think if the politicians everywhere would discuss more with and not against each other, the political issues that all the countries are facing would be way less. I doubt that a dialectic discussion would ever be possible during election campaigns. Though it would still be a fun concept. Maybe it would lead to enlightenment?
Hi,
SvaraRaderanice reflection, especially in the part about Tramp and Clinton (although, judging from my biased perspective, it's impossible to find the common solution with populists). Looking back at your definition of nominalism, you grasped the idea of its dangerousness. I would just add that historical transformation of nominalism into conservative concept accepting "natural" statements like "Jewish art doesn't have value" in nazi Germany, turned into the weapon that neglected all the idea of Enlightenment.
Interesting post!
SvaraRaderaI really enjoyed reading about your thoughts on presidential debates in relation to dialectics, much since it is an issue that has bothered me for quite some time. I think the concept of dialectics in the field of politics should go even further, beyond two candidates looking to gain public support and spotlight. Because, how wonderful wouldn't party politics be if both sides (as in the american system) agreed to work together to find the best solution? I believe, just like you seem to do too, that politics today suffer from the fact that the individual ambition to win has grown stronger than the wish to do what's best for society.
Although politics is not what the theme was about, I think your example of dialectic emphasizes that you have grasped this concept very well and applied it into a concrete and relevant example - well done!
SvaraRaderaYou seem to have gained a deeper understanding regarding dialectics and it is interesting when you gain knowledge in something and can apply it in another discourse.
SvaraRaderaI always find it interesting when discussions about God comes up and how the human kind relate to something abstract. Especially in scientific forums.
Hi! I really enjoyed reading your example about dialect and debates. I think dialect method could be used not only in politic debates, but also other fields as by questioning and forecasting issues is easier to analyse and structure viewpoints to comprehensive framework. Moreover, it is really interesting how you explain term of nominalism through example of God. Universals change in a parallel with human understanding, that's why we reject some truths only to confirm others and so on, in that way nominalism is just another vicious circle. Thanks for interesting text!
SvaraRaderaI had also written about the enlightenment as a time or movement, rather than an insight into the true nature of things. In this way, I had not connected nominalism as a result of enlightenment. Nominalism was the most difficult concept for me to grasp as well. It is easier to understand when you realize both nominalism and enlightenment seek truth in nature.
SvaraRaderaIt is interesting to consider whether dialectic could be used in political debate. It seems that if both sides were truly interested in bettering the country and solving its problems, they would agree to use dialectical discourse. However, I could not see it realistically happening as they both have such different ideas of what the biggest problems are to begin with.
Hej,
SvaraRaderaas all of the commentators above I would also like to take the time and say that the reference about politics when discussing dialectics was really interesting and gives food for thoughts. I have always used the quote “the truth is born in argument” but I feel that this is more applicable when it comes to an argument with friends. Socrates says that on our way to find truth we need a good interlocutor, a good conversation and a good argument. Following the dialectical type of rhythm, thoughts pass from one dimension to other developing new and enriched concepts. Therefore the dialectics lead to progress.
Such process is condemned if the participants are passive or do not follow the already mentioned dialectic rhythm.
(Within the Trump-Clinton context I cannot see that really happening to be honest.)