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 :)

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!