I know I have not been the most active when it comes to writing my TOK journals, but now that school is out for the year and I have some time it could be a good oppertunity for me to catch up on jounal entries a little. The best time to start, I think, is right now - thus, following is my TOK presentation and a reflection on my performance.
PRESENTATION CONTENT – JUSTIN AND BRAD, THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
TOPIC: “How do we decide to what extent we are ethically obliged to help those in a situation of extreme poverty?”
CONTEXT - Justin: Every year, in this world, more than 6 million children die from malnutrition before the age of five. Approximately 300-500 million people are infected with malaria, and more than 40% of the world’s population live without even the most basic sanitation. Good day, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Justin and this is Bradley, and today, with your help, we ask this question: “How do we decide to what extent we are ethically obliged to help those in a situation of extreme poverty?”
DEFINITIONS - Bradley: First, we shall introduce a few definitions for the purposes of the investigation of this knowledge issue.
Extreme Poverty: Extreme poverty is the most serious state of poverty. Those that come under its influence fail to meet the basic fundamental needs for food, water, shelter and health care. As a means to determine the amount of people affected the World Bank defines extreme poverty as living on less than $1.25 US a day. Poverty is also defined as having to walk more than 1 mile each day to retrieve fresh water, and being at risk from diseases that were eliminated from economically developed countries decades ago.
Ethics: Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong.
PREFACE – Justin: Now we shall discuss a number of different factors that help us decide on the extent to which we are ethically obliged to help those in a situation of extreme poverty. These factors shall include The Media, Authority Figures, Personal Experiences, Culture, Religion and Emotion.
The Media - Bradley
Perhaps one of the most common ways one comes to learn about poverty is through language. Large companies utilize this method by running advertisement campaigns through the media. This is no different for organizations such as World Vision and Child Fund. Their heartfelt ads can be seen on the television and heard on the radio. This brings me to what I am talking about today. Discussed will be how the media influences our decision to give aid to impoverished communities.
SHOW ADVERTISEMENT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=_-lPxXHERJE&vq=medium#t=20
Take this advert for example. How does it help us to decide whether or not to give aid to those in need? For a start it relies heavily on language. Through language we are told why we should sponsor a child and what will happen with the money we spend. Through language we also hear about the harsh realities the children of Northern Zambia face. “Life here for everyone in this community is desperately hard, but especially the children.” This line is designed to provoke an emotional response in us to give aid. Also, for those that were paying attention during the ad, you would have noticed that it incorporated background music. This technique, although relying on sensory perception, plays on ones emotions. It creates a sad tone that goes to further enhance ones desire to give help. By using children in their adverts they are appealing to parents for help; it is they that have the money and they are also most likely to give. The advert also states what they plan to do with the money that is donated. This is for the sake of reason. By including their intentions they are giving assurance that all the money they receive will be well spent. I can reason that my money will not go to waste; this reasoning makes it all the more likely that I will give money.
Another question to ask could be; how are Mac Donald’s ads any different in their manipulation? It would appear that the only difference is ethical for both companies are trying to make a profit. So why are we more inclined to be swayed by an ad trying to source money to help impoverished communities? Is it that we tend to believe that ads for a good cause can tell only truths and that advertisement’s for a company like Mac Donald’s are less truthful? Or does it stem for the way each advert plays on ones emotion? Another question this advertisement raises is; how can we then be sure that advertising for a good cause can be ethical? And how do we identify a good cause?
Regardless of whether donating to poverty is a good or bad cause, the media does play a significant role in helping us to make our decision. It presents a strong emotional case backed up with some reason for giving charitably to impoverished communities. It would be untruthful for me to say that these ads have not affected me.
Authority Figures - Justin
There are many authority figures in our lives - our parents, siblings, extended family, teachers and friends being among them. How much, though, do these authority figures affect our decisions about the extent to which we are ethically responsible for helping people in an extreme poverty situation? Here is an example from my own life.
In 2007 and 2008, a man called Troy was the pastor at the church I belonged to back then. Every Saturday he would come and pick me up we would go out for coffee, and we would discuss what had happened in the week gone past with each other. Troy was a good man. He was generous, kind, selfless and he always wanted to get involved in what was going on in the community. What I am trying to say is that Troy was a role model for me – he was an authority figure. Because he was a good man, and a role model to me, I wanted to be a good man, and this inspired me to raise almost $3000.00 for the 40 Hour Famine in 2008. His actions helped me to decide the extent to which I felt I was ethically responsible for helping those in a situation of extreme poverty.
Now we can expand and try to apply this type of situation to people other than myself. Raise your hand if you have authority figures in your life. ... Now raise your hands if they have some influence over the decisions you make. ... These authority figures can have an influence over me, and can have an influence over you, and others, and therefore authority figures are one of the factors that can help us make a decision on the poverty situation.
