During the lecture with Henrik Åhman we got some context of the environment the philosophers had been living in while writing these texts. It was really interesting but it was also hard to see the connection to the texts sometimes.
I also noticed that I hadn't fully understood the concept of dialectic but it got clearer when talking about different dialectical concepts such as Artist - Photographer; Aura - Mass culture; Unique - Many; Picture - Copy; Myth - Science. You need to seek the truth by logical arguing but also by looking at the object from different perspectives.
We also had a seminar where we brought up different concepts we thought was difficult to grasp from the texts and the lecture and then answered some additional questions in smaller group (3 or 4 people) to then discuss our answers as a whole group again.
When discussing Adorno & Horkheimer we talked about a gap between the existing and the possible ("A society that we live in, and a society that we want to live in") and that we need to change the way we think to change the society. We also discussed that both Art and Media Technology help changing the society to connect those thoughts with Benjamin's text.
We also talked a lot about nominalism - and that it may lead us to being stuck at only describing the society as we see it now. That may not be the way we want it to be. We need to complement it with the conceptual thinking, for the society to evolve into something we want it to be.
We also discussed nominalism vs realism with Plato's Allegory of the Cave, which was really interesting (but we did this in swedish and I'm not sure how to translate it into english now..). It's like all we see are a shadows of the real object that is somewhere else. All objects are formed after an idea of that object.
Bild: http://www.ieet.org/images/uploads/424db0.jpg
I have also read Plato's Allegory of the Cave after seminar, it basically means our perception sometime is not true just like the shadows on the wall. I think here the fire means our sensibility, the things prisoners can not see are the universals. The shadows can be considered as particular objects. It is kind of oppose nominalism.
SvaraRaderaHi Malin!
SvaraRaderaIt seems to me that you are pretty clear over all of the phenomena discussed in this theme. I agree with you that we get a better understandings of all concepts after discussing them during the seminar. I missed this theme´s seminar, so your explanation of Plato's Allegory of the Cave with the picture was great. It says that all objects are formed after an idea of that object. Even though I missed the seminar I understand your discussion about nominalism vs. realism thanks to the picture of the objects with their shadows on the wall. So thank you for that!
I'm glad you liked my post!
RaderaHi Malin!
SvaraRaderaI see now that Charlotte has commented on almost the same thing that I was about to comment on, but whatever, I'll do it anyway! ;) I missed the seminar on this theme and have noticed on bilda that many of you that attended the seminar have mentioned "Plato's Allegory of the Cave" in your reflections. I haven't been able to understand what it was all about though, until I read your explanation of it (even though you're not sure how to translate it into swedish). I think it is the picture that does it! Thanks!
How great to hear! :)
RaderaYes, I also think it's more easy to understand concepts if you can view it "graphically" so I'm really glad that I found such a good picture!
I thought about nominalism as trying to get away of grouping objects. That there is no "real" horse that all horses should look like. In a nominalistic way of thinking no objects should be grouped together but individually "analysed". I think this still can be seen in today's society in e.g the feministic debate. Then the picture of the "real" woman would be a housewife - cleans, cooks and takes care of the children and ultimately is inferior to her husband. Today, at least in the Swedish society we have moved away from this way of thinking but are trying to move away from it further. I guess I believe that the best way of viewing men and females are actually viewing them as individuals rather than what sex they have... which is a bit nominalistic.
SvaraRaderaWow, that was a long comment...
It was a long comment ;) But also a good one I think!
RaderaIt's nice to see how you think about nominalism and how to connect with the world we live in today. And also how it could be viewed from questions that still are discussed in today's society (like feminism and over all gender questions).
Great comment! :)
Yo Malin, another comment coming in! I've already mentioned to you in person that your picture is very nice and explaining. Thus I agree with Charlotte and Anna that you've done a great job uploading it and also explaining it. Thumbs up!
SvaraRaderaThe feminism/nominalism thingy Stephanie was commenting on is rather interesting I think. I too had similar thoughts during the seminar. Isn't better if we always see the individual rather than grouping them together? I think you prove to be 'an expert' on the field if you don't generalize everything but rather explain/describe the field on an individual basis (nominalistic?). For example not all soccer girls have short hair and take snuff (snusar) in the same way as not all ballet-guys are feminim and like the colour pink. Haha, I don't know if this makes any sense but Stephanie's comment got me thinking.
Thank you for a well-written and well-reasoned blog post!
Hi Emelie!
RaderaThank you for liking my explanation and the picture! Now afterwards I see that it's kind of short described.. but thanks to the picture maybe that hopefully didn't matter to much!
I also liked Stephanie's comment and I think idea about not generalizing and rather see the individuals is good! I think that's how we want to see the world nowadays, but still it seems hard for the whole society to get along with that view! Why else is there still so much discussion about "blue boys", "pink girls", this is feminine, that is masculine and the question of "what gender are you?". We are all human, what else matter?
Okey, this is getting long. But I just wanted to say that I've followed a friend that only yesterday "came out" on Facebook with being a transgender. Without all this stated guidelines of what a women or a man is, his/her journey might have been so much easier. So all I mean is really that we only need to see things in an individual way, like you said! :)
Deep deeeeeeeep, but thank you for your comment! ;)
Hi Malin,
SvaraRaderaI extremely agree with your concept about nominalism, I also have same concept about it. If we will follow the nominalism then it will be very difficult for us to survive or accept anything in this world. we can grasp things with conceptual thinking but we cannot skip the historically perceived knowledge.
Great blog post!