We have started to discuss ethics, in case you didn't notice for whatever reason, and so I decided to bring out the two biggest ethics arguments i could think of!
Abortion -- this is the (controversial) removal of fetuses. This often (at least 90% of the time) results in the death of the fetus. My question is: Is abortion ethical.
The Death Penalty -- This is the (controversial) removal of criminals. This often (at least 90% of the time) results in the death of the criminal. My question is: Is the death penalty ethical.
Just as a reminder I feel that I should remind everyone that this will get people very, very tense and angry, so please be careful with words. No ad hominim. This is supposed to be a discussion board, not a flame board, and please respect that. I am saying this again because I am very selfish and don't want to get hurt because I brought this up.
Thank you.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Wisdom
What is "wisdom" as far as TOK is concerned. We know have the ability to determine what knowledge, and how we reach the conclusion that we actually have some so called "knowledge." But does wisdom come into play ever? No.
So my questions are:
1.) What is Wisdom, a definiton.
2.) How do you get any wisdom? 7-11? Walmart (unlikely)?
3.) What is the cost of wisdom? (there may not be any)
4.) Do you have wisdom?
5.) Can wisdom every be something that you have a PJTB about? (Can you be sure you have wisidom)
So, for once I will actually answer my own questions, in an organized manner even.
1.) Wisdom is the ability to use knowledge. Very broad, but as far as anyone ever seems to be concerned, this seems to be the one real requirement to have wisdom, to have knowledge and understand how to act on it. Wisdom includes, by my definition: Knowing when to ask someone out, going into battle (physically, or even in a game), and even knowing what to order for lunch.
2.) Wisdom is no more aquired from age than knowledge from class. As Abigail Van Buren put it, "Wisdom doesn't automatically come with old age. Nothing does - except wrinkles. It's true, some wines improve with age. But only if the grapes were good in the first place." (Thank you quotationspage.com) Wisdom comes from experience, which is dependant on how willing you are to experience. A man who is 80 and lives in a cave is far less wise than a 20 year old who has traveled the world. As van Buren put it, if the grapes are good, it will be a good vintage. You need an inherant want for wisdom in order to be able to aquire it, and a hermit doesn't have that.
PS I apologize to all of the hermits I am putting out of business with this blog post, but they shouldn't be able to read it if they are really hermits.
3.) The cost of wisdom is that of living, perhaps a bit higher. In order to gain wisdom you have to put yourself in a certain amount of controlled danger, so there is always the possibilty that you may suffer higher because you fail to forsee some accident that happens, no matter how small the probability. However, in all likelyhood, there is no more cost of wisdom then that of life. And despite the raise in the cost of living we can all see how popular it remains. (That was a joke btw)
4.) I have some wisdom, but there is always someone who has experienced more, and so I am definately not the wisest, but merely one of those common wise people; like peers, and parents all are.
5.) You never can truly know that you, yourself, have wisdom. Other people may recognize it in you, and you may understand that you have some shred of wisdom, but it can never be actually properly justified to yourself. "If I really had been wise, then I wouldn't have..." But that is just semantics really. However, to other people it can be properly justified, "He's so wise, he did..." The wisest (and perhaps most foolish) would say "Of course I am wise, I always did the right thing."
If you find any falacies in my arguement, notify me, and I will try to rectify them, also please poke at my ideas, and create your own. Yours is as good as mine.
So my questions are:
1.) What is Wisdom, a definiton.
2.) How do you get any wisdom? 7-11? Walmart (unlikely)?
3.) What is the cost of wisdom? (there may not be any)
4.) Do you have wisdom?
5.) Can wisdom every be something that you have a PJTB about? (Can you be sure you have wisidom)
So, for once I will actually answer my own questions, in an organized manner even.
1.) Wisdom is the ability to use knowledge. Very broad, but as far as anyone ever seems to be concerned, this seems to be the one real requirement to have wisdom, to have knowledge and understand how to act on it. Wisdom includes, by my definition: Knowing when to ask someone out, going into battle (physically, or even in a game), and even knowing what to order for lunch.
2.) Wisdom is no more aquired from age than knowledge from class. As Abigail Van Buren put it, "Wisdom doesn't automatically come with old age. Nothing does - except wrinkles. It's true, some wines improve with age. But only if the grapes were good in the first place." (Thank you quotationspage.com) Wisdom comes from experience, which is dependant on how willing you are to experience. A man who is 80 and lives in a cave is far less wise than a 20 year old who has traveled the world. As van Buren put it, if the grapes are good, it will be a good vintage. You need an inherant want for wisdom in order to be able to aquire it, and a hermit doesn't have that.
PS I apologize to all of the hermits I am putting out of business with this blog post, but they shouldn't be able to read it if they are really hermits.
3.) The cost of wisdom is that of living, perhaps a bit higher. In order to gain wisdom you have to put yourself in a certain amount of controlled danger, so there is always the possibilty that you may suffer higher because you fail to forsee some accident that happens, no matter how small the probability. However, in all likelyhood, there is no more cost of wisdom then that of life. And despite the raise in the cost of living we can all see how popular it remains. (That was a joke btw)
4.) I have some wisdom, but there is always someone who has experienced more, and so I am definately not the wisest, but merely one of those common wise people; like peers, and parents all are.
5.) You never can truly know that you, yourself, have wisdom. Other people may recognize it in you, and you may understand that you have some shred of wisdom, but it can never be actually properly justified to yourself. "If I really had been wise, then I wouldn't have..." But that is just semantics really. However, to other people it can be properly justified, "He's so wise, he did..." The wisest (and perhaps most foolish) would say "Of course I am wise, I always did the right thing."
If you find any falacies in my arguement, notify me, and I will try to rectify them, also please poke at my ideas, and create your own. Yours is as good as mine.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Mysteries of Choco Canyon
While watching the movie, and seeing the logical steps the archeologists took to make their conclusions, a thought came to me. Why is it that we assume that the most logical answer is the correct one? Simply because it makes sense to our minds does not guarantee that it is truly what happened. Yet, so often with theories it seems we try to justify the current theory when new information pops up by either adding to it or creating exceptions to the rule. We seem to refuse to question accepted ideas until it becomes conclusive that the accepted ideas cannot coexist with the new findings. Any thoughts on this, or examples of this in other aspects of society?
Monday, January 15, 2007
Jabberwacky
This is an interesting website where you can have a conversation with a computer.
What do you think?
What do you think?
The Duck Theory of Logic
What do you guys think of this idea of logic?
For those of you who are inable to read Wikipedia here is the basic duck test: If a bird looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then you can infer that it is indeed a duck, even if it is not wearing a label that explicitly states its identity.
1. What if it isn't a duck?
2. How does this fit in with TOK?
3. Did Kyle steal the car?
For those of you who are inable to read Wikipedia here is the basic duck test: If a bird looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then you can infer that it is indeed a duck, even if it is not wearing a label that explicitly states its identity.
1. What if it isn't a duck?
2. How does this fit in with TOK?
3. Did Kyle steal the car?
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
On a lighter but much stranger note....
