Definitions and Self-Control

First of all, way to go, Molly, for reading the posts AND the comments and taking the conversation in yet another direction! You mention tradition as what gives language its meaning. Consider some other sources... I had no idea what the term "integral" meant in math until my high school calculus teacher defined it for us. Thus, authority is one source for language meaning. Another is casual usage. The verb "text" did not exist until recently. And how did people know how to parse it? In other words, how did they know the past tense should be "texted?" There seems to be a combination of culture at work along with inherited rules of English grammar. We have made an accepted past tense of "text" through the common rule of adding the suffix "-ed." This is just the thing an toddler reared in an English-speaking environment does when he or she says, "They breaked my toy" instead of "They broke my toy." And the mere fact that "texted" seems acceptable whereas "breaked" does not suggests that even the rules are culturally derived, along with the definitions. Still another source of meaning is from literature. A long list of expressions have passed into the English language via Shakespeare and the King James version of the Bible.

Finally, I want to take the censorship thing in a different direction. Consider the power an individual's vocabulary develops when he or she refrains, for whatever reasons, from using certain words or even certain syntax. For many people, their grandmother is the one who is proper and decent. How shocking it would be to hear her say certain words! When we freely restrict ourselves, we not only add power to our words, but we stretch our range of expressions. There is a great story about a woman who challenged Winston Churchill for ending sentences with prepositions and told him he should not do so. He replied, "Madam, that is an imposition up with which I will not put." By choosing not to end his response with a preposition, he was forced to find another way to say what he wanted. As it turned out, this response was ludicrous in its syntax, which was Churchill's point all along.

Offensive Language/Çensorship

Why are words offensive??? I don't think we should be offended by any words because, like Mr. Perkins said, they're only consonants and letters. I don't think there's anything "morally wrong" with using "bad language"; however, I do believe that it is disrespectful depending on how sincere you are and who you are speaking to because of the TRADITION that makes the words offensive. My little sister used to sing the name game when she was younger, rhyming random words with "duck" or "sam", etc, screaming out obscenities in public places, totally unaware that she was delivering a drove of "bad words." We're TAUGHT that words are "bad", or in this case, disrespectful.  Words do not have any meaning by themselves; it is the context through the language as a whole, tradition, or association that gives them meaning.

Oh, and I completely agree with Kat. If the government told me not to say "I love you" or any other word, I'd say it at every opportunity I'd have to open my mouth. But to answer Mr. Perkin's question in the comment he left: for those who would still be scared to utter forbidden language, it would definitely make those three little words a lot more powerful. The reward for speaking out against the church when Roman Catholicism dominated Europe was death; obviously, the words "God isn't real" might have been pretttyyyyy powerful. Censorship could never be executed effectively, though. Some people just don't like the government telling them what to do, though--I guess I'm one of them.

Censorship??

I think that an increase in censorship would have an adverse effect upon the amount of foul language in books, music, on tv, etc....for some reason i feel like people tend to try and defy authority or purposefully go against set rules in an attempt to prove their independence...or as boys call it using testosterone-haha just KIDDING. but honestly, i feel like there is not even a proper authority to implement the censorship-perhaps a school could do it ( i mean there was-and is- a list of censored books not allowed in public schools--if it is still applicable to today, i am not sure...and as students, we lack many of our basic rights to free speech while in school) but at home or online, unless the government got completely involved, then there would be absolutely NO way to guarentee censorship of words. I mean, even if Orwell's 1984 society could exist with complete governmental control, I think that people would still find a way to get around the laws.

fading meaning

I was just thinking about the discussion at the end of Tuesday's lesson about the overuse of certain words making them lose their meaning. I got to thinking that a big contributor to that loss is songs. Artists these days are using (I guess you could call it) "profane language" to not only convey their message in the lyrics but I guess intensify their emotions. I've noticed that more and more songs are being labeled "EXPLICIT" in the more popular songs. We're noticing these words less and less. There was a time when people would have never thought using these words in songs and I'm assuming, in some cases, their song may have been banned from production. I think the process of the word losing their meaning is definetly coming into effect. Not only profanity but also words that used to have a much deeper meaning. Take the phrase: "I love you". What does love really mean now as when someone says "Oh I love him", does that mean I love love him as in deep, passionate, head-over-heels love? Or is it the I-love-him-so-much-he's-like-my-brother kind of love? I think it's not only the meaning is becoming weaker but also more ambiguous. In addition, our society is becoming more ignorant and not really listening to what's being said so they either don't notice it or just don't care.

To expand on Yilun

There are definitely some distinctions in the effect and "power" between languages, for example lets consider the language of LATIN and English. You may say to yourself right now, "Latin is dead, what is so good about it," but i would have to contradict you, I would have to say that Latin provides more description, precision, and accuracy when it comes to describing an object. This is so important because one major point of language is to communicate to another the full entirety of an object, which is more difficult when using mere English.
Look at science for example, all the specie names of all organisms are recorded in the Latin language. This is not for the purpose to create another medium of some obscure knowledge, but instead it presents more background on the object being describe, it sometimes reveals past thoughts or beliefs, chemical makeup, and most importantly physical descriptions that you just can't get from the English name.
For example, the plant Cat's Claw, what does that mean?, does it mean that the plant is a cat's claw bearing plant, now lets look at the Latin name for Cat's Claw, Uncaria tomentosa, with this Latin name you can derive that the plant is hook like and that some part of of it is woolly or fuzzy like, in this case the leaves. This definition and description could be no way, no how received, when all you get is "Cat's Claw," forcing you to do more research than you would have to when you get the Latin name. What im saying is that some languages provide a reduction in obscurity than other languages, that some languages provide more than others.

Languages

Just to answer Mr. Perkins' question in class today, if one language is better than another. In my opinion, major languages such as English, Chinese, French, Spanish... are about the same level. These languages have been spoken and translated by many different races. Through learning and understanding other languages, countries can perfect and develop their own language. Chinese words like Fengshui has also become an English word. After chocolate was introduced in China, they kept the word with a similar pronunciation (Chinese: chao ke li). Americans and Chinese developed and perfected their language by learning from each other. Japanese is basically a combination of Chinese (kanji), English (katakana) and Japanese (hiragana). Kanji are Chinese characters and katakana follows the English pronunciation. Before the Japanese create their own writings, they learned Chinese and began to write in kanji. Then they wanted to create their own language, which is the hiragana. When the English speaking countries began to grow more powerful, many new western ideas were introduced to Japan, so they added the katakana. Japanese is a perfect example of languages learning and developing from each others.

Not all languages are at the same level. Some languages are better than others. Celeste Biever's research describes the language of a Brazilian tribe. Their language, Pirahã, contains only “one, two, many” for numbers. Two is highest number they can count, the rest: 3~infinite, are simply categorized as many. Even though the Brazilian tribe does not often need to count, their language is inferior than most languages. The limit of their language also limits their thoughts. People from the Pirahã tribe can hardly tell the different between 4 things in a row and 5 things in a row. They get more confused as the numbers grow. If the Pirahã tribe made connections to major languages such as English, they might be able to develop their language.

For more detail, here is the link http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6303.html

Tying Up Ends (or, The Making of a Gordian Knot)

In the last few student posts an idea has been floated that there is no absolute or objective reality, or that if there is, it really does not matter as long as there is intra-personal constancy of perception and inter-personal constancy of communication. There was also the introduction of the wonderful phrasing "looks-p" and "is-e." If there is no absolute or objective reality, or if it does not matter, then there seems to be no point in talking about "is-e." The character of Socrates in Plato's dialogue Theaetetus drew, albeit insincerely, on the doctrine of Protagoras that "man is the measure of all things, alike of the things that are that they are and of the things that are not that they are not" to suggest omitting the verb "to be" altogether and replacing it with "to become." Thus we would not say, "The book is red," but "The book is becoming red."

And yet no one communicates or thinks this way. We say that the book is red, that murder is wrong, and that our love for one's family just is, that it exists. In fact, all of our declarative statements and even our questions are grounded in an assumption of absolute, objective reality (that is, right up to the point where we want to invoke a relativistic viewpoint in a discussion of some thorny topic like ethics, politics, or religion.) When the teacher asks, "Why were you late," neither the student nor teacher thinks that the question or the answer are about an individual's perception of reality, no matter how constant that perception may be.

So let us assume for a moment that there is an absolute, objective reality, one that can be described "is-e." Is there not a sense in which many, perhaps most, people want looks-p to be the case to be the same as what is-e the case? In other words, don't most people want and even believe that their perceptions and objective reality more or less agree? In the movie The Matrix, Neo is disappointed when he looks at a restaurant where he used to eat, only to realize that it is an illusion. By the same token, we despise the character Cypher because he chooses the false world of perception over the less pleasant but real world.

