One subject that resonated with me in particular, was that of the paradigm shift; the idea of the development of the playground in which a discussion is held, rather than a change in the object discussed. This was illustrated with the (admittedly somewhat odd) discussion about the color of a wall. Whereas one person could argue it is blue, another could argue it was white - but they would have to agree on many perimeters before they could have that quarrel in the first place. While evidence of the color of said wall could appear or be disproven, this would still be within the limits of the existing paradigm, which states that a wall is an object which can be of a color such as blue or white.
A paradigm shift, then, would take place if - to name a very hypothetical example - science would discover that walls could also be invisible, thus having no color. This possibility would not yet have been taken into account in the original discussion, and thus integrally change the discussion at its core. This is especially interesting seeing as paradigms aren't necessarily the result of a development - that is, multiple conflicting paradigms can exist simultaneously.
6 comments:
Interesting reflection! The discussion about the paradigm shift was somewhat abstract and I didn't understand it 100%, but your explanations kind of clear it up a bit. Nice that you've understood it! I also like that you have a different approach towards the seminar than many else who's blogposts I've read, that it didn't improve your knowledge about the texts per se, but that it created new questions and new discussions. I think that's how it's supposed to be, since philosophy doesn't have any clear answers and you can take discussions to infinite lengths.
I think you have made a good summary of one of the discussions from the seminar. The notion of paradigms goes a long way to help in the understanding what knowledge is. The question becomes in my opinion much more manageable once we settle on the existence of paradigms. If we all agree on that colour exists and on what properties it has, it then becomes fully possible to know (or at least be reasonably sure of) that something has a certain colour. We can sort of live inside a virtual machine and know what's true within it, even if we sometimes might consider that there is a host machine out there and that we might not be able to describe it in any way, since all we know of is the virtual machine.
Your experience with the seminar is definitely different from mine! The seminar real helped me understand the reading better and look at certain concepts in a new light. I found the reading difficult and the subject matter unfamiliar and so the seminar helped clear some things up for me. So it is interesting to read that you didn't find that the seminar helped clear things up for you, you must really have understood the reading!
It is interesting to read that one discussion during the seminar stuck with you more than others. My seminar group did not discuss paradigms, so it was interesting to read your reflection on your discussion about this.
Hi! Very interesting reflection. I like your example of color of the wall. During the discussion in group we brought up the example with blue sky: it cannot be proved or disproved independently that the sky is actually blue as perception of the color is individual. Consequently, the pure knowledge doesn't exist.
Can it be that the seminar might did not help you understand the text more but it contributed with a better insight of how complex it can be. If so i can understand what you mean, the seminar opened up more doors than i thought existed. I think that the seminar gave more and easier examples of the different theories. But I still think that seminar is a good way to get closer to understanding, you get a opportunity to think outside the box but with some help of others.
with that said i think you still managed to write two good post of the theme and you had some interesting examples, like the one about weather the wall is blue or white.
Hi,
You have an interesting angle on your blog post which different from other blog posts I've read. I can understand that it arises more questions and concerns after the seminar, which I to some extent think is good when it expands your quest for finding greater understanding. I think your discussion of paradigm is interesting, and I think you should contact our teachers if you want to get a deepened understanding of paradigms.
/Paul
Post a Comment