And here's a shorter post for those who don't really want to read the previous one. I'm pretty sure this man is insane, but it's interesting looking at the language he uses and how he tries to debunk the use of "word" and "singularity" by using pretty obscure and hard to follow terminology. It's interesting, but also more than a little frightening. I'm not sure how to connect this to TOK besides through his language usage, but discuss away.
Here's the site: www.timecube.com
Here's the site: www.timecube.com
Ethics?
This could be an incredibly controversial post, and if you're incredibly touchy about things such as ethics and morals then please don't take offense. And it's a long one, and if you don't want to read it all (it is interesting, though) please don't post a response. It's a big and messy topic.
"Ethics" don't exist.
Wait....what? The ideas and values that we base our lives around are pointless, meaningless, and paradoxical? Yup.
I'll begin with the simplest argument against this: It is wrong to kill another person. It is a basic fundamental belief in every major religion. It is hammered into our minds from the time we are born. Killing people is bad.
But then comes that little loophole that exists within every possible moral: ...except when...
Examples: war, self-defense, religious right, defending your "property", police action, etc., etc.
But wait...just because it's not wrong for some people doesn't make it any less wrong for me. Killing people is still wrong.
But it's also right. This is the contradiction - this is why, really, none of our beliefs mean anything. Something that is wrong can't also be right and vice-versa. Killing terrorists is a good thing for us to be doing right now - it is the right thing to do. But look at it from the point-of-view of the people who agree with the terrorists and you see family members and innocent people who believe in a cause that is not accepted being slaughtered by a nation with more power and wealth then their insurgency could ever dream of having.
People will say that this relativistic nature of each and every moral "law" doesn't mean that the morals are pointless. Just because someone thinks what we're doing is wrong doesn't make it wrong. But yes, yes it does. Just think about it: that notion itself, "killing people is wrong", is a universal notion. We automatically apply it to the rest of the world, every other human being, and make judgment calls based on that application. But when that notion fails, when that ideal doesn't serve our purposes, we toss it aside. It stops affecting us, we stop adhering to it. It loses its meaning.
For example, if someone with a gun pointed at your head backs you into a corner, and your hand finds a pistol on the counter or ground behind you, what would you do? Fight or flight. The cornerstone of our psyche. If there is no other option, then our morals disintegrate in front of the prolonging of our little lives. I know that if I were in this position I would take my chances and shoot the "someone" first. If I ran, I would die, so I choose to forsake my morals for an instant and kill this person standing in front of me. Doing so is neither right nor wrong to me at the time, because "(s)he started it", but (s)he is now just as dead as I would've been. One life gone, one still living. The fact that it was in self-defense doesn't fully apply. The moral "law" that had been followed throughout my entire life is now shown to be devoid of right or wrong sides, and as such, doesn't exist. That moral loses the pretense of meaning when faced with the truth of the action.
Now, the security provided us by our nice little things called "societies" or "governments" and by the "social contract" wouldn't be very effective if people were to go around killing each other, would it? Not really, no. In fact, anarchy would become the most popular government if people started acting out the ideas explored in the above section, and that wouldn't exactly be good for politicians. Or economists, or used car salesmen, or the IRS. If people didn't live by a code of some sort that delineates between "right" and "wrong", then the world would devolve into chaos. Yup. It would mean a resurrection of the notion of "survival of the fittest" that we as a species have slipped away from just like we have become immune to practically everything else this lovely but frustrated planet of ours has thrown at us. The people who can survive have the right to survive and will survive, until they let down their guard and someone removes them. They lost their right and gave it to someone else. It would be brutal, messy, and not much fun. But, I think we have to acknowledge the fact that our existence as it is now is based entirely off of lies: lies the government tells us, lies we tell ourselves, and lies we tell other people. If even a little of the truth were to seep in, the truth of life would be revealed through anarchy. Anyway, that's a tangent you can talk about if you want. Back to my earlier statement.
So, killing people as a moral doesn't really mean anything since it is relativistic. But what about the others? Is every moral negated because they're relative? Yup. Exactly. I'm going to stress this again: the argument "this moral is right for me and therefore, to me, it is right, signifying its existence." doesn't hold up. The whole point of having a moral is it's universal nature - the fact that it applies to everyone else in the world in your mind, not just you. If someone else believes your ideal to be wrong, then they throw a wrench into the whole thing. A moral cannot be right AND wrong and still be a moral, still be a guiding force in our lives. If it is both, then it is not universal, and therefore not a moral. Look at another example - stealing. If I walked up behind someone and stole their wallet, that wouldn't be wrong - I took advantage of said person's lack of attention in that particular moment for my own gain. Survival of the fittest. But it wouldn't be right, either: because I stole their wallet, I would have deprived them of money, identification, and practically everything that holds a life in this civilization together. The society we live in frowns upon that sort of thing. People living within a certain socity have to be productive to further that society's goals or aims. These two opinions clash and that is where the "meaning" of the moral disintegrates.
However, before I continue on that topic, another question has to be answered if it isn't clear enough already: "Why do we have morals, if they are negated because of their relativity?". The answer is rather simple - because the society we live in demands that we have them. As discussed earlier, societies would break down without a moral code, and no one would be happy about that who happened to have power in the society. So, they created a set of guidelines so that the workers wouldn't go about killing each other over silverware sets: our modern "Ethics". These are not a part of our psyche, as some would have you believe - if you can kill someone and you have the right to kill someone and you would stand to personally gain from killing this someone, you would. We are not inherently afraid of transgressing our morals, we just don't because we believe we shouldn't. Nothing directly relating to the action the moral deals with. The "moral" means nothing to us except that someone somewhere says it's bad. There is no more essence to a moral than that. And does "someone somewhere says it's bad" sound like a good enough reason to not do something? Not really. So then why do we continue to pretend, and go about our daily lives living with these restrictions (that's all they really are)? Because if we didn't, there would be chaos. And although chaos is interesting and alluring, it usually doesn't foster a long life. Look at teens today, for an example.
I am not saying that morals are bad. I am merely saying that they are lies. They are lies that make our lives a little bit more plush and extravagant, but they are lies nonetheless. I am also not saying that we should dismiss them all together. I'm saying that we should acknowledge that our existence as we know revolves around lying to ourselves constantly.
Whew....I think I'm done, but I probably didn't say everything. Anyway, thanks for reading the whole thing, but I do have one little request: don't post a simplistic, short, and false response to my statement here such as "Since this is right for me, it is right, and that signifies that moral's existence.". I think I already covered that. More than once. It's complicated material, so don't take it lightly.
"Ethics" don't exist.
Wait....what? The ideas and values that we base our lives around are pointless, meaningless, and paradoxical? Yup.
I'll begin with the simplest argument against this: It is wrong to kill another person. It is a basic fundamental belief in every major religion. It is hammered into our minds from the time we are born. Killing people is bad.
But then comes that little loophole that exists within every possible moral: ...except when...
Examples: war, self-defense, religious right, defending your "property", police action, etc., etc.
But wait...just because it's not wrong for some people doesn't make it any less wrong for me. Killing people is still wrong.
But it's also right. This is the contradiction - this is why, really, none of our beliefs mean anything. Something that is wrong can't also be right and vice-versa. Killing terrorists is a good thing for us to be doing right now - it is the right thing to do. But look at it from the point-of-view of the people who agree with the terrorists and you see family members and innocent people who believe in a cause that is not accepted being slaughtered by a nation with more power and wealth then their insurgency could ever dream of having.
