When someone says, I know I am in love. What are they saying? What justifications are they using? Is this really a PJTB? How does love fit into all of this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PHS IB TOK at Play!
The purpose of this blog is to open a discussion forum for ideas, ramblings, debates, and random thoughts that pass through the heads of the students presently in Poudre High School's Theory of Knowledge Program.
PHS IB TOK at Play!
Post Conversation Threads and Ideas from PHS
Community Agreement
As you post and comment as a member of this classroom blogging community, consider the following...
1. Read for Understanding
1. Read for Understanding
2. Challenge Ideas, not People
3. Use TOK Skills to Justify Arguments
3. Use TOK Skills to Justify Arguments
4. Expect the same from your peers
5. Show what you "Know"
5. Show what you "Know"
Links
Labels
- african american (1)
- Arcadia (3)
- Art (4)
- black (1)
- Blog (4)
- Crash (5)
- ethical standards (7)
- ethics (4)
- Faith or Intuition (1)
- first family (1)
- Justificaton (3)
- Language (6)
- Logic (1)
- Media (3)
- obama (1)
- Perception (3)
- Photography (2)
- Politics (3)
- Psychology (1)
- Sensory perception (2)
- Slang (2)
- Symbols (1)
- Technology (1)
- TOK (1)
- Truth (3)
- Truth Fallacies (1)
- War (1)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(140)
-
▼
September
(39)
- 'Give us this day our daily mask'
- Equal or not?
- Perfect Clone Theory: Fate vs Free Will
- Dress code/Religious symbols
- Symbols
- Love
- Faith vs Intuition
- Footnote for spoof raises awareness
- Spoof raises awareness
- Communist leaders
- Blog Posting
- Art
- Protesters Uprising
- One Nation Under Surveillance
- Slavery and Truth
- Language of Faith
- Gun Control
- Ugliness
- Just Words
- Laughter in the Classroom
- As much as I hate bringing MySpace into this...
- What Determines A Legacy?
- Talking Nonsense
- 9/11's Around the corner...
- What's On the news
- Creative Limits?
- Illusion or Reality?
- Truth through Art
- Stereotypes and how to avoid/analyze using TOK
- A Generation of Voyeurs?
- Sexism
- Truth
- American role models
- The Un-Raw Carrot
- The Meaning of Life
- War and Peace
- Cultural Death Ceremonies
- This may be volatile...AIM
- Insane Tv Ad
-
▼
September
(39)
8 comments:
Well, they're probably using intuition and self awareness, because they nobody can tell a person that they love somebody. Only the person in love can know that sort of thing.
But in all honesty, I don't think love is a PJTB, and therefore love is not true. After all, love is an undefinable force, and it cannot truly be explained or justified. You can think you're in love, but really, how can you know that? How does anybody know for certain what love feels like, aside from "well I like this person a lot so I guess this is love." That hardly seems like a proper justification.
Does love really even exist? Is there any reason to feel a connection like that with another individual aside from the belief that we're supposed to fall in love with somebody? Really, is love created by us, or is it something that happens beyond our control?
I'm just going to go out on a limb and say "no" to all of these questions. Even the ones that aren't a yes or no question.
I completely agree with Michael on this one. The definition with love is easily debated, and cannot be justified.
That being said, there has been scientific research stating that no one can feel love until they become adults but how do they justify that? If I say, "oh i love this girl" and they go "no you don't", who's right?
Now I'm not saying I don't believe in love and romance and all that jazz, but it cannot be justified
Before concluding that we can't justify love, shouldn't we first define it? The justifications differ with what the definition is. For example, say we defined love as the gut animal desire for another human being. That sort of love is easily justified because there is a part of the brain called the hypothalamus that is responsible for regulating and satisfying basic survival needs such as eating, drinking, and sex (If we can't reproduce, then we can't survive). As you can see, this definition for love can be justified with empirical evidence which is a very concrete justification. If you're positive that there are no justifications for love, then are you saying that it's definition is more than this one?
Couldn't love be used as truth base on Correspondence theory? And pragmatic theory. It may be convenient to call it love, thus you do. And you can perceive it based on feeling, which is part of the five senses. You can justify it through intuition, self awareness,instinct (maybe), faith, acquaintance (to an extent), maybe somewhat by empathy, and even a bit by logic. Or maybe by revelation. It may not be the most amazingly justified true belief, but I think it can be a PJTB.
Another thing to distinguish, is between love and lust. Love is obviously more intanglibe, while lust is more tangible. You could just as easily state that lust isn't true, but it's based off of the same judgments as love, yet more people accept lust more than they accept love.
It's mostly based on how each person perceives things, which doesn't make it untrue or unjustified.
I agree with rebecca, and we're learning about they hypothalamus in psych but i think aside from science, the unexplicable part of love can be "known" and "true" too, of course it is different for every person. That makes it difficult because it can't be accurately measured but anyway.
The way someone knows they are in love is through emotion. Love and lust are emotions that yes may be controlled by parts of the brain physically but are also controlled by the mind. If we can trust emotion as a way of knowing something then of course we can "know" if we're in love. Also, instincts, experience, and sense perception definately help justify our emotions and feelings of "love."
Yet the fact that it is differnet for every single person makes it very difficult to figure out but i do believe that different as it may be, it can be considered true. (Faith might come into it somewhere as well since there seems to be no physical evidence to support the "mind")
I think that love is a much more general term than we are used to seing it used as. While we are told to believe by authority that love is something big and grand and wonderful, something untangible, I believe that it's really not, and that the word has thus been given a mystical standing in our culture. I agree with what rebecca said about love being instinctual, I think that alot of what we feel can be based off of the pragmatic theory and the coherence theory and the correspondence theory. We find it useful to be in love. I think it's a terribly healthy thing, we're supposed to be, logically. (Go back to what rebecca said about it being a survival thing). It's programmed into us. However, I think that intellectual progression has also helped us. Now, love is more than just sex or instinct. But society has pushed us towards this idea of perfection when it comes to love, that it has to be a certain way, and so we push ourselves, or don't push ourselves, when really loving someone is much, much simpler than that. You love your siblings, right? Your best friends? Your cat or dog? Right. That's love. It's just that the love with a boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse is coupled with that instinct for survival. Yeah, so, really, lvoe is emotional. We just get confused due to stereotypes.
I'm not sure how love can be a properly justified true belief because its different for everyone. I don't think you can ever reach a level of descriptive knowledge, or true descriptive knowledge, with something so hard to define,much less explain to others.
Are you sure about that? Love is different for everyone, but aren't there certain standards that are generally accepted in our society for it? For example, there has to be some kind of attraction involved or else it would be completely random who you ended up marrying and no one would really care. Obviously, the kind of attraction is going to be different for everyone, but the point is that it at least must be there. There's also the fact that a relationship between a husband and wife that's lasted 30 years is considered more serious than the relationship between high school students. Why is it that the older couple would be more likely to be considered in love than the teenage couple? It's because in our society, love has standards it must live up to to be called love. I'm not going as far as to try and figure out what they are, but I can try if you want to get into it.
Post a Comment