So, are our thoughts and language about absolute reality just a pointless bit of mental flotsam? Does our ability to conceive of and talk about absolute reality serve no more purpose than our ability to talk of unicorns? Or is it possible that our deepest assumptions in everyday life correspond to the fact of absolute reality? If so, could the pursuit of knowledge not be seen as the ongoing effort to square what looks-p with what is-e?

LTP Paper Guidelines

Here is what you need to know for the paper that is due November 29:

You are a scholar of some renown, known for your work in Language, Thought, and Perception. Recently it occurred to you, "If I could but devise a way to capture my three most important generalizations about language, thought, and perception in some visual way, so as to make them intelligible to a wider audience, I could attract governmental, philanthropic, and academic attention and secure funding for further research." You have worked hard to produce your visual symbol of your three generalizations, and now you must present your visual by describing it in a paper to be delivered to a public audience.

Your visual symbol, picture, or diagram must have

1. a title
2. all its parts labeled

Your paper must:

1. explain the symbol, picture, or diagram
2. explain your three generalizations in language, thought, and perception

More on Darmok

For those who are curious about what was actually being said in the Star Trek episode "Darmok," check out this Word document, which contains info from the Web:

http://nclatin.org/documents/Darmok%20On%20the%20Net.doc

There is also further discussion in this document that could prompt discussion on the blog.

Some New Terminology

In order to help us to be concise and clear, I'm suggesting some new terminology.
To describe how something is perceived, in the MOST RAW sense, we will discuss how it phenomenologically is perceived; for example if something looks phenomenologically (now on known as "looks-p") small, it could be either a toy car or a car in the distance. Saying that something looks-p small is not claiming that the observer's perceptual experience supports the judgment that the object really is small.
To describe how something really is, in an objective sense (and don't give me crap about 'no objective reality', it's beside the point), we will discuss how it epistemologically is perceived; for example if something is-e small, then it really is small, in objective reality. Saying that something is-e small is a claim that the object is in reality small.
Hopefully this language facilitates discussion and avoids miscommunication.

In Regards to Knowing

Throughout the posted blogs and the during TOK class the subject of analyzing if we really know anything has come to play. I doubt any one person can be absolutely right, but should we not take into consideration the definition for knowing. I do realize that this question has been evaluated on the blog before, but that was at the beginning of the semester and now we have more knowledge to base our opinions.
We now understand that our senses are our only means of knowing and that those senses cannot be trusted.
We understand the need for faith, underlined in every way of knowing, but so far we have not incorporated this new way of thinking into the definition of knowledge.
If we believe that our senses are the only way of knowing the world and that our own unique perception guides our senses then we must also believe that our perception is the only way to know the world.
This perception is the only form of knowing we have. It is as true to you as the ten fingers on your hand (hopefully!).
Although what you perceive maybe radically different from the person sitting next to you in class, it is still your reality and your knowledge of that reality.
You could also have the opinion that what you perceive as reality is not in fact the universal reality, but do we really live in a universal reality were there is only one absolute truth? I don't believe we do (but maybe in your our reality you do). We do exist with other people so we have adjusted to a life by simplifying language, inferring, presuming, and assuming what may not have been said; we do this with the deliberate intention of making life easier, simplifying first and fixing the misunderstanding in communication rather than being specific to the point where one simple sentence can take a minute to say. For example, John walked to the store, can become John at two o'clock in Chicago time on the eleventh of August in 2007 walked on concrete paved at twelve noon in Chicago time on the tenth of September of 2000 at two o'clock in Chicago time on the eleventh of August in 2007 to the store at two o'clock in Chicago time on the eleventh of August in 2007. Was all of that really necessary? Not really, so in most human languages it is unnecessary and rarely ever used.
Anyway, what I really want to get across it that we do know something, not everything, but something and that should always be kept in mind.

Addressing Ben Tucker's "Futility and (keep reading) Relative Perceptual Accuracy":

Although I agree for the most part with your statements about the lack of practical application for a discussion of an "objective reality" I somewhat disagree with your separation between internal and external perceptions such a sight. For instance, you mentioned the "position and velocity" as being external perceptions while "color" was labeled as being internal. My question for you is: do you make a distinction when an "internal" perception influences an "external" decision? For example: if you are sitting at a stop light and your relative internal perception conveys to your senses that the light is green. And based on your associations with a green light, you push down on the accelerator and drive out into the crowded intersection....only to realize that the light really isn't green (at least no one else perceived it internally as being green!) so your flawed internal perception led to a costly external reaction...(a car accident). How would you explain your idea that "concerning internal perceptions, relative accuracy is the only thing that matters" to the owner of the Lexus you just hit?

Senses are the closest to Truth

We've been talking about senses for a while now. I admit that our senses are not perfect, but I do not agree with people who claim that we know nothing. We might not know everything, but we do know ALOT! Just because things like illusion and hallucination occur, doesn't mean that we don't know anything. Just because we got one math problem wrong, doesn't mean we don't know math at all. Illusion happens very rare compare to our normal perceptions. Most of the time, we won't call a cow a horse. Also, we have many (5,6?) senses for a reason! During Ali's group's presentation, we listened to some different sounds, and people made different guesses. Even though our ears did not tell us exactly what those things are, in reality, our eyes will tell us. When i hear something ringing, i might not know what it is, but if i follow the noise, I'll find out if it's the alarm or cell phone. We can also train our senses. We might not be able to smell our way home like salmons; we might not be able to see the floor from the sky like eagles. But that doesn't matter. Human and animals and plants evolve to adapt to the environment. We can't do certain things because we don't need to. We don't have to use our nose to get home, we can remember it. We don't have to see from that high, we can use a telescope. If we really need to, then just like a professional tea taster, we can train our senses and maybe evolve. And who cares if we are only brains in a laboratory? What we see, smell, taste, feel and hear are the only reality for us. I understand there are people who are (for example) color blind. How do we know if that's not what reality is? Maybe they are the only normal ones and the rest are all color blinded. But it doesn't matter! The society depends on the majority of people. If all people say it's red, then it's red! It's like a vote. If everyone vote for Roger, but Jon is (in reality) a much better person. We can't just screw everyone else and make Jon the president!

We Do Know

In response to a comment by IBBUTTERFLI4LIFE, "DO WE REALLY KNOW ANYTHING?The answer is simple. No, we do not. We know absolutely nothing about anything," I want to make a separate post.

We must be careful that discussions of problems of knowledge do not lead to the conclusion that nothing can be known or that there is no truth. Here a bit of specificity is important. We must talk about degrees of certainty, rather than some binary state of knowing or not knowing. I am completely comfortable saying, and believe I am truthfully saying, that I know my car is in the parking lot, I know 2+2=4, and I know I love my children. Yet I know all these things with different degrees of certainty relative to the ways of knowing I have used. Would I stake the life of my children on my knowledge that my car is in the parking lot? Absolutely not. I am aware of the problems of knowledge that experience, which is the method I use to know that my car is there, can produce. Just because it was there yesterday, and every day that I have taught at NC, does not mean it will be there this afternoon. I am reasonably certain it is...certain enough to say confidently "My car is the parking lot," certain enough not to feel anxiety as I leave the building this afternoon, but not certain enough to risk the lives of my children on this knowledge.

Response to the Role of Lies/ Humbug

In offering knowledge, it think that lying and humbug play a detrimental role. Lying is the worse of the two, I think, because the liar is at least partially knowledgeable about the subject at hand; otherwise he would not be capable of creating a complete inaccuracy, in which case he would be spewing humbug. (It is true, of course, that someone who has no knowledge of a subject can give a compete inaccuracy when speaking of it, but rather unlikely). The liar must have a specific purpose for creating falsities. Generally, this purpose is to deceive (either in what is viewed as a malicious or a helpful way). Therefore, the liar is knowingly offering incorrect knowledge. This is detrimental to any issue of knowledge because a discussion can not develop unless there is active and ethical (trustworthy) participation. He who 'humbugs' should be viewed in a less intense light because he is not specifically trying to harm anyone, but only advance his own purpose or protect himself from consequences. It is generally clear, however, when something is a load of b.s. because, unless the culprit is a highly trained expert, the ideas of the argument will not connect and thus there will be no coherence. For the person who is seeking knowledge, it should be reasonably clear whether or not the informant is honest or just b.s'ing. Furthermore, it is the knowledge-seeker's responsibility to not openly accept the information of an unknown (or known!) individual, but to search for expert opinions or findings that support his claim.