People will say that this relativistic nature of each and every moral "law" doesn't mean that the morals are pointless. Just because someone thinks what we're doing is wrong doesn't make it wrong. But yes, yes it does. Just think about it: that notion itself, "killing people is wrong", is a universal notion. We automatically apply it to the rest of the world, every other human being, and make judgment calls based on that application. But when that notion fails, when that ideal doesn't serve our purposes, we toss it aside. It stops affecting us, we stop adhering to it. It loses its meaning.
For example, if someone with a gun pointed at your head backs you into a corner, and your hand finds a pistol on the counter or ground behind you, what would you do? Fight or flight. The cornerstone of our psyche. If there is no other option, then our morals disintegrate in front of the prolonging of our little lives. I know that if I were in this position I would take my chances and shoot the "someone" first. If I ran, I would die, so I choose to forsake my morals for an instant and kill this person standing in front of me. Doing so is neither right nor wrong to me at the time, because "(s)he started it", but (s)he is now just as dead as I would've been. One life gone, one still living. The fact that it was in self-defense doesn't fully apply. The moral "law" that had been followed throughout my entire life is now shown to be devoid of right or wrong sides, and as such, doesn't exist. That moral loses the pretense of meaning when faced with the truth of the action.
Now, the security provided us by our nice little things called "societies" or "governments" and by the "social contract" wouldn't be very effective if people were to go around killing each other, would it? Not really, no. In fact, anarchy would become the most popular government if people started acting out the ideas explored in the above section, and that wouldn't exactly be good for politicians. Or economists, or used car salesmen, or the IRS. If people didn't live by a code of some sort that delineates between "right" and "wrong", then the world would devolve into chaos. Yup. It would mean a resurrection of the notion of "survival of the fittest" that we as a species have slipped away from just like we have become immune to practically everything else this lovely but frustrated planet of ours has thrown at us. The people who can survive have the right to survive and will survive, until they let down their guard and someone removes them. They lost their right and gave it to someone else. It would be brutal, messy, and not much fun. But, I think we have to acknowledge the fact that our existence as it is now is based entirely off of lies: lies the government tells us, lies we tell ourselves, and lies we tell other people. If even a little of the truth were to seep in, the truth of life would be revealed through anarchy. Anyway, that's a tangent you can talk about if you want. Back to my earlier statement.
So, killing people as a moral doesn't really mean anything since it is relativistic. But what about the others? Is every moral negated because they're relative? Yup. Exactly. I'm going to stress this again: the argument "this moral is right for me and therefore, to me, it is right, signifying its existence." doesn't hold up. The whole point of having a moral is it's universal nature - the fact that it applies to everyone else in the world in your mind, not just you. If someone else believes your ideal to be wrong, then they throw a wrench into the whole thing. A moral cannot be right AND wrong and still be a moral, still be a guiding force in our lives. If it is both, then it is not universal, and therefore not a moral. Look at another example - stealing. If I walked up behind someone and stole their wallet, that wouldn't be wrong - I took advantage of said person's lack of attention in that particular moment for my own gain. Survival of the fittest. But it wouldn't be right, either: because I stole their wallet, I would have deprived them of money, identification, and practically everything that holds a life in this civilization together. The society we live in frowns upon that sort of thing. People living within a certain socity have to be productive to further that society's goals or aims. These two opinions clash and that is where the "meaning" of the moral disintegrates.
However, before I continue on that topic, another question has to be answered if it isn't clear enough already: "Why do we have morals, if they are negated because of their relativity?". The answer is rather simple - because the society we live in demands that we have them. As discussed earlier, societies would break down without a moral code, and no one would be happy about that who happened to have power in the society. So, they created a set of guidelines so that the workers wouldn't go about killing each other over silverware sets: our modern "Ethics". These are not a part of our psyche, as some would have you believe - if you can kill someone and you have the right to kill someone and you would stand to personally gain from killing this someone, you would. We are not inherently afraid of transgressing our morals, we just don't because we believe we shouldn't. Nothing directly relating to the action the moral deals with. The "moral" means nothing to us except that someone somewhere says it's bad. There is no more essence to a moral than that. And does "someone somewhere says it's bad" sound like a good enough reason to not do something? Not really. So then why do we continue to pretend, and go about our daily lives living with these restrictions (that's all they really are)? Because if we didn't, there would be chaos. And although chaos is interesting and alluring, it usually doesn't foster a long life. Look at teens today, for an example.
I am not saying that morals are bad. I am merely saying that they are lies. They are lies that make our lives a little bit more plush and extravagant, but they are lies nonetheless. I am also not saying that we should dismiss them all together. I'm saying that we should acknowledge that our existence as we know revolves around lying to ourselves constantly.
Whew....I think I'm done, but I probably didn't say everything. Anyway, thanks for reading the whole thing, but I do have one little request: don't post a simplistic, short, and false response to my statement here such as "Since this is right for me, it is right, and that signifies that moral's existence.". I think I already covered that. More than once. It's complicated material, so don't take it lightly.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
How do we measure pain or suffering?
How do we measure pain or suffering?
This is not a question of emotion like "happiness" or "sadness" but rather how one weighs the impact of positive and negative experiences.
For example, (you don't have to use this particular one) lets say that a malnourished refugee has been isolated from his 3rd-World society and is on his own. How would he measure future experiences in terms of suffering and pleasure? Do you believe it to be mostly determined by:
1) A personal and relative experience: any event that occurs to an individual is measured in comparison to their most positive and negative frames of reference. In other words, a spectrum of their best and worst previous experiences determines how they scale or judge future ones. With the given example of the refugee, he would judge another day of starvation to be commonplace and would not feel any negative reactions because of prior personal experience.
2) Societally relative: The "feeling" of an experience is judged by how it compares to what society deems as the consensual standard. As with the example above, if a refugee starves one more day, he will not see it as negative if his society did not. His standards for well being are mostly dependent on prior societal norms, even when isolated.
3) Create your own.
In reality and most "normal" situations, both 1 and 2 would applicable to some degree. One might in fact influence the other.
Consider:
-Are times where one can take precedence over the other?
-If suffering is relative, personally and/or societally, can you compare levels of feeling between different people? For example, is a middle class depressed teenager's level of suffering comparable to someone who has experienced starvation and physical pain?
This is not a question of emotion like "happiness" or "sadness" but rather how one weighs the impact of positive and negative experiences.
For example, (you don't have to use this particular one) lets say that a malnourished refugee has been isolated from his 3rd-World society and is on his own. How would he measure future experiences in terms of suffering and pleasure? Do you believe it to be mostly determined by:
1) A personal and relative experience: any event that occurs to an individual is measured in comparison to their most positive and negative frames of reference. In other words, a spectrum of their best and worst previous experiences determines how they scale or judge future ones. With the given example of the refugee, he would judge another day of starvation to be commonplace and would not feel any negative reactions because of prior personal experience.
2) Societally relative: The "feeling" of an experience is judged by how it compares to what society deems as the consensual standard. As with the example above, if a refugee starves one more day, he will not see it as negative if his society did not. His standards for well being are mostly dependent on prior societal norms, even when isolated.
