TOK?

Remember when this was a thing that we did?
HOW DO WE KNOW WE EVER DID IT?????
What is time?
What is TOK?
What is kartoffelsalat?

Too much information?

Over spring break, my family and I saw "Our Family Wedding" and one particular scene made me think a bit. (The plotline of the movie is that a Latina woman wants to wed an African-American male). The scene that made me think was an argument between the woman to be wed, her parents, and her grandmother. This dispute occurred in Spanish. For the most part, subtitles of the Spanish dialogue was given. However, in this particular scene, subtitles were prominently absent. It made me think that maybe perhaps I wasn't supposed to know what the dialogue meant; maybe I was just supposed to take in the angry tones, the irate faces, and the blame-pointing fingers.
Was I over-informed for knowing exactly what the people were saying in the argument? Since the producers deliberately chose not to insert the dialogue of that particular scene, I have to wonder if I had somehow ruined the effect of the scene for myself.
Of course, there are some Spanish words and phrases that most people recognize even if they take an entirely different language. "Como está usted" or simple cognates are rather well-known to most advanced, literate English students. So naturally, some crossover vocabulary would have been understood. But maybe that was part of the point: maybe I (as the audience) was meant to observe this scene play out as one of the members of the groom-to-be's family, not really understanding more than the general reference to "traición" Latino or the grandmother's emphatic "no no no".
Did I jeopardize my understanding of the movie by knowing too much? What do you guys think?

Problems With Justified True Belief

Justified True Belief is the working definition of knowledge in ToK. The conditions for whether or not an observer "R" has knowledge of "X" based upon justified true belief are:

A: "R" believes "X'

B: "R" is justified in his/her belief of "X"

C: "X" is true

Just in case you had forgotten.

However, there occasionally arise cases in which conditions A,B and C above are all satisfied, but "R" doesn't really know "X."

For example, James (the observer "R") goes out to a party. Earlier James had spoken to his friend Chris, who said he would also be at the party. When James gets to the party, he sees Chris' identical twin Craig. James concludes that Chris is at the party ("X"). James is justified in this belief, because Chris said he would be at the party, and James saw someone who looks exactly like Chris at the party. Coincidentally, Chris was at the party, but he was in a completely different area than James. Thus, the conditions A, B and C for James to know via justified true belief are all met, but does James really know if Chris is at the party or not?

Just a thought.

~WG

Perspectives on History: The War of Northern Aggression vs. The American Revolutionary War

The American Civil War and the Revolutionary War were similar conflicts with similar causes, but with drastically different outcomes and interpretations; the Revolutionary War patriots are oft viewed as the pinnacle of freedom, justice, liberty and the American way, while the Civil War rebels are scorned as the scum of the earth and a threat to the aforementioned freedom, etc. These conflicting viewpoints arise from one simple fact: the Revolutionary Americans won and the Confederacy lost.

As far as causes go, the two wars are remarkably similar. The primary cause of each was a reaction of one party against perceived unjust legislation by the other (excessive taxation of the Colonies by the British for the Revolution, antislavery laws proposed by Congress for the Civil War). Moral issues aside, the Revolutionaries and Confederates were fighting for the same principle, that being freedom from oppression. I would ask any who jump to defend the incorruptibility of the colonists to read accounts of the treatment of Native Americans prior to and during the Revolutionary War.

The word "secede" is never used to describe what the Colonies did prior to the outbreak of war; it's always "they declared independence from Britain." However, saying that the Colonies seceded from the British Empire is just as correct. Similarly, it is also correct to say that the Confederacy "declared independence" from the Union. Yet it's rarely, if ever, said that way in the history books. In fact, parallels between the two wars appear so infrequently that they seem to be avoided, considering the similarity of the two conflicts.

In each case, the injured party was the clear underdog at the outset; the Colonies were nothing compared to the might of the British Empire, and the CSA were inferior in population, infrastructure, budget, and supplies to name a few, to the Union. Both wars hinged upon foreign aid; had the Colonies not been aided by France, and had Great Britain not been engaged militarily with three other countries (The Netherlands, France, and Spain), they would have been mercilessly crushed and reabsorbed by the British. A key reason of Confederate defeat was the lack of foreign aid, which both France and Britain were willing to provide. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (1862) turned the European powers off by making the cause of the war slavery. However, the Proclamation neglected to free any slaves in the slave-holding Union-controlled border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware.; in effect, the Emancipation Proclamation only declared free the slaves over which it had no authority to do so (i.e., those slaves still in states under Confederate control). I'll leave the ethical judgment of Lincoln's action for another time.