Man really is the one and only Measure

Throughout the last 3 presentations during TOK, one idea has remained the key and constant, and that is that our senses/perceptions are the basis for all we know. Whether it be called sense datum, perception, hearing-as, or seeing-as, whether it be based off of a belief, convention, or a name previously given, we humans have taken a step beyond the cold, hard reality-to make our lives simpler. We HAVE ignored extra possibilities and we HAVE skipped the tedious listing of all plausible instances. We have done this, because none of that matters! Today, when the group showed the ladder of categories, referring to the farmer and Elsie and Bessie the cows, it was crystal clear that generalizations were being made. Bessie was being categorized as a cow, and then an animal, then an asset, then wealth. (that's probably not completely accurate, sorry!) If, later, the farmer refers to his cow as his asset, he has skipped a few necessary levels of categorizing.
BUT here is the key: the number of conflicts that actually arise from a lack of categorization explanation, I assure you, is fewer than the number that would arise if everybody was forced to review each and every level of categorization of any one thing before actually referring to that thing.
Yes, when we humans make inferences, name things, or even just believe things, we are skipping steps, steps, and more steps. We are assuming, presuming, inferring, and referring back to our own faulty beliefs, which were based on even more faulty assumptions. And, all of a sudden, we seem to be living in a world that we actually know NOTHING about! How can we do this?; how can we live, day by day, year by year, just being A-OK with all the faulty/lack of reasoning around us??? DO WE REALLY KNOW ANYTHING?
The answer is simple. No, we do not. We know absolutely nothing about anything. And here is where you pick your path: you can trust the world your fellow human-beings have created, pleasantly questioning your own existence every so often, recognizing the faults of the human's perception, yet staying at least semi-content with the way of the world. Or, you can get rid of every last scrap of knowledge you possess, burn all your books, abandon your house, go find a tree, scrap your clothes (how do you really even know that they are clothes???), and start at the beginning, observing life through the eyes (whoops! that's a sense!) of someone void of all emotion, personality, all senses, etc.
In further reading of Abel's, "Matn is the Measure," we will most likely read about more problems of knowledge in our world. And rather than test out each new theory, each new exposure of humanity's faults, we can recognize and understand that we human's are not perfect. Any further hypothesizing and "what-if"fing" is an unnecessary use of time and energy that could be used trying to advance the world we have created, faulty or not.
so, I guess if you want one sentence for that, "ya gotta trust, or you're bust!"

Futility and (keep reading) Relative Perceptual Accuracy

We lost some class time today. It simply vanished, was sucked into the abyss. That abyss was the isolated pit of futile theorizing. This pit sucks you in through brain-in-a-vat scenarios and personally created realities and once you're in, it's hard to get out. It's isolated because it seems to have no practical application, so no connection to our lives. It's the pinnacle of perverse examples and counterexamples that seem to exist only in philosophical discussion and not in daily life. Basically, it's a maelstrom out of which nothing constructive may emerge. Pretentious diction and crappy metaphors aside, it's a waste of time.
When we cross the line from language, thought, and perception into "how do we know that we know that we know that we know that we know", no good can come of it. So, getting back to where we should have been - if our perception is always wrong, and our perception is the closest we can come to reality, then we can never know reality. I use the term reality with the assumption that we are not brains in vats but rather that we are brains in environments that are, more or less, what we think they [environments] are.
Yet despite that fact that we don't experience reality directly, (it's masked by our flawed perceptions and corrupted by interpretations from prior knowledge), we seem to do pretty well moving about the world. For instance, I don't know that what I see as red is the real color of an object. Given some "objective reality", I don't even know if the object has color in any way that we understand the concept - but it doesn't matter. It's not important that my perception is "accurate", but rather that it's constant. I'll do a pretty good job identifying colors on a test as long what I perceive as red doesn't change to green; as long as how I experience depth and distance stays the same as it's been for my life so far, I think I can do pretty well not getting hit by a car and picking objects up off of tables. Therefore, the concept of objective accuracy of perception is irrelevant. There is such a vast amount that we can't be very sure about, let alone know, that we can't go by comparing what we perceive to what is supposed to really be there.
So given that objective accuracy is irrelevant we've got to find something about perceptual accuracy that is relevant. Ladies and gentlemen, behold relative accuracy. My perception in relation to an objective reality doesn't matter as long as my perception is constant relative to itself. Rather than be sucked into the abyss of objective perception, brain-in-a-vat, and electrical manifestation, let's stick to something that matters- relative perceptual accuracy.
Edit: So I realized something- my statements about relative perceptual accuracy are only right for internal things like color perception. It DOES matter if my relative perception doesn't line up with objective reality in some (many) external cases- even if I always perceive depth and distance a certain way, my mode of perception could be inaccurate in such a way that I perceive a car as far away with constant and accurate relative perception, but such that the car is, in an objective sense, about to hit me. Point is, even though my sight met my qualifications for relative perceptual accuracy, it wasn't right objectively, and the car hit me [How's that for practical application]. Therefore, revised with this in mind: Given that my perception's inaccuracies with respect to my objective environment are either slight or internal [I could be wrong with my perception of distance by a small portion of the distance, and my perception of color might not be the objective color], my perception is good enough.
-OR-
Split perception up into internal and external [internal is something like color and external is something like position and velocity]. Concerning internal perceptions, relative accuracy is the only thing that matters. Concerning external perceptions, relative accuracy is good enough with the assumption that the inaccuracies of senses are slight enough to not make a difference.

Knowledge through senses?

I just have a further example to add to today's topic of whether or not one can gain knowledge through one's senses. There is an illusion I found online a few weeks back that claims to be visually arbitrary--that is, one person sees it one way, another sees it another way, but not both. We've all seen this in optical illusions, but this illusion was different: it differed from person to person in its direction of rotation! I looked at it quite skeptically at first. It is the figure of a woman rotating clockwise. It was undoubtedly clockwise; there was no question in my mind about its rotation. My friend came in after I had watched it a few moments and said "That's a silly illusion; there's no question about the way it's spinning. Counter-clockwise." I was absolutely shocked. We tried for a while fruitlessly to convince eachother that the figure was spinning the opposite direction. We each had this firm "knowledge"--but neither of us was either right or wrong. After watching it a while, I was surprised when I actually witnessed the figure change rotational direction. One can actually force their visual system to reconstruct the image. This fits in very nicely with today's discussion; what I witnessed when viewing the figure wasn't true knowledge at all, though I was convinced that it was. My senses gave me knowledge that was neither true nor false; the figure may rotate either way. Then again, this rotation is constructed from simply alternating images and is not rotating at all, so perhaps the interpretation was indeed false. Either way, my senses did not lead me to absolute knowledge, which leads me to wonder: If my senses can mislead me in such a trivial fashion, do they mislead me in much larger ways every day? I now see that as an entirely plausible idea. And if anyone wants to try the illusion, here's a link, along with a great article about it: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=27 (I suppose as a warning, it is indeed the figure of a woman. Not graphic but a bit detailed.)

Key for TOK Writing

A key feature in writing for TOK, both on exams and in the paper you will write your senior year, is the counterclaim. You must increasingly develop an awareness of and ability to deal with counterclaims to a thesis you are advancing. I was put in mind of this when I read the following wonderful statement by Steven Pinker, the Harvard linguist and author of The Stuff of Thought.

Not only is it a matter of fairness to acknowledge alternatives to the theory I am advancing; it's a matter of clarity and discovery. Much can be gained by contrasting a theory with its alternatives.... (The Stuff of Thought, p. 91)

Show me that you have read this by having it displayed in some big, bold, even permanent way in or on your TOK notebook.

LIES BUILD KNOWLEDGE!!!

I believe lies have many shapes and definitions. There are lies that are for deceptive purposes, and there are lies that are not deceptive but rather are more like arrows pointing to another source of knowledge. Lying for deceptive purposes have moral and ethical concerns, but what if you lie for reasons that are not deceptive, what if you're lying to preserve a secret, that actually might devastate another person in ways irretrievable if spoken truthfully? What if your lie aid another person through ways that cannot be attained through telling the mere truth? Does that make lying wrong? I DON'T THINK SO.....

Lying can be an outlet for keeping secrets that would hurt another and point others to a safe haven that is intangible through telling the truth; when i was a child, i had multiple pets, and as animals, they all share one thing in common, mortality---. When that moment came, that moment that they died, my parents would come up with a lie to soothe and comfort me in ways the truth would never had matched up to.

Think back to when you were i don't know 5, and you got this new dog, would you not feel devastated if you learned that your dear companion died. Parents cover up these devastations with lies not for the purpose to poke at and make fun of your emotions, they do this to preserve your health and well being, for most children in the early years of youth death is not always something that is easily comprehended, its in the child's best interest that these problems are locked up and prevented when necessary, and if necessary brought up when the child have developed some sort of more complex and helpful coping mechanism to get through times as such, if you deny this fact, just imagine yourself stepping into the shoes of a parent, and have to explained to little Suzie why Lassie died yesterday by a drunk driver in the middle of the night.