3) Create your own.
In reality and most "normal" situations, both 1 and 2 would applicable to some degree. One might in fact influence the other.
Consider:
-Are times where one can take precedence over the other?
-If suffering is relative, personally and/or societally, can you compare levels of feeling between different people? For example, is a middle class depressed teenager's level of suffering comparable to someone who has experienced starvation and physical pain?
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Jesus Camp
This is based upon the documentary, not my own personal opinions.
I am sorry to those of you who will have trouble viewing this clip.
Any way. I just thought I'd bring this back up because Evan had brought it up a long while ago, and nearly noone had any idea what he was saying.
So basically what are your reactions to this?
Especially to the kid saying, "We're being trained to be God's army."
I am sorry to those of you who will have trouble viewing this clip.
Any way. I just thought I'd bring this back up because Evan had brought it up a long while ago, and nearly noone had any idea what he was saying.
So basically what are your reactions to this?
Especially to the kid saying, "We're being trained to be God's army."
Monday, December 25, 2006
IM in school
I know we've talked about this but I found this article and thought it was interesting. It's about how IM speak is now infiltrating student work and even standardized tests. Another example of the evolution of language...
Is this becoming a problem with any of you?
Happy Holidays.
Is this becoming a problem with any of you?
Happy Holidays.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
"stay the course" and snow
Ok so first I just want you to know that I LOVE SNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! Half day snowday today= amazing, full day snowday tomorrow= even more amazing, I'm going sleding, and making a snowman, and everything! but this was not really the point of my post, well it was half the point, just so I could share my love. but seriously, ok this article talks about how Bush and his administration being forced to change the language they are using about the iraq war. Tell me what you think, about both subjects!
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
The Truman Show
How do you know that you're not the main character in your own "Truman Show"? If you haven't seen the movie, here's a summary:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120382/plotsummary
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120382/plotsummary
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Knowledge and Wisdom
In Malone's class, we've been really trying to delve into the knowledge issues of Lanuage. I think that a huge part of Language is all of the different connotations that are attached with each word. In past week, I've been rereading The Giver, and a passage that really stood out to me was when the characters were talking about the "acquisition of wisdom." Meanwhile, in TOKland, Mr. Malone has been asking us to look at Language as an "acquisition of knowledge". Then I was thikning about why are these two words, knowledge and wisdom, have such different connotations? What do you think of when you hear or read the word knowledge, and likewise with wisdom? While these two words share a close meaning, what are the differing perceptions that you have for these two words? What can we learn about Language from these different connotations?
Monday, December 11, 2006
Piss Christ
Ok, so the title is already controversial. Anyway, last year in my art class, Mrs. Lynam showed me this work called Piss Christ. Basically what it was was this guy, Andres Serrano, put a little crusifix in a jar, and filled it with his own urine... and some of his own blood. Then he took pictures and published it as art. Now I'm sure it had some artistic merit... mostly it was just controversial. But I have some questions for y'all. What is the difference between art and... well, self torture? Where do we draw the line with art? What can fly and what can't?
The main question I want to ask is... what counts as art?
The main question I want to ask is... what counts as art?
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Sense Perception in Literature
Hello.
How's everyone doing?
Good.
So a thing that I have wanted to talk about for quite some time is the concept of sense perception in Literature. I know that this was a subject discussed a very long time ago, but I would like to explore the concept of "Sense Perception" by analyzing how it is talked about in reference to Literature.
Here’s my take on the concept of Sensory Perception in Literature. Good literature (especially poetry, but prose as well) has the ability to make you feel whatever it is trying to portray to you. Your inner eye (as well as inner nose and inner fingers and inner everything else) becomes stimulated by words on a page and the experience of reading becomes much more than just staring at glyphs on a sheet of paper (or computer screen).
The last statement can be disputed on this thread. Indeed, additions (or subtractions) to that statement are welcomed.
However, if we accept that SP in literature includes appeal to the inner senses then what exactly is Sense Perception? If we accept that sense perception is also the concept of the inner self, then what is the difference between sense perception and plain old perception?
Consider the poem below.
Prelude
I
The winter's evening settles down
With smells of steaks in passageways.
Six o'clock.
The burnt-out ends of smoky days.
And now a gusty shower wraps
The grimy scraps
Of withered leaves across your feet
And newpapers from vacant lots;
The showers beat
On empty blinds and chimney-pots,
And at the corner of the street
A lonely cab-horse steams and stamps.
And then the lighting of the lamps.
-T.S. Elliot
Isn’t it pretty? I think so…
How's everyone doing?
Good.
So a thing that I have wanted to talk about for quite some time is the concept of sense perception in Literature. I know that this was a subject discussed a very long time ago, but I would like to explore the concept of "Sense Perception" by analyzing how it is talked about in reference to Literature.
Here’s my take on the concept of Sensory Perception in Literature. Good literature (especially poetry, but prose as well) has the ability to make you feel whatever it is trying to portray to you. Your inner eye (as well as inner nose and inner fingers and inner everything else) becomes stimulated by words on a page and the experience of reading becomes much more than just staring at glyphs on a sheet of paper (or computer screen).
The last statement can be disputed on this thread. Indeed, additions (or subtractions) to that statement are welcomed.
However, if we accept that SP in literature includes appeal to the inner senses then what exactly is Sense Perception? If we accept that sense perception is also the concept of the inner self, then what is the difference between sense perception and plain old perception?
Consider the poem below.
Prelude
I
The winter's evening settles down
With smells of steaks in passageways.
Six o'clock.
The burnt-out ends of smoky days.
And now a gusty shower wraps
The grimy scraps
Of withered leaves across your feet
And newpapers from vacant lots;
The showers beat
On empty blinds and chimney-pots,
And at the corner of the street
A lonely cab-horse steams and stamps.
And then the lighting of the lamps.
-T.S. Elliot
Isn’t it pretty? I think so…
Monday, December 04, 2006
Individual Thought??
So it's my week to track the blog and that means I get to come up with a creative idea to stimulate thought and discussion. My friend Jenny and I were talking a couple of weeks back and she brought up the idea that no one could ever have any original thoughts because someone, at some point in time, at some location in the world has already had that thought or something that could resemble it. At first I disagreed, but her argument became more and more convincing so I want to know what you think. Can a person truly have original thought, something that no one else has thought before? Can those thoughts become knowledge? If so, how? Is this a comforting or disturbing concept? Think about it, write about it, I want to know what you think.....and are those thoughts original?
Internet Slang
Ok so it's my week to "host" and I was trying to come up with a topic and when I typed some letters into the title thing sometimes there would be a suggestion, I typed jk since I was going through the alphabet and got to thinking about internet slang (achronyms specifically) so I decided to post about that. Specifically I thought I'd ask you wonderful people (out there in cyberland) how(or to what extent) internet slang has impacted/changed the level on which people interact and/or converse today.