Personal Experience – Bradley
Another factor that could help one decide whether or not to provide aid for these impoverished communities is personal experience. For those lucky enough to travel it is likely that they will come face to face with poverty. This experience can be often more compelling than a TV commercial because of the extra weight a personal experience carries. However were you to decide to help this would still be a decision that relies heavily on emotion. Discussed will be my personal experience of poverty and how that has helped me decide whether or not I am obliged to give my aid.
My first exposure to poverty was in South Africa. Through the things I have experienced I can verify, to a certain extent, the facts and scenes displayed on the TV. Before I go on I would like to stress that my experience of poverty is by no means extensive and almost exclusively confined to urban areas. However from my experience I have come to treat poverty with suspicion rather than pity. To me it comes across as if the majority of those who are poor would sooner steal from you than anything else. So the question to ask is; have they brought poverty upon themselves through their actions? And regardless of the answer what are they doing about it? I would reason that it would be a bad idea to give money to people like these for they would just squander it. Perhaps that is why it is common practice to give food rather than money. Also I do not believe that people like this would be at all grateful for the help, this for me acts as an emotional deterrent for giving help. So for me my experience of poverty actually act as a deterrent for giving aid. However the communities they show on TV are mostly rural. Although I have not had any experience of poverty in rural areas I would much rather give aid to those areas. I am not saying that I would not help someone in the city if they were struggling with poverty but I would be reluctant if they were not deserving. This raises a question. Is it ethically acceptable to aid only those who are deserving?
To conclude this argument I will say that my personal experiences have affected the extent to which I am willing to give aid to those in need. They have not undermined my willingness to give nor have they undermined my charity, they have just put in place a criteria of sorts or guideline for who I would give too and what I would give.
Culture - Justin
When it comes to making a decision about the question in discussion, our culture is a very important factor. For the purposes of this presentation, I shall be discussing New Zealand culture. In general, it can be said that New Zealand is a country of people with a love of sport, the outdoors and cultural diversity. It could be said that a “New Zealander” is essentially a post-modern mix and match of many different cultures – Maori, Pacific Islander, European and Asian being amongst them – and this is what makes a New Zealander. Because of our secular society, NZ’ers are generally known to be fundamentally fair people. We are great belivers in cultural tolerence. Because most of us are raised with this NZ culture (and if we are not we learn it from others), the NZ culture is therefore one of those things that influences us when it comes to making a decision on the extent to which we are ethically responsible for helping with extreme poverty. In other words, our culture has an effect on the decisions we make.
But, it is not just the NZ culture that has an influence on people – culture in general is in fact a factor that can be taken into account when helping us decide. Different cultures will most probably have different effects on the decisions of different people, but it is safe to say that these cultures do have some effect and thus are an important factor.
Emotion - Justin
It can be said that emotions are one of the few things all humans have in common. The nature of these emotions is not similar, but every one of us has emotions and has some kind of emotional response to things. The question we are trying to answer today, though, is how we decide the extent to which we are ethically responsible for helping those in a situation of extreme poverty, and I will proceed to explain the part that out emotions play in this.
The World Vision advertisment that Bradley showed you when he was talking about media will serve as an example. The language used in that video, espically the repetition used to enforce the “we need your help” and “save the children” ideas, invoked in me and I think us some level of emotion – sympathy and pity were probably prevelent amongst these emotions. For some, myself amongst them, these emotions lead to a desire to help those who need it – they make me feel personally responsible for their poverty, even though I am not. Thus, emotions have helped me to make a decision.
Another example from previously in the presentation that can be used to show how emotion helps us decide is the authortity figure I discussed. Troy invoked emotions in me, through what he said and what he did, that made me want to help others. He was a major influence, not just over my thoughts, but also my emotions.
From these two things, we can conclude that emotions are in fact one of the factors that can help us make a decision on the issue in discussion.
Religion – Bradley
Religion must also be incorporated into our decision over whether or not to give aid to an impoverished community. Do certain religions lend us towards giving money to the poor?
Let’s take Christianity for example. In Luke chapter 3 verse 11 it states; “John told them ‘If you have two coats give one to someone who doesn’t have any. If you have food, share it with someone else.” This line is one of many that directly concern those living in poverty. In this specific line it directly states that one should share with the poor. For those that believe the Christian message they might reason that by giving to the poor they are pleasing God. This reasoning could play a significant role in helping one decide whether or not to give aid to impoverished communities. However, if one follows this reasoning, are they giving to the poor for self gain, or do they really want to help others? And if they are doing it for personal gain can this be ethical?