Another way Lies can lead to knowledge is that, when you do lie, you really can't stop theoretically and truthfully speaking. If you think about it, one lie becomes another, since you need another lie to prevent the discovery of the truth, as these lies pile up higher and higher,they would eventually have to fall over and crush you, forcing knowledge that you have held inside so long to ooze out, it is now possible to say that lies do have many sides, a side of deception, a side that takes over when truth just would not have sufficed, and a side that brings about knowledge that cannot be attained through any other ways.

On Lying and Humbug

I want to offer two areas of language use for your consideration: lying and humbug, the latter being a synonym for the concept more typically expressed in American slang with barnyard metaphor relating to bovine excrement. I trust that your vocabulary will allow you to decipher my circumlocution.

It is considered lying when I know that the amount of money in my pocket is $22.45, yet I tell you I have no money. It is considered humbug when I tell you that Sally has put your check in the mail, yet I have no knowledge of whether or not she has done so. According to Princeton professor emeritus of philosophy Harry Frankfurt, "It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth - this indifference to how things really are - that I regard as the essence of [humbug]."

What is the role of lying and what is the role of humbug in gaining or offering knowledge? What issues regarding truth are you led to consider by exploring these two distinct uses of language?

Situations of sensory knowledge

I wanted to see if the made up story below is a good example of a perceptual knowledge shortcoming and then strengthening of sensory knowledge.

Big Bobby gets his driver's license, hops in his car, and drives off on to the cluttered roads of Indianapolis. Happy as can be, he drives along (pretty quickly) with other traffic, avoiding the cars he can see around him. He keeps driving until he no longer has traffic around him to worry about. He approaches a blinking red/yellow stoplight with trees all around, proceeds to go into the intersection, and SMACK!!, Big Bobby gets hit by another car...

Why in the world did he get hit? Poor, hospitalized Bobby is colorblind (a special red/yellow case) and he could not tell the color of the light. He later learned that he could have known because the red light is on top and the yellow light is in the middle. Does using the Driver's Manual pictures count as a way to strengthen his sensory knowledge? or is this knowledge not relevant to the visual sensory knowledge being strengthened. Experience could be said to be the mean by which he learned his lesson, but does that tie into strengthening sensory knowledge as well. I think that Driver's Manual is the "strengthener" because, even though he hasn't fixed his colorblind problem, he knows the patterns and regulations on the stoplights set by other people so that he will not have another accident.

I also wanted to talk about the topic people were talking about at the end of class about if emotion is a way of knowing. Certainly humans develop emotions by the perceptions of our senses. But what about if there was a matured human who was sheltered from any sort of society, and was then suddenly placed into fierce combat. What would the reactions of the human be?

Gunshots (audio), wounded people (visual), immense vibrations (tactile), smoke (smell), all of these are occurrences that we can detect, but what about the human in the experiment? The human starts hiding, hands over head, looking around crazed. Where did it learn fear? I think that humans are hosts of these complicated mental phenomenon naturally, no matter what. However, our mind could experience these things so quickly that all of the phenomena are pieced together so amazingly that humans actually develop emotions subconsciously. There are always more than one possibilities for this subject. I view emotion as a natural reaction, from our senses, but not as a method of gaining knowledge.

WHAT IS EMOTION, ANYWAYS?

To answer if emotion is another way of knowing, I think the bigger question is what is emotion and how does it affect us? Is emotion relative? Do we learn emotions from others? Many churches teach us that EVERYONE has a conscience. But a terrorist may not (and probably doesn't) feel guilty about killing thousands of innocent people. I, on the other hand, would. The terrorist grew up in different surroundings and had different influences. Maybe these surroundings and influences suppressed his conscience. Therefore, reason and thinking would be above our conscience, above our "instinctive" feelings of guilt, or happiness, or anger. I don't think science even knows what emotion truly is; it IS what makes us human, and it comes from a certain part of the brain, but do nerves and cells simply control these emotions, or is it something deeper than cells and atoms?! This topic is hard--to say whether emotions are another way of knowing besides the senses, we have to know what emotions are----are they relative or not? Do we feel guilty after doing wrong because we were brought up that way, or is it something we're born with, written in our genes? My little sister cried when she was three and watching lion king for the first time. She had never experienced death and sadness, yet she was extremely upset...emotion must not be completely relative.
Emotions are obviously connected with memory--there was a research article in the Harvard magazine about why we remember random things from when we were 5, but we can't remember where we put our keys 20 minutes ago. If a memory is connected with a strong emotion, such as the fear on your first day of first grade, you can remember EVERYTHING about that day. I was 5 years old when i saw my grandma for the last time, but I remember every single detail of that 15-minute point in time. Emotions are obviously important to knowledge-but where do they originate???? That's the question I believe we have to answer before answering Mr. Perkin's question.

Senses

addressing the question asked in class today about whether knowledge can be obtained through sources other than senses, i do not believe it can. The example given by ms. libby and mr. perkins were emotional ways of knowing or spiritual ways of knowing. Many people such as this would argue that based on how they feel towards a situation(their emotion) they can "know" something or have "knowledge" of something, however this is not necessarily true. The emotion of a situation is just a result of how one may interpret the senses they have used to obtain the knowledge. In other words, the emotions sparked from an event just clarify the knowledge already obtained from the senses. For example, if a child is playing a video game that involves crime and he goes around shooting everyone in the game because thats what he must do to win, and he feels no mercy for the people on the game. why? because he has no emotional connection, however if a man shot a real person in front of this child would the child then have mercy for the dead man? of coarse he would because he saw them die and heard them after being shot. The emotion the child feels is clarification that his senses are correct, that the man is dieing or dead. Therefore emotion is not a way of obtaining knowledge, but can legitimately be used to clarify it.

the other example given was faith. A person cannot know about a faith without acquiring some kind of knowledge from ear or sight beforehand. For example, many people go on mission trips to see what needs to be done in the world or to "connect" with god. It gives them a realization based from the senses they used to understand it. Then one might ask, how do people in isolated parts of the world "know" about religion, and it can be understood that they find their god or a Christian god through other aspects of life such as nature, and feelings they encounter with other people. How do these people acquire knowledge of these feelings that lead to faith? They sense them, they see the beauty god put on earth, they might hear stories, or feel something that man could not alone have made. The emotions people have from these senses or phenomena clarify their faith.

The basis for knowing is acquiring knowledge from the senses, then interpreting what these senses have given you, then clarifying that the interpretation is true. Is emotion a base for obtaining knowledge? no, it is just one aspect that derives from the basis of your senses.

valid or invalid?

In response to today's question about how can you tell why an argument is valid or not I think distribution is key. If you look at the examples today, you can see that all the valid arguments have corresponding distributions in the premisses and the conclusion. For example,

No animals are plants.
Some animals are bugs.
Therefore some bugs are not plants.

Although untrue, this statement is valid. It's mood is EIO and has a format of 3. In the first premise, plants is distributed and in the second premise, bugs is undistributed. Looking at the conclusion, you can see that bugs is once again undistributed whereas plants remains distributed. To make a syllogism valid, the distributions must correspond between the premisses and the conclusion or it won't make sense. In the first syllogism you can't refer to all of one group and then deduce something refering to only some of that group in the conclusion. If that is done, the argument is involving different numbers from groups confusing and wrongly concluding an issue. From the saying we hear everyday: "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." This is a perfect example. In some cases, when the word order is changed, the syllogism loses its validity, even if it is the truth.

Identity

To identity an object is to rationalize the existing of that object, if this object has these features than it is that object, however, the argument that there are an infinite amount of features to idenify an object is irrelevent because we automatically include ALL the traits/features when identifying an object. however the law of identity comes into question when adjectives are used. A clump of salt for example. Although the salt has several features and therefore we could say it is this, the 'is' is pretty doubtable because it is not one of its properties or multiple properties....oh! and if theres any spelling errors or this doesnt make sense.... its 11:30 so i think its understandable

A is A

This is all a matter of specifics. Obviously, an apple is an apple, a dog a dog, and a clothespin a clothespin. A is A. But when we begin to talk about the attributes of these objects, things change. If we are classifying an object by a certain amount of characteristics it has, such as its color, shape, or weight, questions arise. There are many objects on this earth that contain similar and same characteristics. Obviously, a orange marker is semi-cylindrical and orange, but so is a carrot. I think Identity should mean EVERY characteristic of the object, containing every detail that the thing possesses. (we, as humans, will probably never be able to list all these out, but that's not the point) If identity is any more generalized than that, discrepancies will arise and two things will have similar traits. With this definition of Identity in mind, I think there can be no questions or arguments about Aristotle's rule.
t***~~~this is laurellllll by the way!!!~~~***

still iffy....!

