--------------------------------------------------------This is a line-------------------------------------------------------
Dear KI teachers,
Hello, I'm a student who have attended the previous two KI lectures. There are several time during the lecture which I have ideas but do not have the courage to speak up. This has always been a problem of mine. I cannot speak in front of a large audience or strangers or both, which explains this email. Below are some of my thoughts and questions regarding both the content of the lectures and about KI itself.
In today's lecture, we first discussed about truth. These are what I was thinking at the beginning of the lecture:
1. What is truth?
There are two kinds of truth, one in the metaphysical sense and another in epistemological sense. For the former, it is the ultimate reality. However as we have discussed, humans have no ways to know the ultimate reality. This is covered later in the noumena and phenomena theory. Truths in human knowledge are facts (what we think are facts) that correspond with our common experience and what we feel are sensible. This kind of truth is very subjective as it is determined by humans and is prone to changes. It is also bounded by perimeters and conditions, since human perception can never be complete.
Question: However, is it certain that ultimate truth exist? Is there really an ultimate reality out there? Since we have no ways of knowing, how can we know that absolute truth exists? Are there any arguments for non-existence of absolute truths?
2. What do you understand by the term objective truth?
In the metaphysical sense, it is the ultimate reality. In human experience, objective truth are what humans feel have least of human opinions, but real objectivity is not possible. Objective truth usually have underlying assumptions that is considered by most people as being "true". E.g. Many may say that apple is red, or the earth is round. However to a person diagnosed with colour blindness apple may not be red and earth may be only round in three dimensional space. It is also not a perfect sphere. Perfect spheres only exist in theory but not reality. Red is also just an idea in our mind. This shows that it is easy for objective truth to slip into subjective truth. Objective truth and subjective truth may not necessarily be different in nature. Adoration of cats can be considered a subjective "truth", but if the entire society like cats, as though there's a build in function in our brain to like cats, then liking cats may become an objective truth just like the apple is red. Similarly, if people see apples in all sorts of colours, apple is red can be now a subjective truth. Therefore, objectivity and subjectivity are really just determined by the number of exceptions and how common and unchanging something is in the human experience.
Question:
4. Why do people aspire towards objectivity?
People tend to find objective truth more reliable. It also makes something less prone to changes and offers some level of predictability.
5. Is objectivity possible in the formation of knowledge?
Definitely not since humans come up with knowledge and humans are prone to subjectivity.
As I do not have very good knowledge of social science I did not come up with many thoughts for the discussion on social science. However, I do have some questions:
a. Is there some randomness in humans or is studying the human just too difficult because of it being a very complex system that cannot be described in simple ways?
i.e. are humans random or determined by a system of extremely complicated laws that cannot be studied? This is also linked to the big question on determinism. For example, although physics is the basic of the sciences, it will be insane to use the laws of quantum mechanics to describe an ecosystem. Nevertheless, is it possible but simply tedious? Simple laws may generate complexity as shown by the game of life. However, are humans different? Are our choices affected purely by environmental factors which can all be traced to a simple beginning with laws that govern changes, or are humans really free to make choices randomly?
b. Is social science still science since it is more about understanding than generalization and predicting? If social science is still considered science, then is the definition of science changed to "understanding" instead? Since what we think as science is also defined by humans, we can change it if we want.
I also have some questions regarding KI. I'm sorry that I asked a lot of questions. You may ignore the previous questions if you want to but please answer the following questions regarding the subject.
First, am I going to encounter problems if I cannot speak up in class for the first few weeks or months? Will there also be a large group of people in a lecture setting? Does the course prefer students who can speak up and participate more actively in class? This problem arises from my introverted nature. If I'm forced to speak, my thoughts will be disrupted and I cannot say very sensible things or express my thoughts clearly. I know I may be able to overcome this problem by saying more but if what I say is not what I intend to say then I will rather not say. Still I'm not willing to give up going for KI because of these problems. I'm really interested in the subject and fascinated by the various ideas. Is this problem going to affect me very badly?
Second, I'm also aware that my English is not proficient. My weakness is mainly lack of vocabulary and occasional slips in grammar. I know that KI requires some mastery of the language to achieve clarity and better understanding of text. Is this going to hinder my learning as well?
Third, are there more topics in KI on art than science? I have been out of touch with the humanity subjects for two years so are there going to be some difficulty understanding the topics that are not very science inclined? Do the art students tend to perform better than the science students in KI?
Fourth, is the subject very demanding and very hard to score? Is it very taxing if you are in another special programme, say SMTP, and also KI at the same time?
Lastly, I'm a bit of a slow thinker sometimes, so I may not be able to understand things completely and coming up with ideas during the lesson. Do we have to think fast if we are taking KI? I may subject an idea to vigorous evaluation before accepting it but sometimes after evaluation the process is lost in my mind. Therefore sometimes I may appear random but actually there is a reasoning behind. Is my personality suitable for KI?
The final question: Will taking KI help me to address and overcome my weaknesses mentioned above?
I'm really interested in the subject but not sure if I'm suitable to take it. I'm looking forward to your reply. Have a pleasant day ahead.
Yours Sincerely,
Li Xin
-------------------------------This is another line and I type this because I'm bored-------------------------------
Actually there's another question I wanted to ask which is "Will studying philosophy make one more prone to insanity" but that's too inappropriate.
Saw some familiar people at KI lecture today. Why do I suddenly find the art stream students so cool now? They seem to be able to structure their conversation really well and also have a good way with people. They are also less utilitarian when choosing what they want to study. Science students are mostly nerds, but don't get the wrong idea, I'm proud of being a nerd. There's some awesomeness in studying science, especially with all the good science jokes.
Wait, but I thought all the good science jokes argon.
No comments:
Post a Comment