Sadly, I haven't read accounts of either war by non-American sources. Thus I have no means of comparison to verify my hypothesis, but analysis of the evidence at hand seems to indicate that the American view of these particular events is incredibly biased.

Hopefully this doesn't come as a complete surprise.

I would even venture that there is no possible objective history; history by definition must involve interpretation and analysis. Thus, when dealing with history one must always consider the source; if bias is unavoidable, the best we can do is acknowledge it's presence.

Just something to think about.

Women in the Military

Is there a "better" viewpoint between males and females as far as female membership in the U.S. military? This is something we discussed in class today and I know a few of us still had comments on the question, and I thought maybe Tuesday's class may like to get in on it.
In answer, I think not, and I may repeat some things people already stated in class as my own opinion as well.
I speak from the point of view of a female planning on attending a military college and thus serving in the military for at least five years after college. First of all, the way I have seen it as I look into the college I want to go to, they want more women and it is easier to get in as a female. (Of course, this is heavily due to a much larger competition among male candidates than female candidates.) However, females still are not allowed to serve on the front line, i.e. engage in actual combat. They go through training very similar to that of men, but cannot hold all of the same positions.
There is obviously still some stereotyping that women are too weak emotionally and/or physically to perform well in a battle situation. A friend of mine who is a male applying to Westpoint actually told me when I asked him why women are not allowed in combat, "Well, think about it. If I am on the front line and there is a man about to shoot me, do you think I want a woman for protection? No, she wouldn't have the guts to shoot him". Though not an extreme feminist myself, I was more than a little offended at the statement. I don't mean to group all men into one category, but the tendency seems to be that they still have a mentality that women are too weak for the military. Though hazing is illegal, women are still constantly harassed at several military colleges and some of these academies have only actually admitted women for the last few years. Can a man really see through the eys of a woman, though? Can he determine for sure that a woman would not be able to shoot under pressure?
On the other hand, females don't seem to have enough unity on the matter to come to any conclusion at all. There are some that say, "No, we don't belong in the military at all; I'm glad I don't have to fight", others who believe "I don't really want to join but we are equal to men and should have the right!" and yet others who really want to join and fight. The main conflict is between hating the stereotyping involved but being content not to be a part of drafting. In the end, we cannot reach a sound conclusion.
Females are just now really gaining ground in nearing gender equality to men. Though it is not perfect and stereotypes remain prominent, we have more opportunity and voice than ever before. The last U.S. military draft was for the Vietnam war and only lasted through the early-mid 1970s, long before the opportunity females have now took hold. Under current law, all male U.S. citizens are required to register with Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday. This becomes a military draft if the government deems that we need it for war, and these men are called to service. However, now that women play a much more integral role in the U.S. military than before, do you think that if the U.S. were to go to large-scale war that it would draft certain females as well? Do you think it should?

Relative Ethics

According to relative ethics, moral "standards" depend on the individual or a society. If different people make different ethical judgments, they have different ethical values. According to relative ethics, if I believe strongly that it is okay to do one thing, and another believes strongly that it is not okay, we are both right and there is no objective truth. But what happens when this is applied to simple examples? If I strongly believe that a blue cube is in fact a yellow sphere but my friend tells me, "No, it's a blue cube", what does it mean? Does disagreement indicate loss of objective reality?
Is it even possible to live by relative ethics? I would say not. Here is a list of a few things that pure relative ethics does not allow a person to do:
1. Accuse others of wrongdoing. If it is right by them then it's okay.
2. Complain about mistreatment.
3. Blame others for anything.
4. Accept moral praise or take responsibility for any actions, good or bad.
5. Improve morality. If there is no set standard then there is no definition for improvement.
6. Say "it's wrong to be judgmental".
7. Hold meaningful moral discussions. So many decisions made by our government are based on ethical discussions that would not exist were we to live by ethical relativism. We could still discuss ethics, but the conversation would be pointless because without an objective ethical standard no end could be reached.
8. Determine what is right and what is wrong. There is no such thing.