I still think anyone could obnoxiously come up with an object that contains all the same parts as, say, that magic marker. Then this object would still contain all the parts of "P", but would not, in fact, be "P." I am by no means condoning or encouraging this practice, I am merely stating that it is possible. Then I read Molly's post, and that all makes sense, too, so I am still unsure as to what I think, but I had to post because I haven't yet, and when I do figure out what I REALLY think I'll let y'all know!

Aristotle's Principle

I read through Molly's post and I definitely agree with the points made. I would also like to add that it is not only the material composition of an object that define it but it is also the structure of an object. I was reading a book on philosophers by Bryan Magee and there is a very good example in the book.
"If you commissioned a builder to build a house on your land, and his trucks unloaded on to the site the bricks, the tiles, the wood and so on, and he said to you: 'Here you are, here's your house,' you would think it must be a joke, and a bad one. There would be all the constituent materials of a house, but it would not be a house at all- just a hiddledy-piggledy heap of bricks and so on. To be a house, everything would need to be put together in certain ways, with a very specific and detailed structure, and it would be by virtue of that structure that it was a house."

...so relating to the blue marker Mr. Perkins used as an example last Thursday, something might have all the parts of that blue dry-erase marker, but it may not be that marker at all. I believe that the structure must be stated before an assumption may be made.

response to 1st columbus question

Every building has their own function. House for living, church for religion, school for learning... Throughout history, people decorate only important buildings. The kings or queens always have the most magnificent buildings because of their superior positions. The reason most prisons are plain and undecorated is because prisoners are generally disrespected. But nowadays, buildings are decorated to beautify the society. Everyone wants their own house to be pretty. Function is important but aesthetic is also important today. Most people want to visit a beautiful country or town instead of a plain one. Prison is still one part of a city. The exterior of a prison is important to the society as a whole. The society and culture today made aesthetics as important as functions. Architectures are like commercials. Instead of stating the facts about a product, people tend to make the commercial artistic and interesting. The aesthetic side of something is more attractive to people than plan facts or functions.
About Ben's horse rock or horse sculpture. I found myself more attracted by horse rock. There are many many different horse sculptures. It is very common. A sculptor can make a horse sculpture in like a week. But the formation of a horse rock can be up to hundreds of years. Things that's common are usually less attractive than things that's rare. For example, if I have 100 cookies and 1 chocolate. I would pay more attention to the chocolate even if i like cookies more.

Explanation through Atlas Shrugged

Aristole's law of identity has no counterexamples. We can take all class trying to invent some random creative examples that try to prove that "A is NOT A", but it won't happen. I think that a lot of people don't really understand the law and how simple it really is (though one of the most important laws of knowledge). I'm almost finished with the novel Atlas Shurgged (SOOOO GOOD!..by Ayn Rand, creator of the philosophy of Objectivism), and as I was reading it last night, I came across a paragraph that described Aristotle's law perfectly. it helped me to understand-try to object to the law after reading this. The plot's reallyyyyy complicated, but here, the speaker is John Galt, and he's giving a speech to the whole country (which is ready to crash) broadcasted on the radio:

"To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was--no matter what his errors--the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.
"Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute, or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too."

Intentionality in Art

One interesting idea introduced in Cpt. Perkins' posts was the intentionality of art and its implications. What effects are created by art created with intention that are absent in art unintentionally? To frame the question in concrete terms, let's consider two objects: Horse Sculpture and Horse Rock. Horse Sculpture was created by a respected artist who carved every last detail with great planning and foresight as to their implications. Horse Rock was a naturally occurring phenomenon created randomly by erosion and weathering. The two are identical.
Is Horse Sculpture more powerful (in terms of effect on the viewer) than Horse Rock?
I say yes, it is, because the artist's intentions and reasons create a transactional (woot Lyday) relationship with the viewer. The Horse Sculpture serves as a means of communication of the artist's ideas to the viewer.
Horse Sculpture accomplishes more than simply communication. This communication inspires thought and "a pause". But as one passes Horse Sculpture, it may as well be Horse Rock. The inspiration and pause of Horse Sculpture are indistinguishable from those caused by Horse Rock. However, the communication is not part of the experience of viewing Horse Rock.
This relates very well to the scenario of observing the architecture of Columbus as a resident. If simply observed, the architecture may as well be naturally occurring, because without any information about its creator, communication is not established. Yet if the same building is observed with respect to its creator's intention in making it, communication is established and the understanding between sculptor and viewer is strengthened.
Note: I use "intentionality" in reference to what the architect/artist intended in the creation of the building/piece. Mr. P uses "intentionality" in reference to city planning, as well as creation of individual structures. Intentionality takes a role in city planning as to the arrangement of the buildings, but also in a different sense as "why bother".
To be edited, this is a bit jumbled.

How do I know time?

This puzzles me: If I place a treadmill in the back of a truck moving 25 mph and stand on it without turning it on, I and the treadmill would also be moving at 25 mph. Yet, if I turned the treadmill on at normal human gait (3 mph) and began walking, I would be moving at both 3 mph and 25 mph. Also, the structure of treadmill would be moving at 25 mph, but the tread would be moving at 3 mph in reverse and simultaneously 25 mph forward. I, the truck and the treadmill are also moving at the rate of the rotation of the Earth, which means we're moving at three different speeds. If I'm moving opposite of the rotation of the Earth, we're now moving at four different speeds. Thus, it seems I can arrive at my destination at four different times. I don't even want to contemplate what happens when I consider the expansion of the universe.

To answer the first question on columbus---I think its obvious that the beauty/artistic element of a building is secondary to its functionality. whats the use of a pretty prison if it can't keep convicts inside? The question of why art impresses us/affects us is a really good one. Why did we all think the huge house with the gardens was pretty? is there a definition of what's beautiful and what's not? For me, it's HOW it was made and how UNIQUE it is. Its impressive because men made it; if it were mass produced at a factory by machines, it wouldn't be impressive or unique, and therefore not have much appeal, in my opinion. Old houses or other old pieces of art are impressive because we ASSOCIATE them with the past, which many people admire. Maybe we can't say that anything's truly "beautiful" on its own----because what is "beauty" anyways? we can't define it because it differs so much from person to person. maybe it's the feelings and ideas the object represents in our past or memories that's beautiful

Columbus: The Large

The final of my three posts about our trip to Columbus touches on the large vision of the city, and in so doing reflects to my original post, Columbus: The Intentional. In addition to creating an environment that can inspire personal reflection and creativity, the city leaders have clear been led by notions of connection. One architect would look at other buildings and try to design another that complemented the surrounding area. Nowhere could you find lock-step uniformity, yet everywhere you could see complementarity, and this seemed to be part of a larger vision for the entire city. The focus of city leaders through the years has unquestionably been forward and outward...forward to the future and outward to other people, designers, aspects of the city, etc.

Where do you see the Columbus vision reflected or decidedly not reflected in Indianapolis, in surrounding communities, elsewhere in Indiana, or in the United States? What kind of leadership is required to cast and realize such vision? What kind of citizenry is required to support and not to hinder such efforts?

Columbus: The Small

Some of these thoughts will tie into the previous post on Columbus: The Intentional. I was quite taken by the off-center design of the one church we visited, especially the rendering of the Jerusalem cross on the side. A traditional Jerusalem Cross looks like this:

On this particular church, however, the architect had embedded the cross into the brick in such a way that parts of it stood out in relief, while others were recessed into the wall. This was absolutely unnecessary. In fact, so far was this detail from being necessary that it causes us to ask the questions, "Why did he do it? What is the effect of such design? How did he achieve a recognizable design with a decidely different structure?"

It is entirely possible, and indeed probable for most locals for whom familiarity has no doubt bred a certain degree of oblivious contempt, that some people can walk past this and other of the architectural features throughout town and give them not a moment's thought. But for others, and occasionally even for the jaded, such subtleties can arrest the hurly-burly momentum of life.

They can give us a pause to reflect, to think, to be inspired, to be human.

And so I end this post by asking, what slows you down and causes you to ponder? From where do you draw your quiet inspiration? Try looking at the usual paths of your life...you home, your neighborhood, your ways to and from frequent destinations...with the intention of seeking inspiration. What do you find?

Columbus: Being Intentional

What struck me as profoundly as some of the architecture we saw, if not more so, was the intentionality and foresightedness of the city leaders to encourage such design innovations. Every town must have certain buildings, e.g. a police station, a jail, a school, a library. So much of the time we build purely for function and give little if any thought to the aesthetics of the building and the area around it. Yet Columbus has designed even its most practical buildings with an intentionality toward the overall vision of the city.