Here's some achronyms if you're curious http://www.netlingo.com/emailsh.cfm
Here's some achronyms if you're curious http://www.netlingo.com/emailsh.cfm
Sunday, December 03, 2006
ethics
This is a link to the bbc ethics site that is really interesting. The whole sight is cool but here is just a little piece on what a just cause for war is, out of the whole war section. Look at the justification they use. If you have a chance look at the rest of the sight, it's really interesting.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Little Green Men
We send/sent space probes to float around in the Milky Way with pictorial messages attached to them. For example, the 1977 Voyager probes had golden records, with inscribed diagrams depicting the human form and our location. The records were made based on the fact that little green men can understand basic math and geometry. Why is it that math and science are used to communicate with aliens? Wouldn't they have other ways of knowing?
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Intelligence
I was searching around and I found a phychologist named Howard Gardner who says that there are seven different types of intelligence.
1. Linguistic
2. Logical-Mathematical
3. Bodily-Kinesthetic
4. Spatial
5. Musical
6. Interpersonal
7. Intrapersonal
How do you think these relate/compare to the four ways of knowing that we learn in TOK?
Can both models be right or are they in conflict with each other?
1. Linguistic
2. Logical-Mathematical
3. Bodily-Kinesthetic
4. Spatial
5. Musical
6. Interpersonal
7. Intrapersonal
How do you think these relate/compare to the four ways of knowing that we learn in TOK?
Can both models be right or are they in conflict with each other?
Monday, November 13, 2006
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Language Poem
A while ago in class we read a poem called "Nothingness" by Ahron Amir about the absence of language. (If you haven't read it yet you probably will sometime this week, so you should wait and respond after looking at it in class.)
We didn't really have a chance to freely discuss it in class, so I wanted to do that here. I thought the poem raised a lot of interesting questions. First of all, what do you think about the fact that it was translated? How does that impact what it says about language?
Another thing-- most of the images it offers "Of a man flung from a treetop far above the ground", a "pilot whose parachute would not open", a stone falling to a bottomless pit, are about falling. Nearly everyone has dreams about falling, or the sensation of falling in their sleep. Could this almost instinctual, basic image be something that you can connect to without language? Is that why it's offered in this poem? I realize that the fact that it is a poem makes it hard to convey the sensation of the absence of language, but go with me here. What do you think?
One last point-- The speaker describes them self as a "non-I" in the absence of language. Do we define ourselves through language? Can a sense of identity exist without it?
What do you think? Any other things you want to discuss with this poem? Please respond! :)
We didn't really have a chance to freely discuss it in class, so I wanted to do that here. I thought the poem raised a lot of interesting questions. First of all, what do you think about the fact that it was translated? How does that impact what it says about language?
Another thing-- most of the images it offers "Of a man flung from a treetop far above the ground", a "pilot whose parachute would not open", a stone falling to a bottomless pit, are about falling. Nearly everyone has dreams about falling, or the sensation of falling in their sleep. Could this almost instinctual, basic image be something that you can connect to without language? Is that why it's offered in this poem? I realize that the fact that it is a poem makes it hard to convey the sensation of the absence of language, but go with me here. What do you think?
One last point-- The speaker describes them self as a "non-I" in the absence of language. Do we define ourselves through language? Can a sense of identity exist without it?
What do you think? Any other things you want to discuss with this poem? Please respond! :)
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Knowledge isn't Justified True Belief
Hmm... I'm not sure what this does... never was really a blogger... testing testing... 1,2,3
Let's see, so Knowledge supposedly "Justified True Belief"
Consider this situation: Bob and Jim apply for the same job.
Bob thinks Jim will get the job because Jim seems more qualified.
Jim has 10 coins in his pocket. (bob saw)
Bob concludes through his reason, logic, and emotions the knowledge claim that 'the person who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket.'
Unbeknownst to Bob, he will actually get the job. And, though he hasn't checked his pockets, in reality, he also has 10 coins in his pocket.
Thusly, the knowledge claim was true, however,
Bob's justifications were invalid.
His belief was an incorrect "map of reality."
But he still came to the right conclusion.
Uh oh spaghetti-ohs.
Let's see, so Knowledge supposedly "Justified True Belief"
Consider this situation: Bob and Jim apply for the same job.
Bob thinks Jim will get the job because Jim seems more qualified.
Jim has 10 coins in his pocket. (bob saw)
Bob concludes through his reason, logic, and emotions the knowledge claim that 'the person who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket.'
Unbeknownst to Bob, he will actually get the job. And, though he hasn't checked his pockets, in reality, he also has 10 coins in his pocket.
Thusly, the knowledge claim was true, however,
Bob's justifications were invalid.
His belief was an incorrect "map of reality."
But he still came to the right conclusion.
Uh oh spaghetti-ohs.
Slang
So what I want to start a conversation about is the slang of "our generation." What I mean by that is right now in 2006 at Poudre High School what is the slang that we have developed and what do they mean? Looking at the 70s myself in our assignment I am wondering why it seems like alot of the things we say are just taken from other generations. Are we the generations of no new language? What will that become in the future?
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Communism is good.. Yes?
If Communism is all for one and one for all, then how come people think of it as evil. And how does north korea work with Kim Jung il runnin the show?
P.S. all hail red china
- laughingcorpse
Teachers Note: Due to the way this question is worded, some of you may not initially see the relevancy. I ask those of you responding to put the TOK twist on this... How do people use the WoKs to come to personal conclusions about Communism and its role as a political system? -- Mr. Malone
P.S. all hail red china
- laughingcorpse
Teachers Note: Due to the way this question is worded, some of you may not initially see the relevancy. I ask those of you responding to put the TOK twist on this... How do people use the WoKs to come to personal conclusions about Communism and its role as a political system? -- Mr. Malone
Monday, November 06, 2006
Language, how much does it cause one to stereotype?
Hi all,
as one of the people hosting the blog this week I wanted to ask, in relation to the unit of Language as a WOK, how much do you think language effects how you judge others? And is that judgment at all based off of the politics surrounding the region the language is from? How do people stereotype just based on the way one speaks or communicates (disregard race for the time being and please just focus on language even though the two are more often than not related)?
as one of the people hosting the blog this week I wanted to ask, in relation to the unit of Language as a WOK, how much do you think language effects how you judge others? And is that judgment at all based off of the politics surrounding the region the language is from? How do people stereotype just based on the way one speaks or communicates (disregard race for the time being and please just focus on language even though the two are more often than not related)?
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Language in Psychology
In psychology we recently studied how language influenced culture, and vice versa. We found examples on how it did work, and how it didn't. In some examples, we could even see how language is a manifestation of culture, and how one can see aspects of a culture through the language associated with that culture (for example, in Japanese they have multiple ways of saying "I", whereas we really only have one. That could show how it is important to identify status and relationships in Japan when speaking, but maybe not so much in the U.S.). We are just starting to look at language as a WoK in TOK. Does TOK look at language the same way as psychology?
THE Answer
As has already been established by a very "reputable" source, the answer to life, the universe, and everything is....
42
Now, based on what you have experienced and what you know (and your interpretation of the answer), what is the question?
42
Now, based on what you have experienced and what you know (and your interpretation of the answer), what is the question?
Saturday, November 04, 2006
The Power of Slang
As we begin our look at Language as a WoK, we are going to consider how a specific language can define a culture, and in this instance, a generation. As part of the Slang Assignment (if you haven't been introduced to it, you will), we want you to consider and use the following slang from the decades listed below. Also provided is an on-line slang dictionary that will help you find any words that you are having a hard time finding.
