Continuation of the "Conscience Question"

I don't recall us clearly defining "conscience" in class, though we outlined it marginally. Conscience, in today's world, is generally defined as the part of the mind (superego) that dictates and admonishes the ego. Interestingly enough, conscience was originally associated with religion (Catholicism), and it dictated precisely what was right and wrong in earlier times; however, modernization has caused society's idea of conscience to morph from the "devil and angel" idea into an "inner voice" telling a person only what is wrong.

Based on what others have said and the definition above, it appears to me that conscience, while universally relevant, is individual-specific in its interpretation shaped by one's religion, upbringing, family, and associated morals. Here is my claim: conscience is the most dominant way of knowing, the ultimate authority, per se, over any organism, and is a purely acquired characteristic.

To support this, I sought the help of the all-important Google search engine and found this article: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/conscience.htm

Peter Kreeft, a PhD of philosophy at Boston College, has two premises: 1) that conscience is an absolute authority and 2) that the only possible source for conscience is an absolutely perfect will, a divine being. Kreeft continues by establishing four possible explanations for conscience (check out the website to see them explicitly). One example is that we all possess the “herd” instinct, the altruism that applies to our need to protect offspring in the face of danger in order for our “lineage” to survive. However, he specifies that a mother would do this to protect her children, but no other type, such as a child, man, or child-less woman, would do such a thing…I find the example to be more applicable towards intuition than conscience- what do you think?

The first of his premises is more or less a given; however, I disagree with the second. Frankly, my religion is different from the mainstream one in this country- that does not make my ideas illegitimate. As Ali suggests in her post, is what I condone what you condemn? Conscience seems to be something of an intuitive, second-nature, less of an analytical or intellectual by-product.

That then leads me to think whether conscience is really a way of knowing. If conscience is affected by religion, and other extraneous factors, conscience cannot be innate. Not only does each religion differ, but each Hindu’s interpretation of the religion is different as well, for example. To address the most basic level of this, my family, from Southern India, worships a completely different set of gods and beings than another family, from Northern India. Nevertheless, our collective beliefs are known to the world as Hinduism. While some tenets and ways of our religion are universally accepted, such as the respect for other beings of the earth or the pressing of the hands together to pray, there are slight differences in the bases of each family that affect our consciences.

The same idea is applicable in America: we all share a similar belief of right or wrong because of education and other factors. But at the same time, we all have different morals established by our respective families, religions, and other acquired ideals.

So. Do you agree? Or do you dare to disagree? =D Is it really a way of knowing?

Conscience- Natural or learned?

On Thursday our class had to stop in the middle of a discussion on conscience and were left with this question- is conscience something you are born with, or does it begin to develop later in life?

I think conscience is something one is born with. However, because morals aren't learned from birth, conscience does not develop until understanding is present. Conscience begins to take a more defined shape as one matures and starts to discern right from wrong. It begins on a basic level with being taught by parents/guardians what and what not to do. (For example, the cliche "Don't take a cookie from the cookie jar without permission"). At this point, conscience is simply based on the information the child has gathered from his/her parent. As life goes on, the child becomes a teen and must begin to make his/her own decisions because they will soon move away from their moral teachers (parents) and live a more independent life. Conscience becomes stronger as the teen is forced to make his/her own choice of what morals to live by and the values become more personal. Often this choice is made based on the morals previously installed by a parent. The fact that morals vary from person to person is why one person's conscience may condone something another person's would condemn. On the other hand, widely-accepted values give consciences similarities. (For example, most people would understand murder to be against their morals)

Therefore, conscience begins at an early stage of life but develops and becomes more prominent as one ages, makes decisions, and learns from experience. It varies from person to person according to moral teaching and early background.

What do you guys think?

Atlas Shrugged and Knowledge

Just a little while ago, I was sitting and relaxing in my room. Suddenly, I looked at my "bookshelf" - the floor - which houses some of my favorite books. The first novel I noticed was Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, one of the best in my opinion. It reminded me immediately of TOK and the topics we have discussed in class regarding knowledge and our ways of knowing. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand outlines the foundations of her philosophy - Objectivism - in the tome's climax: John Galt's radio broadcast to the collapsing nation. The statements in his speech are profound, and helped me better understand the concept of "knowing," and also reinforce the conviction that I do know... well, anything... and thus I resolved to post a few of them here:

"Man's mind is the basic tool of his survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its consent is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch - or build a cyclotron - without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think" (Rand 1012).

"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 [Aristotle] 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 all 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" (Rand 1016).

Know Thyself

The Delphic oracle in ancient Greece had two sayings..."Know Thyself" and "Nothing to Excess." Although the original sayings were in Greek, the first one was displayed in Latin, Temet Nosce, above the Oracle's kitchen door in the first Matrix movie. Several comments on the first post of the year started to move down this path.

How does one know oneself? Is self-knowledge the surest knowledge that we have? Can you be wrong about yourself?

What is Knowledge?

Wow! Talking about jumping in deep quickly! One of the many comments on the last post was the following:

This brings up the question: how do we, collectively, define true knowledge? Is it knowing how people feel, what people think, or why people do things? Is it a perfect understanding of another's mannerisms or history? Is it any combination of the above, or is it all of them? "True knowledge" seems an inherently vague concept- which is odd, as it seems to imply utter clarity.

How do we define knowledge? How do you define knowledge? The question originally asked about a collective definition? Can there be competing or individual definitions of knowledge, or does the question itself require there to be a common, collective, universal definition in the way that there must be a common, collective, universal definition of a triangle?

Welcome IB Class of 2011!

Welcome to the 21st Century Agora! I am excited to start exploring ideas with you, and I look forward to getting to know all of you. The question is, how should I do that? Should I use the same methods by which I have come to know that a classic Mustang is smokin' hot? Should I use the methods I employed as I came to know that the Latin verb portare means "to carry?" Do team mates come to know each other using the same methods by which a parent comes to know a child, a child comes to know a parent, or spouses come to know each other?

How, then, I am to know you?

Oh, and what methods will you use to know me?