Some would argue that this is a waste...a waste of money and a waste of time. Why bother with an artistic jail?

Yet certain areas have always seemed to be fertile ground for the advancement of human thought and expression. Athens, Greece, was a hotbed of intellectual and creative achievement, yet Podunkville, Namethestate, was not. There is something to the design of certain places that seems to lead to or invite further creativity.

So I end this first of three posts on Columbus with the following: Why bother with an artistic jail? Should city planners give thought to aesthetics along with functional needs? Where do you find yourself inspired, e.g. in nature, in certain man-made locations, and why?

Tests are important

Tests and quizzes are created by higher authorities and they are made for a reason. Even though tests and quizzes can not measure the amount of knowledge of someone exactly. They are by far, the best and most practical way. Teachers mixes different kinds of tests (multiple choice, filling the blanks, free response, etc)together, to make the test more practical. So that it can measure students' knowledge more accurately. Students can guess on their tests and get good grades, but usually, they have to know their materials to pass. One can not always guesses and gets perfect. Tests are directly over what students learned everyday. So it also serves as reading checks or homework checks for teachers. Tests can check people's understanding of new knowledge, and correct misunderstanding. There need to be a standard for all students. If there is no standardized way to measure knowledge, there is no point of school. Beside personal knowledge, most knowledge are gained from learning (experiences, authority, etc.). These knowledge are mostly facts. For example, 2+2=4, there are no other personal ways to interpret that. If there is no test, teachers won't know if you understood this. Tests are important.

schools and knowledge

the school systems around the country and the world have individually decided on what they believe students should learn and should be able to know in order for them to graduate. A highly successful student in the school system is supposed to get an "A." The grading scale is merely a way of measuring how much a student has been able to temporarily memorize, or in some cases, guess the right answer. Do the grades that a student is given a measurment of their intelligence or of knowledge that they have aquried? Schools in the United States are now offering higher level classes. Middle school students are now taking high school classes, and high school students are now taking college level classes. Students have become obsessed with their rankings and their GPA's and have forgotten the primary reason why they go to school, to learn.

Knowlege and intelligence

oh, i want to pose a question to anyone on the blog...... what are your opinions about the difference between knowledge and intelligence????

objective v subjective

I agree with chung in questioning why we are learning what we are learning.....and why the "authority" of knowledge determines that an educated person should have a certain body of memorized facts and information ready to be regurgitated at any given moment....i also think that knowledge and the way we test it (through quizzes, tests, etc) has certain limitations because factual knowledge often coincides with the opinions of the person answering th questions.....like on the quiz, although i believe that i understand the concepts behind the "ways of knowing" i felt that some of the multiple choice questions would be better answered in a free response form because i could support my answer with my own opinions and my own argument.

To address Mr. Perkin's question on how he should present our "knowledge" to another person or how that person would be adequately able to determine our own grasp of the concept matter...... i think for another person( or college, etc) to be even close to grasping an individual's amount of knowledge...they would have to perform a 1 on 1 interview...andthat is so time consuming, that not enough questions could be even asked to make an accurate inference on someone else's amount of knowledge. I feel like teachers design tests in a way to shorten this process...and the grades (from a conglomeration of assignments to demonstrate our wide variety of ways to PRESENT our knowledge) are somehow supposed to reflect how much we have learned.....but really do they reflect the knowlegde i've obtained? i think they more reflect the way i can manipulate the "facts" and information that my teacher has given me into a way that pleases the grader enough to give me an acceptable grade???
so i guess i think being too objective is bad in someregards...but being too subjective often skews how much knowledge an individual really has....hmmm.

PRESERVING THE OL' NATURALE

badger me if im wrong or what not, but isn't testing just another form of critiquing an individual on what they HAVE to KNOW (forced knowledge).... why should we be critique upon our individual perceptions of what is knowledge and what is not.... is it fair for us to go around and critiquing how people perceive their lives?...why not go around the corner and ask the local bum personal questions of why his task involves sitting by the curb, scavenging the leftovers of society....testing is exactly the same....I believe we should lose the very idea of "testing," rather let the individual perceives what he perceives.. is it wrong to believe in the things not in the textbooks publish by people you don't even know? Should knowledge not be a choice...why should we share and/or be judged upon our perceptions if all we get in the end is a bat striked at our faces and our ideas shoved in the mud.... knowledge should stay abstract and become something that should be personally perceive rather than something that is forced upon the individual to perceive...and by allowing the so called "testing," knowledge becomes more and more concrete losing its true purpose.......losing its aesthetic and abstract nature

What Way of Knowing Should I Have Used to Assess Your Knowledge of Ways of Knowing?

Okay, you just finished a quiz that was part matching, part multiple choice, with a free response extra credit question. Supposedly that quiz allows me to know how well you understand the basic ways of knowing. It also provides me with evidence should anyone else want proof of my assessment that "Student A has a strong grasp of this material," or "Student B does not quite understand yet."

Was this the best way for me to know what I wanted to know about you? Why or why not? If not, what would have been a better way for me to get at this information about you?

Was this the best way for me to provide evidence for someone else wanting to know my justification for my assessment of you? Why or why not? If not, what would have been a better way of obtaining such evidence?

Should the need to provide evidence to outside inquirers, such as your parents, counsellors, college admission officers, etc., be a consideration as a teacher designs assessments for a class? Why or why not?

OHH and along with what ali said...i completely agree. i often dislike emotion as a 'way of knowing"...but i can have problems with using it myself as well. hating a certain political figure just because they're affiliated with a certain party or because of popular opinion is not an incredibly respectable opinion. i can't STAND people that say "i hate ----" when they can't give ANY reason at all why they hate him/her. i don't care if i disagree with you, but give your reasons and support your argument. think. then you'll have my respect, and probably everybody else's. so many people don't think anymore for themselves and i think it's kind of concerning.

sooo..this is completely unrelated to anything anyone has said on here. BUT...just as my first posttt ( i finally figured this out) i have to say is that i think this class will be really challenging for me just because of what i believe and the way that i think. I've never really thought that philosophy was that interesting...and i'm not trying to offend anyone (especially mr. perkins!) when i say that theory of knowledge hasn't captured my own interests yet. i'm having a little bit of trouble understanding the value of discussing what common sense and other "knowledge terms" are because, simply stated, i don't see the point....yet. i'd rather spend time discussing politics or economics or something more tangible than "how we know what we know." i'm more of a rational, logical thinker and often have trouble "thinking outside the box", which is basically the goal of this whole class. so i dont know if anyone else is feeling apprehensive yet????! but i certainly am! i know this class will definitely open my mind up to things i've never thought of before and teach me how to think, which in my opinion is the greatest power of man YEAHHHH...but a power that is often forgotten or criticized. and that will definitely be a good thing.

still uncertain about knowing...

This last Friday, August 31, we grouped up in pairs to decide which 2 methods of knowing were the "best" for knowing.
My partner and I came up with Reason and Empiricism. As we went around the classroom stating our different choices, I would listen to his or her reasoning, but then I would still question how they knew how to be so certain that they had chosen the best answer. Yes, this did have lots to do with opinion, but people started to talk and defend their choices with a "proven-like" certainty. HOW DO YOU KNOW??? I try to think about these knowledge obtaining concepts as something concrete but it hurts my head because it goes nowhere. I follow along in class accepting the transitions to new topics; however, it disturbs me that nothing is really settled. No class has ever had me in this puzzled way. Certainty is my hardest concept to grasp. I am so accustomed to scientific exactness in other classes that TOK bothers me. For example, all that I have just said can't be taken seriously because, how do you know that these words mean what they are understood to mean...i say, they just do because im going to be lazy and say they do.
My mind keeps on spinning, and it is uncomfortable, but it is one of the most interesting areas of study that I have ever done. So, I am on the edge of my seat awaiting more mind boggling concepts in this class.

One way of knowing?

Today's discussion in class made my partner and me think about how to separate the ways of knowing. The more we talked about it, it seemed that there is no one method for knowing at a given time. If your way of knowing is emotion, you obviously have reasons behind those emotions. Looking in the reverse, blind hatred could be the reason for one's knowledge. Take George Bush, for example. I am sure that there are many people who simply hate this man because it is the popular thing to do, whether they will admit it or not. Because of this, they are also inclined to disagree with some of the President's other measures, with this dislike as their only reason. Even skepticism can be based on instincts, intuition or common sense. Is there any method that can really be isolated?