Let’s look at another religion. In the Islamic religion they have 5 principle guidelines, these are known as the five pillars of Islam. One of the 5 pillars is known as Zakat. This pillar requires that if possible every Muslim should give a small percentage of their possessions to charity. In most cases this means the poor. However they are only required to give to other Muslims. Although the different sects of this faith have different ways of fulfilling this pillar the Sunni branch is required to give away 2.5% of their wealth at the end of each year. Again like in the Christian faith participants of this pillar may reason that by fulfilling it they are pleasing Allah. A question to ask here is; is it ethically reasonable to discriminate against those who do not belong to your religion by excluding them from your charity?
For me, religion has played a huge role in governing how I make my decision regarding the extent to which I am obliged to help those in situations of extreme poverty. For those that do not know I will state now that I am Christian. And because of this belief I am genuinely inclined towards giving help when someone asks me for it. Although this rule can be applied generally it does have a huge influence over the extent to which I feel obliged to give aid to those in impoverished communities.
Conclusion – Justin
In this presentation the question “How do we decide to what extent we are ethically obliged to help those in a situation of extreme poverty?” has been discussed. Brad and I have talked about The Media, Authority Figures, Personal Experiences, Culture, Religion and Emotion, all as ways of helping us decide.
When it comes to it, we cannot make the decision on the extent to which you, you, or any other individual is ethically responsible for helping those in a situation of extreme poverty – that is up to the individuals themselves. We can only point out and discuss some of the probably prominent factors in the decisions that people make, and we hope, ladies and gentlemen, that that is what we have done today. Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All in all, I think not a bad effort from Brad and I. Here are some pro's and con's of the presentation, from my perspective.
PRO'S: Ran smoothly - no hiccups or awkward pauses. Timing - although we went a little over, I feel we maximised our use of time. Shared load - Brad and I worked together to do an equal amount of work and create a truely joint presentation. Presentation was enhanced by slideshow outlining the structure.
CON'S: Perhaps a little waffly in places, maybe did not identify as many knowledge issues as I could?
Overall, though, I was happy with the performance of Brad and I in the presentation.
Not to worry Mr Hall - I have not forgotten about the presentation form!
+1.1.jpg)
December 04, 2010
October 27, 2010
TOK Presentation - Initial Thoughts
AS my class and teacher will know, I am doing my TOK presentation with Brad. We had a meeting on Friday, went over the criteria for the presentation and brainstormed some topics. Because we got sidetracked into a 2 hour discussion about religion, we decided to think about the topic over the weekend.
I went to see Brad on Monday night to further discuss our topic, and after some discussion we decided that we wanted to focus on World Poverty.
Resource shortages and starvation we feel is a global issue that we can apply a great many different TOK perspectives on. We could look at the morals and ethics that people use in developed countries to deal with the situation - do we, as humans, have a moral and ethical obligation to help other humans?
Or, we could look at the ways of knowing - logic, sense perception, emotion and language. What do we see and hear about poverty? How does the media address it, if at all, and how does this affect the way we view it? What language is used to describe poverty and how does this affect the way we percieve poverty? What logic or reason do we apply to the world poverty situation?
There are many TOK-related things we could explore, countless possibilities. Brad and I will be meeting before Friday to at least narrow down our area of focus, if not fully decide on a topic.
I went to see Brad on Monday night to further discuss our topic, and after some discussion we decided that we wanted to focus on World Poverty.
Resource shortages and starvation we feel is a global issue that we can apply a great many different TOK perspectives on. We could look at the morals and ethics that people use in developed countries to deal with the situation - do we, as humans, have a moral and ethical obligation to help other humans?
Or, we could look at the ways of knowing - logic, sense perception, emotion and language. What do we see and hear about poverty? How does the media address it, if at all, and how does this affect the way we view it? What language is used to describe poverty and how does this affect the way we percieve poverty? What logic or reason do we apply to the world poverty situation?
There are many TOK-related things we could explore, countless possibilities. Brad and I will be meeting before Friday to at least narrow down our area of focus, if not fully decide on a topic.
July 08, 2010
TOK Journal #11, Date of Writing: 01/06/10 - 08/07/2010, Topic: Do WE Have the RIGHT to Judge People?
I was thinking about a fight I had with someone I knew today. I got fairly angry at them, quite worked up about it and I formed an opinion on this person. I wished them less than plesent things, as you do when ya get pissed off at someone! But then I thought about what I knew, what I throught I knew, what I didn't know, what I couldn't know, my emotions and how they influenced my opinion....... and I thought. Do we, as humans, have the right to judge our fellow humans?
Opinions are formed so easily... it is quite often we formulate an opinion about someone based on very little knowledge - what they are wearing, for example, is a common basis for opinion. What they say is another. When I say opinons, I mean more judgements based on very little actual fact. We all do it, its just a question of weather or not we really have a right to do it.
I think it is the lack of fact - or at least the inevitible narrow scope of it - that is the real issue. We don't know everything that is going on in the heads and lives of anyone but ourselves, and some of us don't even know that much. We cannot judge a person as being 'good' or 'bad,' as being mentally 'healthy' or 'sick,' for example, with any degree of accuracy without knowing all of the background information relating to it, something that is virtually impossible to get from anyone else. On top of this, we also need to understand the state of mind or attitude of the person in question. It is simply impossible for anyone but that particular person to know all of these things, totally accuratly, at once. This is why we do not have the right to judge others.
