When we split up into smaller groups last week, my group was given the task of deciding which way of knowing is the best. However, Mr. Perkins' original wording confused the discussion a bit when he first said "Which is the strongest way of knowing?", and later changed his wording a bit (I believe without intending to change the concept) in saying "Why is it the best?"
First of all, this pertains to interpretation because, while in Mr. Perkins mind he may have been thinking of the same concept in both sentences, I and another in my group were unsure of whether he wanted the best WOK, or the strongest.
Our group then began discussing first of all, whether or not there is a difference between best and strongest when it comes to WOK, and if so, would the best and strongest be two different ways of knowing?
I would argue that the "best" way of knowing refers to the most reliable, whereas the "strongest" would be the one used most often without taking reliability into account. I also think that these are represented by two different ways of knowing.
Emotion is, in my opinion, the strongest way of knowing. Emotion can overpower all of the other ways. How often do we hear about people who make rash and often foolish decisions because their emotion has clouded their reason? Stronger emotions can cause us to hear what we want to hear and see what we want to see. They can alter our interpretation of ideas obtained by our senses. They often overrule conscience, common sense, and instinct. When we really want something here and now, the strong emotional desire may cause a lapse in reason so that a potentially bad decision is made on the spot. (Hence "impulse buys") This is why commercials are so effective- we see something really cool with its supposed benefits and played-up appearance on the screen and we want it, without really stopping to consider outside factors. Is the company reliable? Is it worth the money? Could I really use this? How much did the commercial embellish the product to make me want it? Strong emotions can (and will) quell most, if not all other more trustworthy ways of knowing.
Because it is extremely subjective to several factors (personality, background, situation, etc), however, emotion is not the most reliable way of knowing by far. On this, there was a lot of disagreement within the group as well as among the rest of our class. The class ended up with it narrowed down to two: sensory perception and reason. Which do you think it is? Or is neither the best?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
This is an incredible post. I love how you have meaningfully reflected on an issue from class. You are right to explore the differences between those two words before attempting to the resolve the questions I posed. Your analysis is spot on for what we want in TOK. I don't think I have ever been as excited about the prospects of a TOK class, both sections, than I am this year.
I completely agree with Ali except for her choice of the "strongest" way of knowing. It may possibly be because I am less emotional than her, and so emotion plays less into how i perceive things, but i'd have to say that my senses overpower every other of my ways of knowing. Senses provide the basis for all fundamentals ive established in my life and are naturally a person's primary way of understanding the world around him/her.
What does it mean to be "less emotional" than someone else? We ALL have emotions ALL of the time. We are always feeling SOMETHING, whether or not we can put it to words. So how can one person be described as more or less emotional than someone else? Does this simply mean they do not act upon emotions as often as the other person? Does it mean a seldom outward expression of emotions?
I must ask, have you never felt emotionless before? but i agree that i worded my statement badly. When i said i could be generally "less emotional" than you, i was referring to the possibility that i utilize or act upon emotion less often.
I don't believe that there is such thing as feeling "emotionless". Could I please have an example of what you mean?
I think that people often say they feel "emotionally numb", or "emotionless" not because they have no feelings at that particular moment, but because what they feel is either complex or indescribable. As I see it, there the complete absence of emotion is not possible. However, I am open to examples that may prove me wrong.
You say that people use the term "eomtionless" only when they can't describe how they feel? in what way would the high complexity of an emotion translate to a lack of emotion? You can feel emotion whether you understand it or not, so one would not say "i'm emotionless" if there was a feeling present that they could not describe.
say someone who wasnt acquainted with the concept of fire was being burned alive. if someone else asked what was wrong and the person being burned couldnt explain what was happening, would they say "nothing is happening"?
no, i think that when people say they are feeling emotionless, they mean exactly that.
Alright, I see your point there. I was just saying that at some times when people can't explain exactly how they feel they refer to it as feeling nothing. That's just what happens sometimes, whether that is the correct way to describe it or not. But yes, your point is valid.
I am still not convinced that it is actually possible to have no emotion at any point. How do you back up your argument?
I back it up by saying that i BELIEVE i've been devoid of emotion at times, that is the reason for my opinion. Obviously, that isnt proof or a strong basis for my point, but i made it clear that this was my opinion. What did you say to refute the possibility of people being able to lack emotion? i might've missed it....
well im going to have to agree with ali. To me an emotion is how one is feeling and there for if you are FEELING emotionless, then emotionless is an emotion in itself
I appreciate your clever manipulation of semantics amelia, but im having trouble understanding your point. so having a lack of emotion is an emotion in itself?
a=emotion b=how one is feeling and c=lack of emotion
you're saying that:
if a=b, and b~c, then c=a
this is obviously not true, you have made a slight error in applying the transitive property. unless "how one is feeling" and "lack of emotion" are synonymous, you are incorrect.
("~" means related to if you didnt know)
I don't think I agree with Amelia's point. I still don't believe that there is such a thing as feeling emotionless, but if there is then it would not be an emotion in itself because, as Armon mentioned, it is the lack of emotion, not a real feeling.
However, I stand by my original thought that one cannot feel emotionless. At times, emotions are difficult to describe or point out exaclty because there either is not a specific word for them (which brings in the issue of language), they are mixed, or they are dull and therefore not very noticeable. However, because of one's constant though, emotion is always present. At every moment there is a feeling present about SOMETHING, even if the emotion does not influence one's entire mood. We tend to think of emotion as times when we can concretely describe how we feel (i.e. happy, sad, frustrated, etc) in one or two adjectives. I would say that emotion extends to times when we don't necessarily think about it because we are, as said before, confused in many feelings or indifferent.
Could you give an example of a time when you have felt what you consider to be emotionless?
I think I can even go on to argue that emotion exists in the subconcious as well, influencing dreams/nightmares, good or bad sleep, etc.
Post a Comment