Also, going back to what Hannah Osborne said today in class about the effects of drug use, is there really anyone who believes that drugs or any other substance can be a source of knowledge? The effects of these is more like a dream; they are your own thoughts that may or may not be enhanced due to drug abuse. Personally, I don't see how opium seeds were able to give Samuel Taylor Coleridge his literary works out of thin air while damaging countless other people's lives, but that may just be me. Knowledge is transferred in one way or another through brains, not dried up leaves, pills, drinks, etc.

emotion

Going back to what we were talking about in class about ways of knowing, I think sometimes one way of knowing can lead someone to change their other ways of knowing and persuade othersw. A good example could be Hitler. He had so much hatred that he believed that what he hated should be hated by everyone else. When he began his rise to power, people put faith in him as they had nothing else to put their beliefs in due to their loss of everything. When he became Chancellor, Hitler became an authority figure therefore helping emphasize his persuasion into making people believe his idea of a "perfect society". People believed him till the end and people still do think he was right. This I think is a good example of how ways of knowing can go wrong. People can be so headstrong not only about their beliefs but their emotions that it seems to be the only thing they think is right. Sometimes I think people question what we think is right for ourselves instead of what we think is better or right for everyone around us.

Common sense is used so often because, as you said in many circumstances that is the only knoledge we posses on the subject or that is just the first knowledge that we think of. And to answer your other question, no. common sense is never your only way of knowing. In every circumstance immaginable from cleaning dishes to advanced physics you are always able to re think your basic instinct/knowledge. no matter what, humans have the abbility to go back over how they came to a conclusion and decide if that was the appropriate coarse of action. that is the diffrence between humans and animals while we are able to think through situations animals must relie on their instincs to live.
p.s. i have trouble with spelling

Common Sense?

I wanted to answer one of Mr. Perkins questions from class about the strengths and weaknesses of common sense. I believe the class concluded that it's weakness is that common sense does have some exceptions. We also mentioned that one of its strengths was common sense is a good place to start to base your knowledge, when it is all you have. However that made me wonder, is there any situation in which our only way of knowing is common sense? It seemed that it was a controversial way to acquire knowlegde, so why is it used so often?

Erik makes a good point about common sense. Unless it's instinctive you can't know whether someone has been taught the same things as you or if they've been taught to perceive the same thing in a different way. In treating something as common sense, even allowing it to be called societal common sense, you assume that you share the same view. This indeed is exemplified in the movie; the man who says "Everyone knows that the people who live in those slums are no good" assumes that everyone shares his learned perception of urban poor. I would now append my earlier statement by qualifying instinctive common sense as common and societal common sense as based on assumptions rather than fact.

Common sense/movie

I think it's definitly true that common sense can be divided into instinctive ideas and ideas motivated by enviornment, but I think it's important to consider that all "common" sense varies drastically from person to person. Wheather because of different natural instinct, different cultural tradition, or different environment, every individual has their own idea of what is "common sense". The problem is that by declaring that something is common sense, someone implies that their idea of common sense is the only correct view and should be naturally held by everyone else.

This ties into the issues with prejudice in the movie. The reason so many people displayed such passionate views and could not understand why anyone would have a different perspective is that they assumed that their idea of "common sense" was the same as everyone elses. Prejudice often originates from assumption that something is common knowledge without enough information. A lot of the time, there may be a fine line between common sense and bias.

Prejudices...and some other stuff

The prejudices of the various jurors (which we defined as any prior judgements they may have brought with them) clearly play a significant role in the case's progression. In response to Mr. Perkins' question on the topic, I believe prejudices can be useful in many instances but can certainly be quite the opposite in others. It all depends on the weightiness of the situation and the ability of the one making judgements to recognize and understand the tendencies in him/herself.

In more trivial circumstances, it may not hurt to base judgements on preconceptions, but in 12 Angry Men, the seriousness of the verdict to be reached makes it much more crucial for the jurors to look beyond personal biases and avoid any oversights. (They obviously don't all do that immediately though). Predispositions based on past experiences can be beneficial so long as their holder is not, as Ryan said, completely blinded by them. He/she should know that there are always exceptions to generalizations and should remain able to set prejudices aside and examine a situation from an objective standpoint. If that can be done, then prejudices can often be utilized as a viable starting point. Stereotypes, after all, are always derived from some truth. However, inferences really shouldn't be made without complete certainty, especially in a case with the kind of impact the one in the movie has.

Another thing I'd like to point out after all of the class discussions we've had about knowledge is that it's important to realize that the jurors do not, by any means, have to know that the boy is innocent to acquit him--they just must not know that he's guilty. Unless they're absolutely certain that the boy killed his father, they're really obligated to declare him innocent according to our legal system, though I kind of doubt that that principle is taken completely literally...how can we really know or prove anything?

Re: What is common sense

I definately agree with your classifications of instinctive and societal common sense, but I don't necessarily believe that true common sense must transcend all social/provincial lines. "Common," after all, as a term in itself means shared by two or more people. I'm not saying only two people have to be in accordance to make something "common sense" but I think if something is held in general consensus it can still be considered true common sense--albeit for only one large area (eg, eating out of the trash is bad).

Regarding the idea that we discussed in class that "people elsewhere may enjoy running over people with their cars," that seems to be an exception rather than a common rule. But if we were to consider whether such a rule existed in a different culture (something differing from what we see as "right" in the US), that seems to be an argument against moral absolutism, rather than one against common sense.

To bring together the movie and our discussion, im going to ask the group the question that i believe Einstein came up with.....is common sense just a collection of prejudices?

What is Common Sense?

Or rather, what is common? Today's discussion, while touching both on intuition and instruction, lacked a clearly stated definition of what we mean by "common". For common sense to be absolutely common, it must be something that transcends all societal boundaries. In transcending these boundaries, it is therefore not generated by society but rather generated from within or through experiences basic and frequent enough that all people would have them [falling hurts]. Common sense must be instinctive, or else it could not be common to all people.
But if that's common sense, what do we call these seemingly basic ideas like "eating out of the trash is bad"? These ideas must not be described as common sense, or at least without the modifier of "societal" common sense. Just as it seems common sense that "driving is best on the right side of the road" here, a trip through Europe would show just how far from common that idea is. Consider a society in which leftovers are not kept and perfectly good food is disposed of right after a meal, [ironically similar to our own wasteful system...] would the same perception of eating out of the trash exist?
Common sense therefore exists in two categories: instinctive common sense, and societal common sense. Instinctive common sense is learned through response to rules absolute to all people, such as momentum and metabolism. Societal common sense is learned through response to rules common to a given society, driving on the right and putting inedible food in the trash. Perhaps an awareness of this distinction will allow us to communicate our ideas on the validity of common sense more clearly.

the movie

i believe that this movie displays how our judicial system SHOULD work today. That one man can overcome the prejudices of other jury members and convince them otherwise. The case obviously had enough evidence not to convict the kid because of reasonable doubt. In a criminal case the prosecutor MUST have a good enough arguement coupled with evidence and facts to CLEARLY show that the accused is guilty....that didnt happen here.

This movie also displays peoples preconceived ideas about the accused...even when he faces going to the chair! Some jury members believed that because of the kids background, his neighborhood, his past, and the stereotypes of ruffians, that he DEFINITLY killed his father, without even hearing the evidence they assumed he was guitly. In my opinion the 12 jury members represent the question, are your beliefs chosen? Either a belief can be automatic (the 1st guy to vote not guilty) or some choose not to believe because they dont want to believe (the other jury members).....o and by the way, this is victor

12 angry men

i think it's interesting that so many people in this movie seem to be able to blindly believe the worst of the defendant just because of some shaky evidence. any reasonable doubt is enough to acquit him...and from the evaluation of evidence that the main guy provided, there's some significant doubt in my mind at least. what this movie is trying to show, i think, is that even though the "system" is supposed to fair to everyone and consider all aspects of a trial, human prejudice is unavoidable. i guess i'm trying to say that no matter how allegedly foolproof the system is, because it's run by people it can't really be perfect.

Hello Everyone

Hi everyone this is Lawrence.

I only have one comment about the movie twelve angry men. The movie portrays both the strengths and weaknesses of the american judicial system. It showes how that not everyone partakes in the process of serving as a jury member with the open mindedness that one is supposed to have. There is no way around. As I am sure we will discover as the year progresses, there are many times when people are so set in their ways and beliefs that they can blindly stare reason in the face and dismiss it. I think that maybe was the point of us being shown the movie, so that we may all realize how closed minded at times and not ever realize it. I hope everyone learns from this movie, including myself, and keeps an open mind throughout the year.

Unreasonble doubt?

I think that the movie is interesting and addresses some interesting questions about the legal system and "true" knowledge. Unfortunately, it's kind of sobering to think that people (not just in a movie) are not willing to take some of their time to really, truly think about the life of a young man. With the exception of the lone juror, the other eleven jurors were unwilling to really think about all of the possibilities -- they instead based their decision on their own prejudices and because they believed they had other, more important things to do. It is truly the responsibility of the jurors to debate and discuss the situation, and then make an assessment on ANY reasonable doubt. As a juror in that situation, I would be seriously be thinking about whether or not I could sleep at night knowing I sentenced an eighteen year old kid to death after a fifteen minute conversation.