Without objective truth, our society would fall into utter chaos.

What do you think?

Who Knows Me Best?

On Monday we touched on a few different ways of knowing oneself. These were a couple claims made: 1. I know myself better than anyone else does. 2. We very often depend on other people teach us about ourselves. The given example for number two was something like this: Have you ever been talking with a friend and claimed something about yourself to which they responded, "wait, no you aren't" or "no you don't".
I do believe that I know more about myself than any other person does and that such is the case for the majority of people. People often tell us something about ourselves for whatever reason. Parents, friends, family, all telling us "You can be so selfish sometimes" or "You have a real talent for ______", or "You are very generous". The proper response for us to take for such comments is to look inside ourselves and say either, "Yeah, I guess I really can be pretty self-centered" or "Where did he get that idea?"
My question is, does the information about ourselves that we receive from outside sources actually teach us, or is it knowledge we already have? Is it possible that your best friend knows that you can be conceited but you don't? I ask because I believe that a lot of the information about ourselves that we "learn" from other people includes ideas and characteristics we already knew we had but ignored or forgot. Secondly, what we learn from others about ourselves tends to be things we do not want to be.
If I volunteer at a local nursing home because I care about the elderly, I don't think it would be difficult for me to realize that I am caring, kind, compassionate, whatever characteristic you would put on such actions. However, if I volunteer at the nursing home weekly BUT complain about it everyday at school and explain how I just need it for my college credit, I still may feel like I am a kind person for giving away my time to help others. In this case, it would take a friend to tell me, "No, you're not very caring at all. You just do it for the credit," for me to REALIZE that maybe I'm not the nice person I thought I was.
The key word is realize. I don't think it takes other people to teach us about ourselves. If I want to learn about myself, all I have to do is change my point of view a little and look to the inside for introspection. Sometimes it takes outside sources to make us go through that process of self-examination because someone will make a comment and we think "Am I really?" An extreme example, if someone were to say to me "Ali, you are extremely loud and talk out way too much in class", they would not be teaching me about myself at all. I may step outside myself for a moment and ponder whether I really am obnoxiously loud in class, which is where the actual learning process beings. I then learn by being honest with myself that, no, I am in fact typically quiet in class,and move on with my life.
Sometimes people who tell us about ourselves are correct, and sometimes they are not. However, most of what they tell us are things that we already knew but did not think about OR chose to ignore. As humans, we tend to be dishonest with ourselves, justifying actions so we won't be able to realize that we actually have negative characteristics. When we really can be honest, though, we learn what and who we really are and how we come across to others.

Different Moral Philosophies, Same Conclusion

Why to save a bleeding, dying man near you - ethically.

In class on Thursday, Eli cited Utilitarianism - doing the most good for the most people - and Kantian ethics - the belief in the value of each human life - as the reasons why he would save the man. He stated that he would rely mostly on Kantian ethics.

I, too, would save the man. Of course. But I would do so from quite a different ethical perspective. I would save him, not out of Utilitarianism or Kantian ethics - but out of Objectivism and Ethical Egoism. Let me explain.

Objectivism - absolute moral truths exist. Or, more simply, it means doing the right thing. The universally right thing - call me crazy - is to save the life of a human being. Sure, I believe in the value of the man's life. But ethically, I place more importance on the fact that saving his life is doing the right thing. Even if I didn't place a value on this man's life (in particular), I would still save him; preserving life - or, more simply, living - is the morally absolute right thing. Death is not.

Ethical Egoism - doing what's best for yourself. Knowing that saving this man's life is the right thing to do, I could not imagine having to go on, living my life, with the constant reminder that a man died because I didn't do a thing to save him, with the constant guilt stemming from the fact that I could have saved a human life - but didn't. That would be hard to overcome; that would not benefit me; that would not be doing what's best for myself. I would save him because saving him would be better for me (and, well, him, of course). Not only would I not feel the guilt I would feel if I did not save this man's life; I would also feel the great satisfaction of saving his life, of not cowering in the face of difficulty - of doing the right thing. Simply, my life would be better off by helping him rather than by not helping him. In truth, helping others is often doing what's best for yourself. Being an ethical egoist doesn't mean only caring about yourself; it means doing what's best for yourself - in this case, saving the man. That's why I would save him.