1920's
1930's
1940's
1950's
1960's
1970's
1980's
Slang Dictionary
If you wish to print these lists for your use, please do so at home. They are long and would be a huge waste of paper. Have Fun...
1920's
1930's
1940's
1950's
1960's
1970's
1980's
Slang Dictionary
If you wish to print these lists for your use, please do so at home. They are long and would be a huge waste of paper. Have Fun...
Monday, October 30, 2006
Senses and Stories
Richard Gregory, author of The Intelligent Eye, quotes, "How far are human brains capable of functioning with concepts detached from sensory experience?" This question goes about a million years back to when we first received the "Seeing Things" handout from K.C. Cole's First You Build a Cloud. There have been many similar posts concerning this subject matter, but now that we have started creating stories, have your views changed? Suppose that the only sensory contact you were able to have (ever) was when you heard the music for the story assignment. How would your story be different? Could you create a story at all?
Muy Interesante
So everyone here is something interesting that I think you might enjoy-
This is a passage from a speech by Dudley Malone during the Scopes trial, and he was speaking for the prosecution. Just for those who don't know the Scopes trial was a product of the conflicting cultural cross current of the era. It was trial for a teacher from Dayton who was accused of teaching evolution, which was against the law at that time, and was put on trial to see if he should be charged with the $100 fine that was the punishment of doing such a thing. However the trial turned far more into as Roger Baldwin put it "the good book against Darwin, bigotry against science, or as popularly put, god against monkeys." It became a defining point in the history of Americans morals and beliefs. Even though Malone was on the prosecution he felt the genesis and evolution were not in conflict. So here is his closing statement with a tribute to the power of truth:
"Truth always wins and we are not afraid of it. The truth is no coward. The truth does not need the law. The truth does not need the forces of government. The truth does not need Mr. Bryan (prosecuter) The truth is imperishable, eternal, and immortal and needs no human agency to support it. We are ready to tell the truth as we understand it and we do not fear all truth that they can present as facts. We are ready. We are ready. We feel we stand with progress. We feel that we stand with science. We feel that we stand with intelligence. We feel that we stand with fundemental freedom in America. We are not afraid. Where is fear? We meet it. Where is fear? We defy it..."
Thoughts ideas? anyone
This is a passage from a speech by Dudley Malone during the Scopes trial, and he was speaking for the prosecution. Just for those who don't know the Scopes trial was a product of the conflicting cultural cross current of the era. It was trial for a teacher from Dayton who was accused of teaching evolution, which was against the law at that time, and was put on trial to see if he should be charged with the $100 fine that was the punishment of doing such a thing. However the trial turned far more into as Roger Baldwin put it "the good book against Darwin, bigotry against science, or as popularly put, god against monkeys." It became a defining point in the history of Americans morals and beliefs. Even though Malone was on the prosecution he felt the genesis and evolution were not in conflict. So here is his closing statement with a tribute to the power of truth:
"Truth always wins and we are not afraid of it. The truth is no coward. The truth does not need the law. The truth does not need the forces of government. The truth does not need Mr. Bryan (prosecuter) The truth is imperishable, eternal, and immortal and needs no human agency to support it. We are ready to tell the truth as we understand it and we do not fear all truth that they can present as facts. We are ready. We are ready. We feel we stand with progress. We feel that we stand with science. We feel that we stand with intelligence. We feel that we stand with fundemental freedom in America. We are not afraid. Where is fear? We meet it. Where is fear? We defy it..."
Thoughts ideas? anyone
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Dark Matter
I just wanted to start a discussion about the lecture on dark matter presented by Dr. Polhemus and see what others thought about it. I thought the presentation was phenomenal and was very impressed by the ideas and information, but afterwards I was troubled by some questions and doubts.
I guess my overall question revolves around when and how a concept like dark matter can become knowledge. Currently, we are not able to perceive dark matter with our senses. Some scientists have made theories about it because it seems to explain some occurrences in space, but do they know that dark matter exists? What do they need as evidence to claim that it does exist? Do they need more examples like the bullet cluster? If so, how many more? Also, when will the average person be able to claim it as knowledge? Most people can not understand these theories because they are so complex. Are the scientists a reliable authority for the general population?
Here's a link to an article on some of the general ideas and the bullet cluster if you missed the lecture or if you're just looking for an interesting read:
http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressreleases/2006/20060821.htm
I guess my overall question revolves around when and how a concept like dark matter can become knowledge. Currently, we are not able to perceive dark matter with our senses. Some scientists have made theories about it because it seems to explain some occurrences in space, but do they know that dark matter exists? What do they need as evidence to claim that it does exist? Do they need more examples like the bullet cluster? If so, how many more? Also, when will the average person be able to claim it as knowledge? Most people can not understand these theories because they are so complex. Are the scientists a reliable authority for the general population?
Here's a link to an article on some of the general ideas and the bullet cluster if you missed the lecture or if you're just looking for an interesting read:
http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressreleases/2006/20060821.htm
my two left feet
In the movie my two left feet he used his feet to paint, do you think the significance of these paintings changed the more he learned about life? For example after the painting for the girl was returned, do you think that changed any of his beliefs?
Sunday, October 22, 2006
"When Not Seeing Is Believing"
Ok, so I was reading this article in the Time Magazine from October 9 titled “When Not Seeing is Believing” and it just screamed TOK! to me. I thought this article presented such an accurate interpretation on the power of fundamentalist thought and its effects. The article began by noting the smile of certainty present on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadienjad’s face during his visit to the U.N. This smile reflected his trust in the arms of God and the power of his faith. The need to submit to the beneficent, omnipotent will of God has been present throughout all religions throughout time. The article stresses the point that the resurgence of religious certainty has deepened our cultural divisions and caused more polarized political discoures.
I found it really interesting when the article mentioned the impossibility of proclaiming truth with a capital T when it comes to faith. There is always a sense of uncertainty that humans will never grasp. At the heart of religion is humanness marked by imperfection and uncertainty that was even seen in Jesus.
So, as humans strive towards an absolute truth, it is real doubt that teaches people to believe. Faith does not come from sense perception. So I don’t think it can be close to absolute
This is why I see certainty of faith as a paradox. Faith incorporates doubt, so religion cannot be used as a certainty in any kind of political decision. Political divisions then arise so strongly.
What does everyone think about this? It’s a really good article that gives a much better account of what I just said, so you should really read it.
-anya
I found it really interesting when the article mentioned the impossibility of proclaiming truth with a capital T when it comes to faith. There is always a sense of uncertainty that humans will never grasp. At the heart of religion is humanness marked by imperfection and uncertainty that was even seen in Jesus.
So, as humans strive towards an absolute truth, it is real doubt that teaches people to believe. Faith does not come from sense perception. So I don’t think it can be close to absolute
This is why I see certainty of faith as a paradox. Faith incorporates doubt, so religion cannot be used as a certainty in any kind of political decision. Political divisions then arise so strongly.
What does everyone think about this? It’s a really good article that gives a much better account of what I just said, so you should really read it.
-anya
Saturday, October 21, 2006
How can faith blind/impair our perception?
How can faith blind/impair our perception?
This question i thought might be good for what we're learning in class. People should be thinking about it.