As far as prejudice and personal experience, I think its bound to have an impact on any court case -- or for that matter, on any decision in life. Despite these prejudices, it is important to learn to fairly assess the situation without being completely blinded by prejudice (like the angry juror). Personal experience can also be useful, although it is not something that someone should base an entire decision on. I think prejudice and experience will always influence your opinions -- it's just important to be open-minded.

oh and this is Ryan btw

Hi, everyone, it's Hannah. First of all, I really want to agree with Jill--it is a frightening thought. If the one man had not defied the status quo, the jury would have come to a hasty and potentially incorrect verdict which would have sent an 18 year old man to the electric chair. Just to answer one of Mr. Perkins questions, I don't believe that prejudice is ever helpful in the court of law (ideally, of course, justice is blind, but we see that this isn't always the case). What is helpful is background knowledge, preferably objective, although personal experience can come in handy as long as it does not infringe upon the bearer's ability to make rational decisions.
In this case, prejudice was not a good way of knowing the young man's guilt because it was simple, boorish prejudice: He must be guilty because he is from the slums, has lived around violence, and so must be prone to violence himself (remember the Broken Chain???). Once the jurymen heard this one tidbit of information, their minds were closed to anything else which may have swayed the case.
Just to add a bit more thought to the subject, I want to quickly bring up some information about human emotion. There is a part of the brain called the Limbric system, which is responsible for emotions. The part of the brain responsible for rational thought is located in the frontal lobes (the Limbric system is near the center). When something happens to a person, the 'knowledge' of this enters into the brain around the medulla oblongata. The signals have to literally pass through the brain to reach the frontal lobes where they can then be analyzed rationally. That means that in most conscious circumstances, the signals have to pass through the Limbric System (think of if someone accidentally bumps you in the hall. Within milliseconds, you think: 1. ow 2. why the heck did they do that?! jerk. and maybe 3. it wasn't personal; they are probably running to get to class on time). What happened in this movie is that only one of the jurors was able to think rationally about the verdict; everyone else was caught up in emotions and prejudices. They were literally rushing their thought process and one was actually genuinely more concerned about a baseball game than a life. As the movie climaxed, more and more jurors allowed their thought process to move away from the Limbric System and into the rational part of the brain. There were only a couple of people still stuck in the Limbric system when we ended, and they looked and acted like fools.

Prejudice in the Judicial System

It is interesting that a couple of the jurors allowed personal prejudice to affect their beliefs in a trial. Prejudice has no place in the judicial system but cannot be avoided. If jurors do display their prejudice it should not affect if they think a defendant is guilty or innocent. They should stick to the facts and base their decision off of facts, not prejudice.

Mildly Entertaining

The start of this movie was very good in terms of the one man standing up to attempt to save the boys life and then his arguments and those contributed by others are outstanding but as soon as they have been presented the movie goes downhill. I believe at the point they are at there is no doubt there is enough reasonable evidence for an acquittal so everything henceforth is just obnoxious and unnecessary banter. The knowledge they have of the case is definite and they just need to end the movie and let the boy go.
Ben "Big Poppa B" Pflederer

The reason why I enjoy this movie so far is because its a call-out to the people we encounter everyday who do not understand modesty and humility. There are too many people who achieve a certain status in life, whether they were given that position or they earned it on there own, that turn and look down on others once they realize their position. The movie illustrates these people as weak and shallow skinned. Many of the men are caught up in words and left to realize that life is not as simple as they convinced themselves to be. The movie also displays a great variety of personalities among many men with similar physical characteristics. One would think that perhaps to illustrate the diversity of the actors would be with different ethnicities, however they use other characteristics instead which keep the viewer uncertain of how each person is going to act as well as using our own prejudices to place our judgment on the film.

by the way this is keane mossman

Riding the fence????

I think that the prejudice that some of the jurors employ forces them to make assumptions and overlook several important details in the case. However, their prejudice is sometimes based on personal experience rather that being conjured from thin air....so their opinions cannot be completely overlooked even though they are biased. Using the personal experiences of these men to condemn the boy is just as risky and as likely to be incorrect as using the personal experiences (acknowledging his purchase of a duplicate knife from a local pawn shop as valid, relying upon his mini testimony about living near the "L" train, etc.) of the gentleman who originally voted "not guilty" in order to maintain the boy's innocence. From a legal point of view, the boy should be considered innocent until proven guilty...however with the type of trial he received...the jury was ready to convict him and reluctant to delve deeper into the evidence. So far the "not gulity" gentleman has provided reason to doubt the boy's guilt.....but has yet to completely convince me of his innocence.

response to mr perkins

Why is prejudice not a good way of knowing in this instance? Can prejudice ever be a useful way of knowing?

Many jurors automatically think the boy is guilty just because of his background, from "slums". Prejudice is not a good way because it does not target everyone. Some individuals are different, one of the jurors is also from "slums". In most of the cases, prejudice might be true. There are more crimes in a "slums" background. It can be a useful way of knowing if used correctly.

What role has personal experience played in the knowledge of the jurors? When has personal experience proved to be a faulty way of knowing and when has it proved beneficial?

Personal experiences are often used in their argument. Some played a beneficial role: the old juror relating himself to talk about how the old witness might just want attention and give false information; a guy bought the same kind of knife as the one said to be unusual. Personal experience also played a faulty way: one juror being an executor, deeply desires death, he think people from "slums" all deserve to die; another guy, relating to his own son, think they are all the same.

Do you think the gentleman who originally voted "not guilty" proved, to your satisfaction, that there is reasonable doubt in this case? Why or why not?

He did prove that there is a reasonable doubt, but he still can't explain all the problems beside using the word "possible". He does have many good point, such as the accuracy of witnesses, the knife, the time it took to finish the crime, the possibility to forget the movie's name under emotional burden... etc.

These are my opinions so they might not be right.
~Yilun Wang

Congrats, and questions

Congratulations to those who are getting signed up on the blog! Now, let us hear from you!

I have seen some great comments and questions so far regarding the movie. Let me ask a few more...

Why is prejudice not a good way of knowing in this instance? Can prejudice ever be a useful way of knowing?

What role has personal experience played in the knowledge of the jurors? When has personal experience proved to be a faulty way of knowing and when has it proved beneficial?

Do you think the gentleman who originally voted "not guilty" proved, to your satisfaction, that there is reasonable doubt in this case? Why or why not?

THE 11 Angry Men and Piglet

I personally first thought that this movie would be another one of those "Law and Order" movies where they just figure what happened, but after watching a major portion of it, this movie is definitely one of those movies that question the ethics of not the individual but the ethics of the society upon which we live. There is definitely flaws not just in the government we see before us, with there whole system of determining the life of another, but there are traumatic flaws in people themselves, with their continuously selfish personal pursuit, and in the process they disregard the well-being of the society present. This is truly evident in the movie, or rather what I hope is the case.
PS: please be the case

Hello

Jill here. So I'm really liking this movie so far. I personally think it's frightening, how 11 of the men were--at the beginning--certain that the young man was guilty; he nearly died as a result. Only one of jurors disagreed out of reasonable doubt and ultimately led us to view this case as notably shaky. Without his dissent, the case wouldn't have been questioned, and the men would have left with the "knowledge" that they put a guilty man to death. This seems to lead to the discussion we had the very first day; how do we arrive at true knowledge? The jurors undoubtedly thought they knew of his guilt (two of whom still do), and it seems they may be wrong. I'm not even sure that witnessing an event taking place can lead to sure knowledge; the witnesses to the murder, after all, seem possibly to have been wrong in what they saw. Am I making sense? It was an interesting thought, in any case.

Hey This is Kat, is there anyone else posting????

Welcome to the Agora!

In the days of Socrates, the Athenian agora was the place to be. It was the marketplace, not only of physical goods, but of ideas. It was here that Socrates walked around, discussing the matters that truly matter with the youth of Athens. Ultimately, this caused him to run afoul of the city leaders, and his death prompted the work by his most famous student, Plato, from which the quotation is taken at the bottom of our blog.

Today, our leaders understand the value of such discussion and have made it an integral part of the International Baccalaureate program by requiring a course called Theory of Knowledge.

If you are a TOK student, I hope you will find this blog a place to continue the discussions we can only begin in class and start others that will bear fruit in the classroom as well.

If you are just stopping by, then stay a while. Listen in on the great conversation taking place. And when you leave, allow yourself to be amazed that what is discussed here is the thought and expression of an extraordinary group of high school students.