In the bible, it is recorded that we as humans do not have the right to judge. All we should do is forgive, turn the other cheak and let God do the judging when that person dies and (apparently) goes to heven. I am not religous, but I see a seed of truth in that statement.
Opinions are formed so easily... it is quite often we formulate an opinion about someone based on very little knowledge - what they are wearing, for example, is a common basis for opinion. What they say is another. When I say opinons, I mean more judgements based on very little actual fact. We all do it, its just a question of weather or not we really have a right to do it.
I think it is the lack of fact - or at least the inevitible narrow scope of it - that is the real issue. We don't know everything that is going on in the heads and lives of anyone but ourselves, and some of us don't even know that much. We cannot judge a person as being 'good' or 'bad,' as being mentally 'healthy' or 'sick,' for example, with any degree of accuracy without knowing all of the background information relating to it, something that is virtually impossible to get from anyone else. On top of this, we also need to understand the state of mind or attitude of the person in question. It is simply impossible for anyone but that particular person to know all of these things, totally accuratly, at once. This is why we do not have the right to judge others.
In the bible, it is recorded that we as humans do not have the right to judge. All we should do is forgive, turn the other cheak and let God do the judging when that person dies and (apparently) goes to heven. I am not religous, but I see a seed of truth in that statement.
TOK Journal #10, Date of Writing: 08/07/10, Topic: Science, Knowledge and our imagination
"Science may set limits to knowledge, but should not set limits to our imagination." -unknown author.
RESPONSE TWO: There was once a point in time when science told us the earth was flat. It set limits, as such, to what Plato defined as justified true beliefs, to our knowledge, knowledge which by that very definition is particular to the individual. It was not until some courageous, imaginative fellow decided he didn't believe this, didn't think it was true and decided to try and 'sail over the edge' to justify his theory that the science was incorrect. Science may try to limit the knowledge of us as humans, but nothing can limit the imagination of the individual.
It has been said that no knowledge exsists without emotion... perhaps it can also be said that no knowledge exsists without imagination. If we are told that the nearest star to earth is 4 billion years away, we cannot go and look, go and measure the distance for ourselves (at least, most people can't!). It requires imagination to believe what we are told is fact as we have to justify it. I think this is something that deserves to be explored further in the future, so in 6 months or so time I will come back to this journal entry and create a new one detailing how my thoughts have developed over this time.
May 27, 2010
TOK Journal #9, Date of Writing: 27/05/10, Topic: How Far Can We Push Ourselves?
There has been much speculation about the capacities of the human mind, both about how much of our 'thinking power' we use and about how much of it is potentially avaliable. A controversal issue, much of this speculation explores areas directly related to TOK. Something important to note is that scientests have not been able to finally asess or mesure in any way the capacities of the human brain - the only concensus that has been even somewhat formed is that we, as humans, are not utilising the full potential power of our brains and therefore bodies.
The question I really want to ask, although I will not be able to answer it, is how far can we push ourselves? At what point does pushing our limits turn to going to far and serious physcological consequences? To answer this, I must first make an attempt to define my own limits and what I am capable of.
I have observed so far in my life that I always seem to be capable of achieving much more than I do. I get some marks back from a test or reflect on my performance in a sports match (when I have them, anyway) and I think 'hmmm... I believe I could have done better than that, with a little more effort, or a little more preperation..." It makes me wonder what I am truely capable of.
This year, as it so happens, I made a semi-concious decision to try and find out. I got involved, and still am involved, with more than a dozen extra-curricular activities, am doing the IB diploma and do as much as I can to challange myself. And yet... I still think I could do better. It is not so much that I do not have time, it is that I do not manage my time as well as I should. This leads me to believe that my mindset and attitude has a major piece to play in how successful I am in life, and subsequently how far I can push myself.
All of this ties in to an Emotional Intellegence test my TOK class took last week. It is claimed that EQ, in some cases regurdless of an individual's IQ, is an essential part to what is generally defined as sucess in life. Perhaps EQ is a mesure, to some degree, of not only a person's ability to solve emotional problems but also a mesure of a person's ability to use emotions (motivation, for example) to their advantage?...
Well anyway, back on track - this all relates to TOK because of the limited knowledge we have around this area, and the speculations around what knowledge we do have. Even using our perceptions and aids to those perceptions to their full potential does not reveal to us the secrets of the human mind at this stage, and this shows that however advanced we are as a race, we still have more advancing to do and the knowledge issues around this are numerous and complex.
Limits can be pushed. Boundries can be stretched, to what (we may think) is the max. But.... but perhaps we are capeable of much, much more.