This question i thought might be good for what we're learning in class. People should be thinking about it.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Art, Literature, and Everything in Between
So, going along with Josh's post of "What is Art?" I'd like to raise the question of what is literature, what is art, are the the same and how. In my opinion, literature falls under art. I define art as a form of expression of an intangible concept through tangible means. I would also say that all art is subjective. Literature to me is the art concerned with language. To me it is expression which requires human word, written or spoken, to convey its meaning. I'd just like to see what you all thought of this, see what you think about genres such as theatre, cinema, television, pulp fiction, the works.
Mait
Mait
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The Genius of a Child... repost
Because of the conversation that Josh is starting about art and the conversations in class, I thought I'd repost the following...
Marla Olmstead, a six-year old who sold her first painting for $250 when she was 2 years old and is now considered an artistic prodigy. Check out her work by following the link above. She has been featured by...
LA Weekly
The New York Times
60 minutes
The Today Show
BBC News
and many, many others...
Just thought it might add to your discussion as to what defines genius and the subjective nature of artistic "knowledge". What do you think?
Marla Olmstead, a six-year old who sold her first painting for $250 when she was 2 years old and is now considered an artistic prodigy. Check out her work by following the link above. She has been featured by...
LA Weekly
The New York Times
60 minutes
The Today Show
BBC News
and many, many others...
Just thought it might add to your discussion as to what defines genius and the subjective nature of artistic "knowledge". What do you think?
What is art???
hey all, i was thinkin about this durring TOK today. i was thinkin about what art really is and concidering what adrean was saying about how one progresses through art and in doing this, becomes more aware of the different "correct" methods of creating art. in the most respectful way possible, i completely dissagree with the statement that there is a correct way of creating art for certain forms of art. i personaly think that art is completely what the creator makes of it. I think that a four year olds art is the most pure form of art ever concievable simply because it is un-tainted by the conformities of society. a four year old has no guidlines, and therefor can completely and totaly honestly express their emotions, which in my oppinion is what art's pourpose is. Can there be art without emotion? I personaly dont think there can be, because i think that art is emotion. i also believe in two forms of art: art that is there simply for the emotional dovelopment or satisfaction of the creator, and art that is created to actively draw out emotions in the audience. without emotion, art is not only not art, it is completely pointless. what do you guys think, now that i have stated my oppinion? do you agree?
Language
Since we're going to be talking about language in ToK and how it relates to the Areas of Knowledge, I thought I'd do a post on language.
What constitutes a language? Is it possible to have language other than the spoken word? i.e. Can you consider mathematics as a language? What about the languages of music and art? Do you think that it is possible to have a language that is not spoken? What are the boundaries and/or limitations and benefits of having a language that is not spoken? Are there any similarities/dissimilarities between the languages of math, music, and art? To what extent would we be effective at communicating ideas in these languages if we cannot speak it? How is this different from perception?
This is kind of a broad topic, so you don't have to answer all the questions I posted...
What constitutes a language? Is it possible to have language other than the spoken word? i.e. Can you consider mathematics as a language? What about the languages of music and art? Do you think that it is possible to have a language that is not spoken? What are the boundaries and/or limitations and benefits of having a language that is not spoken? Are there any similarities/dissimilarities between the languages of math, music, and art? To what extent would we be effective at communicating ideas in these languages if we cannot speak it? How is this different from perception?
This is kind of a broad topic, so you don't have to answer all the questions I posted...
Monday, October 16, 2006
The Elusive Truth
Ok, so this is the question.
Can one culture or area of the world or even one era, for that matter, claim to have more knowledge than another culture/area/era because more of their beliefs are properly justified???
For example, while one culture may only be able to base their beliefs off of instinct or what was believed in the past, does that make those beliefs less justifiable than a culture that can justify theirs with techonology, scientific investigation, etc., maybe even in addition to instinct and the like?
Does this tie into personal vs. descriptive justifications? does that descriptive knowledge have to count for the whole world, for all time (is that what Truth is??) or just for the era, the locality?
Does that mean we are moving any closer to the Truth as we go along and gather more means of proper justification?
Does your head hurt yet?
Can one culture or area of the world or even one era, for that matter, claim to have more knowledge than another culture/area/era because more of their beliefs are properly justified???
For example, while one culture may only be able to base their beliefs off of instinct or what was believed in the past, does that make those beliefs less justifiable than a culture that can justify theirs with techonology, scientific investigation, etc., maybe even in addition to instinct and the like?
Does this tie into personal vs. descriptive justifications? does that descriptive knowledge have to count for the whole world, for all time (is that what Truth is??) or just for the era, the locality?
Does that mean we are moving any closer to the Truth as we go along and gather more means of proper justification?
Does your head hurt yet?
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Truth In America
An interesting show on Oprah recently about "Truth in America" and how the media affects our view of what the truth is...
"According to the Poynter Institute's Dr. Roy Peter Clark, 'The truth is being distorted from all corners, and Americans don't see it, or if they do, too many don't seem to care.' Here are seven things Dr. Clark says you can do to recognize manipulation in government, media, business and advertising:
1. Find three political bloggers who represent the right, the left and the middle. Consult them to help you sort through political issues and media messages.
2. Look for role models of candor and accountability, people in public life who have proven to be reliable over time. Look especially for folks within a movement or political party who have the courage to speak against the interests of their own party.
3. Prefer people who want to have a vigorous conversation to those who want to shout at each other.
4. Do not be seduced into thinking that every hot-button issue requires you to be on one side or the other. There may be a middle ground. Don't be afraid to be puzzled or uncertain about an issue. It's okay to be working to make up your mind.
5. Get up off the couch. Join a club. Volunteer. Sing in the choir. One way not to be fooled by political or media manipulation is to learn from direct experience, from reality and not reality TV.
6. In an age of celebrity culture, try to pay more attention to people for what they do than for who they are.
7. Be a skeptic, but not a cynic. A skeptic doubts knowledge. A cynic doubts moral goodness. The cynic says, "All politicians are liars," or "all journalists have a secret bias." The skeptic says, "That doesn't sound right to me. Show me the evidence."
Good, Interesting Advice no matter which side of the fence you are on...
"According to the Poynter Institute's Dr. Roy Peter Clark, 'The truth is being distorted from all corners, and Americans don't see it, or if they do, too many don't seem to care.' Here are seven things Dr. Clark says you can do to recognize manipulation in government, media, business and advertising:
1. Find three political bloggers who represent the right, the left and the middle. Consult them to help you sort through political issues and media messages.
2. Look for role models of candor and accountability, people in public life who have proven to be reliable over time. Look especially for folks within a movement or political party who have the courage to speak against the interests of their own party.
3. Prefer people who want to have a vigorous conversation to those who want to shout at each other.
4. Do not be seduced into thinking that every hot-button issue requires you to be on one side or the other. There may be a middle ground. Don't be afraid to be puzzled or uncertain about an issue. It's okay to be working to make up your mind.
5. Get up off the couch. Join a club. Volunteer. Sing in the choir. One way not to be fooled by political or media manipulation is to learn from direct experience, from reality and not reality TV.