Different moral philosophies... same conclusion. Interesting.

Hygiene, among other thoughts.

(Click on it for a bigger, readable one.)

Is this important? Is the loss of sweet tastes worth the inclusion of deception in your daily rituals? Does this deception adversely affect you? Is it a good thing- that toothpaste keeps one from eating sweets as a preventative measure? Are comics capable of communicating legitimate philosophical thought? Am I just being silly? Is this post too short for the ToK blog? Discuss.

(Cat and Girl, by Dorothy Gambrell, is subject to an Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Generic copyright. www.catandgirl.com)

How do you describe color?

We all know of the vision impairment "color blindness" in which a person sees either only in certain colors or has a metaphorically "dyslexic" mental color wheel. I don't know exactly how color blindness works, but I want to know how we would go about proving that we are not all in fact color blind.
Lets say that I can see every color, but they are mixed up. However, from when I was a toddler, my mother told me that the color of the apple in the refrigerator is red. Now, because of my impairment, I see what most other people call blue. But, because I was taught for years that that is what red looks like, your blue is my red.
So how can we prove that we do not all have such impairment? What if, as we all look at a "yellow" box, I actually see orange, you actually see green, and another actually sees blue. We cannot determine that we see differently because we were taught for all of our lives to interpret the color we connect with that box to be "yellow".
I hope that makes sense, it is sort of hard to describe. But color is the same way- we cannot check to see if we are all seeing the same thing except to confirm that this object is a dark color and that object is a light color. You can't really describe yellow.
What do you think?

2 Questions (11 January 2010)

Mr Perkins threw out a couple of questions near the end of the period that I find myself hoping to answer somewhat as a means to counter my presence onstage today.

The questions (paraphrased greatly)

1: How do you deal with a situation in which two parties involved in a contractual relationship are bound by different ethics?
--> In such a situation, where two different sets of ethics have produced tension upon two parties who had previously agreed upon a contractual relationship, I would consider the involvement of a third party to be the most desirable solution. This third party would have to be objective to both sides equally and would serve as arbitrator. Preferably, the new party would be familiar with the ethics of both parties in disagreement while the arbitrator itself would follow neither of these (for that might pose problems for the third party to objectively consider each issue separately and equally; reviewing one side with the supporting ethics while comparing it to the other side with the same ethics might create unnecessary dilemmas.


2: To what degree of experience does personal testimony make any account more worthy than any other?
--> Personal experience adds an emotional level to any account. I would consider a personal testimony more "worthy" in the sense that it addresses most acutely the issue of adding emotion with the testimony; the effects of emotion can be seen. This is rather important a distinction, for then the testimonies emotionally charged (through personal experience) can be compared to those to which no emotional connection was made.
For example, by addressing the stem cell issue raised in class, the controversy over cloning arises. The fine line of ethical morals and justifications is already paper-thin, considering that the cells are used to make food, animals, and (not yet, but possibly later in time) other humans.
Gregory Pence, professor at University of Alabama (Birmingham) supports the use of stem cells to make genetically altered foods. His research argues that eating genetically altered foods poses much less risk than consuming a hamburger.
A year or so ago (I can't remember when, exactly), a woman had her deceased dog cloned. Having previously acquired the necessary cells from her dog, she cloned the animal which resulted, basically to her, in a second life for her dog. Her emotionally charged testimony, affirming that cloning is well worth the expense and procedure, is an interesting argument when laid beside those individuals that consider cloning unethical.

Moral Responsibilty

"One not only has a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"
-Martin Luther King Jr.

I think that we can agree that the majority would say it is right to obey just laws. (Although from our discussion of cheating today, I'm not so sure...) We know that in the quote above, King was referring to the segregation laws in the U.S. and that as a leader, he encouraged some non-violent rebellion. King's time is an extreme case of his quote because it dealt with what now clearly view as an unethical set of laws. However, do we really have the responsibility to disobey "unjust" laws? If so, how do we determine which laws are unjust, and to what level can we exercise disloyalty to these laws? Where do we draw the line?