March 16, 2010
TOK Journal #8, Date of Writing: 16/03/10, Topic: Education: A Privilage, or a Right?
I got thinking about education systems around the world, the way they are run and who gets to use them after something a friend said a little while ago and I thought: Does the human race have a right to learn? Or is education a privilage?
As a generalisation, LEDC's (less economically developed countries) have poorer quality education (if any at all!) than MEDC's (more economically developed countries). More than 1/2 of the worlds younger dependant population (under 15) have access to just a few basic years of education if anything at all, and less than 10% of children in LEDC's are secondary-school educated. Almost everyone in these LEDC's would consider education to be a privilage.
Compare that to MEDC's. Compare that to New Zealand. 99% of NZ children are high-school educated, and 100% of people have access to free secondary school education should they wish to take the oppertunity. In New Zealand, we consider our free education, to a secondary school level, an absolute right and anyone who tried to contradict that right would be shouted down without reserve.
So what is our education? A privilage or a right? It is my opinion that every human on this planet has the right to some decent degree of education, at least until junior secondary school and to a higher level if possible. However, education is also a privilage. Having the right to education is a privilage, being educated is a privilage. My reasons for thinking this, at first, did not go very deep; I simply adopted the POV of the rest of my country, my governent, and accepted that as true belief. However, at this point it was not quite knowledge - although it was true for me, and I believed it, it was not as justified as I believe is necessary.
My justification later came from my belief in human rights, human equality and equal oppertunity among the human race. Education for me personally is a right, but a privilage because it is a right. This is my knowledge. However, I also accept that this knowledge might change for other people, depending on their point of view and their situation and this entire topic and knowledge issue is something i would sincerly like to explore further.
As a generalisation, LEDC's (less economically developed countries) have poorer quality education (if any at all!) than MEDC's (more economically developed countries). More than 1/2 of the worlds younger dependant population (under 15) have access to just a few basic years of education if anything at all, and less than 10% of children in LEDC's are secondary-school educated. Almost everyone in these LEDC's would consider education to be a privilage.
Compare that to MEDC's. Compare that to New Zealand. 99% of NZ children are high-school educated, and 100% of people have access to free secondary school education should they wish to take the oppertunity. In New Zealand, we consider our free education, to a secondary school level, an absolute right and anyone who tried to contradict that right would be shouted down without reserve.
So what is our education? A privilage or a right? It is my opinion that every human on this planet has the right to some decent degree of education, at least until junior secondary school and to a higher level if possible. However, education is also a privilage. Having the right to education is a privilage, being educated is a privilage. My reasons for thinking this, at first, did not go very deep; I simply adopted the POV of the rest of my country, my governent, and accepted that as true belief. However, at this point it was not quite knowledge - although it was true for me, and I believed it, it was not as justified as I believe is necessary.
My justification later came from my belief in human rights, human equality and equal oppertunity among the human race. Education for me personally is a right, but a privilage because it is a right. This is my knowledge. However, I also accept that this knowledge might change for other people, depending on their point of view and their situation and this entire topic and knowledge issue is something i would sincerly like to explore further.
March 13, 2010
TOK Journal #7, Date of Writing: 13/03/10, Topic: Could You Sacrifice A Sense?
As a part of talking about our perception in TOK we have been asked to write an entry detailing which of our five senses, if any, we would be willing to sacrifice. I have been thinking about this for quite some time... which of my senses do I use the least? Which gives me the most pleasure? The least pleasure? Which ones do my survival most depend on?
Before I give my personal response to this question, I would like to elaborate on my thoughts about each of my senses.
Sight: Amongst the most well-used of my senses, makes me aware of my surroundings, helps me balance and therefore do most physical activities.
Sound: Enhances what I see, adds a second dimension to my sight.
Smell: Gives me an idea as to what or where something is without having to see, hear, taste or touch it, but also enhances taste.
Taste: Works together with smell, very sensitive, tells me what I have on my tongue and usually indicates if it is good to eat.
Touch: Makes things real, makes me aware of my physical self and other objects around me. Makes things real.
If I had to rate them based on how much I depend on them for survival, personally it would be 1) Touch, 2) Sight, 3) Sound, 4) Smell and 5) Taste.
If I had to rate my senses based on the pleasure and enhancement they bring to my life, the ranking would be as follows: 1) Touch, 2) Sound, 3) Sight, 4) Taste and 5) Smell.
What I am really trying to get across here is that I would never sacrifice my sense of touch, my sense of feeling. Without that sense, not only would I not be able to have touch or physical contact with the objects and people around me, I would most likely not have control over my basic bodily functions, rendering me effectively useless. Touch is not just essential for my survival, but also for my sanity.