6. In an age of celebrity culture, try to pay more attention to people for what they do than for who they are.
7. Be a skeptic, but not a cynic. A skeptic doubts knowledge. A cynic doubts moral goodness. The cynic says, "All politicians are liars," or "all journalists have a secret bias." The skeptic says, "That doesn't sound right to me. Show me the evidence."
Good, Interesting Advice no matter which side of the fence you are on...
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Perceiving the future
Is it possible to perceive the future? Some astrologers say that they have seen the future through the stars; some claim to know events that will occur before they actually happen. Astrologers study the patterns of the stars to try to predict what's going to happen tomorrow. Do you think that astrology is a valid way of perception even though astrologers are not directly witnessing images of the future? If you supposedly know the future, can it ever be descriptive knowledge or is it always acquaintnace knowledge? because you can't claim to have known than an event will occur in the future because you always have to wait and confirm that it happens.
i.e. Let's say I predict that an asteroid will crash into Earth and destroy Antarctica exactly 1 week from now. Can I claim it as knowledge right now or would I have to wait 1 week and then confirm my prediction? Let's say that I perceived this through the stars, and it does turn out to be true; is it a valid way of perception or did I just make a wild guess and got it right?
i.e. Let's say I predict that an asteroid will crash into Earth and destroy Antarctica exactly 1 week from now. Can I claim it as knowledge right now or would I have to wait 1 week and then confirm my prediction? Let's say that I perceived this through the stars, and it does turn out to be true; is it a valid way of perception or did I just make a wild guess and got it right?
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Egypt
Ok, so I was watching "Egypt: Engineering an Empire" last night, and it got me thinking. How were the pyramids built? I know this sounds like an engineering question but, really, how? There are no records to give soild proof, so we are left down to perceptions. How do we personally think it was done?
For me, i say Aliens. Stargate was proof enough for me, but what do you think, and why?
For me, i say Aliens. Stargate was proof enough for me, but what do you think, and why?
Monday, October 09, 2006
The love-pancake theory
FEAR ME FOOLISH BLOGGERS, FOR I CONTROL YOUR WORLD THIS WEEK! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Alright, now that I've got that out of my system, let's move on. For my first post, I would like to present you all with a game. This game, for simplicities sake, will be called "The Love-Pancake theory". Below are three rules. These rules are the only truths we have, these are the only things we know. However, you may add new rules during the course of the game. You may add a new rule by proving it to be true, and by having three more people agree than disagree with this rule.
1) Love is blind
2) Love= ♥
3) Love will keep us together.
Thus, given the rules above, your task is this: Diiscuss wether or not the picture below is love. Remember: If you wish to disproove this as love, you must either prove it is not through the rules above, or create a new rule that proves it is not. No new rule can directly contradict another, i.e there cannot be a rule stating "Love can see". However, there can be a rule that shows the picture is not love, i.e "Love is a battlefield".
I've either confused you all and no one will post on this, or this will work out to my own devious plan and we will have people arguing about wether or not love is a heart-shaped pancake.
Alright, now that I've got that out of my system, let's move on. For my first post, I would like to present you all with a game. This game, for simplicities sake, will be called "The Love-Pancake theory". Below are three rules. These rules are the only truths we have, these are the only things we know. However, you may add new rules during the course of the game. You may add a new rule by proving it to be true, and by having three more people agree than disagree with this rule.
1) Love is blind
2) Love= ♥
3) Love will keep us together.
Thus, given the rules above, your task is this: Diiscuss wether or not the picture below is love. Remember: If you wish to disproove this as love, you must either prove it is not through the rules above, or create a new rule that proves it is not. No new rule can directly contradict another, i.e there cannot be a rule stating "Love can see". However, there can be a rule that shows the picture is not love, i.e "Love is a battlefield".
I've either confused you all and no one will post on this, or this will work out to my own devious plan and we will have people arguing about wether or not love is a heart-shaped pancake.
Crash
How do you think your perception of the movie Crash would have been affected had they incorporated judgement and hatred based on disabilities as well as race? Would it have had the same emotional impact as before? How does your perception of someone vary based on whether or not they are disabled, either physically or mentally?
Crash
For those of you that have watched Crash (and if you haven't, you will), I simply ask for your reaction...
How does this movie relate to Perception and Ethics? (or TOK in general)
What questions does Haggis (director) wish his audience to ask of themselves?
What message did you get from the movie?
What is your overall personal reaction?
Answer any, all, or none.
Try to go beyond...
"Racism is bad" and "Don't judge a book by its cover".
How does this movie relate to Perception and Ethics? (or TOK in general)
What questions does Haggis (director) wish his audience to ask of themselves?
What message did you get from the movie?
What is your overall personal reaction?
Answer any, all, or none.
Try to go beyond...
"Racism is bad" and "Don't judge a book by its cover".
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
History vs. Science
Okay, during the History presentations in our class, a huge debate was started based on the comment that Historians face the same issues as Scientists. It was thought that History is the same as Science, in many ways. I want to know what all of you out there think. What are the similarities, if any, between the two, and why does it matter in terms of sense perception? Please feel free to argue if the two relate in any way at all.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Emotion and Knowledge
An interesting quandry I've come to...
By the definitions given us by our TOK language, a moral/ethical belief can qualify as an emotional claim to Knowledge. Knowledge must be a PJTB, as defined by TOK. Yet moral/ethical issues are completely and entirely relative, and cannot be proven true in any sense of the word. So, the way I see it, TOK is wrong here - Knowledge claims that use ethical/moral/emotional beliefs as their basis cannot possibly be True.
Am I interpreting this wrong, or does what I just said hold some validity?
By the definitions given us by our TOK language, a moral/ethical belief can qualify as an emotional claim to Knowledge. Knowledge must be a PJTB, as defined by TOK. Yet moral/ethical issues are completely and entirely relative, and cannot be proven true in any sense of the word. So, the way I see it, TOK is wrong here - Knowledge claims that use ethical/moral/emotional beliefs as their basis cannot possibly be True.
Am I interpreting this wrong, or does what I just said hold some validity?
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Well, was I right?
I stumbled upon this on a teacher blog I read occasionally...
TED
"There is a story of the new recruit at an engineering company, fresh out of college, who was given a circuit to analyze on his first day on the job. He worked on it for most of the day and then brought his solution to the manager who had assigned the task that morning. The recruit placed his solution on the desk and waited eagerly for a response. The manager looked at the paper and then filed it. The recruit lingered for awhile and then said, 'Well was I right?'
The manager was shocked. He asked, 'Why would I pay you to find answers that I already know?'”
Just thought you might enjoy this...
I'm sure many of you fall into a similar trap.
The question is...
Why, as students, is verification so often needed when searching for answers to the questions that you are challenged with?
TED
"There is a story of the new recruit at an engineering company, fresh out of college, who was given a circuit to analyze on his first day on the job. He worked on it for most of the day and then brought his solution to the manager who had assigned the task that morning. The recruit placed his solution on the desk and waited eagerly for a response. The manager looked at the paper and then filed it. The recruit lingered for awhile and then said, 'Well was I right?'
The manager was shocked. He asked, 'Why would I pay you to find answers that I already know?'”
Just thought you might enjoy this...
I'm sure many of you fall into a similar trap.
The question is...
Why, as students, is verification so often needed when searching for answers to the questions that you are challenged with?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