The second part to this is the sense I would be most willing to sacrifice, and although it is close between smell and taste it would have to be my sense of smell. Although more useful than taste in many respects, it is amongst the least essential for basic survival and gives me the least pleasure of all my senses. Given the technologically developed society we live in, it would not be too much more difficult to get along without a sense of smell as opposed to taste, and I think this decision more came down to pleasure than chances of survival.
In conclusion, touch is undoubtedly the sense I would be least willing to lose and - although I would be very reluctant to give up any of my senses regardless of the situation (and I do realize that if I end up losing something I ain't going to get to choose what it is) - I would be most willing to give up my smell.
Before I give my personal response to this question, I would like to elaborate on my thoughts about each of my senses.
Sight: Amongst the most well-used of my senses, makes me aware of my surroundings, helps me balance and therefore do most physical activities.
Sound: Enhances what I see, adds a second dimension to my sight.
Smell: Gives me an idea as to what or where something is without having to see, hear, taste or touch it, but also enhances taste.
Taste: Works together with smell, very sensitive, tells me what I have on my tongue and usually indicates if it is good to eat.
Touch: Makes things real, makes me aware of my physical self and other objects around me. Makes things real.
If I had to rate them based on how much I depend on them for survival, personally it would be 1) Touch, 2) Sight, 3) Sound, 4) Smell and 5) Taste.
If I had to rate my senses based on the pleasure and enhancement they bring to my life, the ranking would be as follows: 1) Touch, 2) Sound, 3) Sight, 4) Taste and 5) Smell.
What I am really trying to get across here is that I would never sacrifice my sense of touch, my sense of feeling. Without that sense, not only would I not be able to have touch or physical contact with the objects and people around me, I would most likely not have control over my basic bodily functions, rendering me effectively useless. Touch is not just essential for my survival, but also for my sanity.
The second part to this is the sense I would be most willing to sacrifice, and although it is close between smell and taste it would have to be my sense of smell. Although more useful than taste in many respects, it is amongst the least essential for basic survival and gives me the least pleasure of all my senses. Given the technologically developed society we live in, it would not be too much more difficult to get along without a sense of smell as opposed to taste, and I think this decision more came down to pleasure than chances of survival.
In conclusion, touch is undoubtedly the sense I would be least willing to lose and - although I would be very reluctant to give up any of my senses regardless of the situation (and I do realize that if I end up losing something I ain't going to get to choose what it is) - I would be most willing to give up my smell.
TOK Journal #6, Date of Writing: 11/03/10, Topic: Science's Finest Hour
In a book called White Noise, by Don Delillo, there are some very relevant TOK questions asked. The extract we were asked to write upon details a conversation between father and son, in a car, about rain. The son argues with his father; how do we know it is rain? What tells us that this stuff falling around us is rain? How do we know? Because it is wet? But here in the car it is dry, this 'rain' is not getting us wet in here.... it goes on, but the main question being asked is how do we know? How do we know rain is rain?
A valid question by all means, but how do we go about answering a question such as this? In TOK, there are 5 primary ways of knowing, several of which are particularly valid here: past experience, logic, and perception. Our perception - our senses - tell us that the substance is falling from the sky, in what we call droplets, that it is wet, that it is cold etc. etc. Our logic tells us that it is falling from the sky because of gravity, because it is falling here in these conditions that I perceive and these conditions are the same over there the same stuff must also be happening etc. etc, and our past experiences tell us that - based on our perception and logic - this stuff is called rain. Can we be certain? Not really. Why not? Because our senses can fool us. Our logic can fail us. Our past experiances can be wrong or incorrectly recalled.
To conclude, I would like to reinforce that the question the child asks his father is very valid, and I would also like to point out that we really cannot be certain, cannot be certain that rain is rain. In fact, we cannot be certain of anything our senses tell us, anything our logic reasons out for us, anything we recall.... but we can be relatively certain, as certain as it is possible to be, and I guess that's just gonna have to be enough for me :)
A valid question by all means, but how do we go about answering a question such as this? In TOK, there are 5 primary ways of knowing, several of which are particularly valid here: past experience, logic, and perception. Our perception - our senses - tell us that the substance is falling from the sky, in what we call droplets, that it is wet, that it is cold etc. etc. Our logic tells us that it is falling from the sky because of gravity, because it is falling here in these conditions that I perceive and these conditions are the same over there the same stuff must also be happening etc. etc, and our past experiences tell us that - based on our perception and logic - this stuff is called rain. Can we be certain? Not really. Why not? Because our senses can fool us. Our logic can fail us. Our past experiances can be wrong or incorrectly recalled.
To conclude, I would like to reinforce that the question the child asks his father is very valid, and I would also like to point out that we really cannot be certain, cannot be certain that rain is rain. In fact, we cannot be certain of anything our senses tell us, anything our logic reasons out for us, anything we recall.... but we can be relatively certain, as certain as it is possible to be, and I guess that's just gonna have to be enough for me :)
March 03, 2010
TOK Journal #5, Date of Writing: 3/03/10, Topic: Artifical Intellegence
Machines. Machines, machines, machines.... they are always advancing, getting stronger, faster and deadlier while running cooler, getting smaller and becomeing cheaper to make. The thing is, when will our current rate of advancement stop? Each year, our computers get more powerful, our cellphones more capeable, our televisions higher quality... hell, even my toaster at home is more advanced then I can possibly have use for. I believe there is going to come a time in the near or distant future where our need for more power, our thirst for technological advancement, will be quenched - at least, quenched on a hardware level. But, what really makes a computer as amazing as it is? The speed of the processor, the amount of RAM it has.... or what we call the thing we use to interact with the hardware, the software?
This brings me to my main point - software. Software, software, soft- just kidding. But really, software is the way of the future because although our machines are powerful, fast, infinitly useful and even deadly... they still need a human to drive them, to use them. The next major step in this technologically developed society will NOT be a faster processor, more RAM, or whatever.... it will in fact be the creation of artifical intellegence. Despite the fact my toaster has 10 times the power of an entire computer from the 1980's (and it toasts stuff!), despite the fact the iphone is 100 times as powerful as my toaster, fits in my pocket (and is 1000x as genius, i'll admit), there is still the need for a human to drive it.
Artifical Intellegence is where we are headed. Soon enough, hopefully within my lifetime, my toaster will know when I want toast. It will know when I wake up, how long I spend in the shower (somewhat creepy I know, but just bear with me here), how well cooked I like my toast and have it ready for me as soon as I reach the kitchen table (sidenote: Chances are this will be another AI computer with a carbon footprint the size of Kentucky). And whatsmore, it will know all of this by itself.
Lookout, technologically imparired people! Lookout, for the future is on its way! Keep an eye on your toaster though, toast can be deadly.... :P
This brings me to my main point - software. Software, software, soft- just kidding. But really, software is the way of the future because although our machines are powerful, fast, infinitly useful and even deadly... they still need a human to drive them, to use them. The next major step in this technologically developed society will NOT be a faster processor, more RAM, or whatever.... it will in fact be the creation of artifical intellegence. Despite the fact my toaster has 10 times the power of an entire computer from the 1980's (and it toasts stuff!), despite the fact the iphone is 100 times as powerful as my toaster, fits in my pocket (and is 1000x as genius, i'll admit), there is still the need for a human to drive it.
Artifical Intellegence is where we are headed. Soon enough, hopefully within my lifetime, my toaster will know when I want toast. It will know when I wake up, how long I spend in the shower (somewhat creepy I know, but just bear with me here), how well cooked I like my toast and have it ready for me as soon as I reach the kitchen table (sidenote: Chances are this will be another AI computer with a carbon footprint the size of Kentucky). And whatsmore, it will know all of this by itself.
Lookout, technologically imparired people! Lookout, for the future is on its way! Keep an eye on your toaster though, toast can be deadly.... :P
February 23, 2010
TOK Journal #4, Date of Writing: 23/02/10, Topic: Student Democracy
I have been thinking on the general hierachy and structure of both the management and student bodies of St Peters School, and the more I think the more I believe there is an inbalance in the way student views are represented reletive to management opinions. The inbalance is due to one simple fact - the collective view and opinion of the student body as a whole is poorly represented, if at all.
What I am suggesting is the introduction of a management-student hierachy, a democracy - a system where everybody has a say at the very least. I have created a few preliminary sketches and diagrams around this, and will be following up the idea of a 'student council', as such, once I have put in a little more work and gone into more depth around the issue.
The question, as always at this point, is how does this relate to TOK? Management do not already have a student council in place, which means either they think they know what the general POV of the student body is or they do not believe this opinion will make a difference to their decisions within the school. I am going to assume that the first statement is correct (because, if it wasn't, quite frankly I would be very worried about the running of the school), and in that lies the question. How do we know what we know? More applicably, how do THEY know what they know? Something that will certainly be explored via further probing I am sure :)
What I am suggesting is the introduction of a management-student hierachy, a democracy - a system where everybody has a say at the very least. I have created a few preliminary sketches and diagrams around this, and will be following up the idea of a 'student council', as such, once I have put in a little more work and gone into more depth around the issue.
The question, as always at this point, is how does this relate to TOK? Management do not already have a student council in place, which means either they think they know what the general POV of the student body is or they do not believe this opinion will make a difference to their decisions within the school. I am going to assume that the first statement is correct (because, if it wasn't, quite frankly I would be very worried about the running of the school), and in that lies the question. How do we know what we know? More applicably, how do THEY know what they know? Something that will certainly be explored via further probing I am sure :)
February 14, 2010
TOK Journal #3, Date of Writing: 14/02/10, Topic: The Choice of Knowledge
A few days ago in TOK class, we watched the first 30 minutes or so of a movie called "The Matrix." Towards the end of this 30 minute segment, Neo (the main charcter) is offered a choice.
MORPHEUS: "This is your last chance. After this, there is no going back. You take the blue pill and the
story ends. You wake in your bed and you believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill.... and you stay in Wonderland. I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."
The choice Morpheus offers Neo boils down to this: knowing, or not knowing. I, personally, would chose the red pill - this is because it is in my nature, as a human, to both desire knowing and fear not knowing. Further, i believe that the vast majority of humans would make the same choice as myself, because, again, it is our nature to do so.
How does this relate to Epistemology? Morpheus is questioning the same thing TOK questions: how do we know what we know? I believe the answer is evident: we don't.
MORPHEUS: "This is your last chance. After this, there is no going back. You take the blue pill and the
story ends. You wake in your bed and you believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill.... and you stay in Wonderland. I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."
The choice Morpheus offers Neo boils down to this: knowing, or not knowing. I, personally, would chose the red pill - this is because it is in my nature, as a human, to both desire knowing and fear not knowing. Further, i believe that the vast majority of humans would make the same choice as myself, because, again, it is our nature to do so.
How does this relate to Epistemology? Morpheus is questioning the same thing TOK questions: how do we know what we know? I believe the answer is evident: we don't.
February 09, 2010
TOK Journal #2, Date of Writing: 7/02/10, Topic: More thoughts on "Who am I?"
I was talking to an older IB student (Zanian) today about the topic I wrote on yesterday after he read my journal entry, and he expressed some views that contradicted my own and that I think I might as well get down on paper.
Zanian suggested that we are not defined by our values and morale codes, but instead by our actions, and furthermore that our values and morales were almost tools to justify these actions. I think this is partially accurate, because it coincides with my view that our morales and values are intertwined with our actions, and that these two things have some effect on each other. However, I am unsure of which builds upon the other (for example, actions coming from morales or values or morales and values from actions).
Overall, however, I believe the situation now boils down to this: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Perhaps a third concept (other than being defined by our morales and values, or by our actions) is that perhaps we are defined by our attitudes. These attitudes result in actions, and therefore morales and values (or vice versa).
This has provided plenty of material already for me to explore over the next two years of TOK :)
Zanian suggested that we are not defined by our values and morale codes, but instead by our actions, and furthermore that our values and morales were almost tools to justify these actions. I think this is partially accurate, because it coincides with my view that our morales and values are intertwined with our actions, and that these two things have some effect on each other. However, I am unsure of which builds upon the other (for example, actions coming from morales or values or morales and values from actions).
Overall, however, I believe the situation now boils down to this: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Perhaps a third concept (other than being defined by our morales and values, or by our actions) is that perhaps we are defined by our attitudes. These attitudes result in actions, and therefore morales and values (or vice versa).
This has provided plenty of material already for me to explore over the next two years of TOK :)
TOK Journal #1, Date of Writing: 6/02/10, Topic: Who am I?
How do you define me? By my physical charcteristics, my religous beliefs, my academic ability? My taste in music, the subjects I like, my sporting ability? How about a combination of all of these things?
Saying my name is Justin, I am 16 and attend St Peters School, Cambridge just does not cut the mustard. This is because that information does not tell anyone anything about who i am as a person, does not provide any parameters by which to define me - all it gives them is a name by which to call me and a general profile with which to associate me.
I have been thinking on this topic a fair bit over the last few days, and my mind repeatedly thinks back to the words of a religous studies teacher (whoose name i forget) that my Religous Studies and an older IB class was lectured by last year. He structured an argument that concluded religon was in fact a set of values of some sort that a religous person would uphold. Everyone has values of some sort, a basic morale code to follow which effects our everyday lives and actions, and by my thinking go some distance toward defining who we are. So, am I defined by my values? My morale code?
Who I am, and how I define myself, is something I hope to explore over the next two years of Theory of Knowledge. Maybe I can go some distance towards answering some of the questions I have asked above!
Saying my name is Justin, I am 16 and attend St Peters School, Cambridge just does not cut the mustard. This is because that information does not tell anyone anything about who i am as a person, does not provide any parameters by which to define me - all it gives them is a name by which to call me and a general profile with which to associate me.
I have been thinking on this topic a fair bit over the last few days, and my mind repeatedly thinks back to the words of a religous studies teacher (whoose name i forget) that my Religous Studies and an older IB class was lectured by last year. He structured an argument that concluded religon was in fact a set of values of some sort that a religous person would uphold. Everyone has values of some sort, a basic morale code to follow which effects our everyday lives and actions, and by my thinking go some distance toward defining who we are. So, am I defined by my values? My morale code?
Who I am, and how I define myself, is something I hope to explore over the next two years of Theory of Knowledge. Maybe I can go some distance towards answering some of the questions I have asked above!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)