So, after today's totally righteous ToK debate regarding the dilemma of whether or not the individual human can "do something," I feel compelled to offer an idea. I am afraid that we will have class cancelled next Saturday/Sunday, I will be gone to France the Saturday/Sunday after that, and the momentum of our provocative discussion will wane. So, here it is: Honestly, I have no idea whether or not an individual can enact meaningful change, and I suspect that this opinion is a particularly valid one. Given the nature of societal behavior and the lessons of history, human beings are remarkably effective at achieving inequality, enacting violence, and maintaining ignorance. Further, I am fairly confident that this will not change on a grand scale; I am realistic enough to know better, but I am also enough of an idealist to expect more from myself. And, the fact is, I am a teacher in a unique opportunity to create the impression in my students that they can transcend expectations, break (real or imagined) boundaries, and defy routines. As Hareth pointed out, our world is replete with issues, all of which probably need confronted either actively or passively, yet doing so would obviously be overwhelming. But, I also do not embrace the alternative point of view, which is do nothing because the perceived magnitude of the problem is bigger than my ability to do something about it. You are stronger, more influential, more dynamic, smarter, capable than you think. Trust me on that one (I am an authority, eh?). And those qualities do not come for free. You are getting an education, and a pretty darn good one, and when you are done here, guess what? You go on to get more, and the more you get the more you have to consider the possibility that you have a responsibility to do something with it that is bigger than you. Okay, so maybe children in West Africa just "need to fill a role," but what if there is untapped genius in there wasting its time molding chocolate shapes into fancy designs? I mean real genius. The cure for AIDS, cancer, great writers, guitar prodigies, peace activists, world-class educators, and so on? We can bet there is. Heck, given the size of the community (what, several million children in the grand scheme?) there may be several. We all might benefit from building schools and not buying diamonds, eating chocolate, and rationalizing the whole thing by saying "hey, that's just the way it is." You do realize, I hope, that what we are talking about here is a truth theory (it fits fairly neatly into both coherence and pragmatic), but do think on this: if you consider how your chocolate consumption fits into the bigger picture, you might ask yourself if you don't feel like you can make a difference or if you simply deny your ability to make a difference because of your perception of the task. Hard? Of course. Worth it? Maybe.

Interesting link Yukiko! You brought this up in class the other day, and, actually, I had not read the article yet. I will catch this next time. I notice the brain on the site is the same image I have on my powerpoint. Hmmm . . . Hareth, have I plagiarized this brain image? I wonder if creative intellect is affected by surface area? Or memory? Or imagination? Hmmm . . . intuition? Can this surface area be manipulated through neurosurgery? I think I have more questions about this research than answers. I need to do more investigating.

Hey ToK4, remember that conversation we had today regarding "what other choice do we have?" ToK2, this is coming your way after Eid. Well, I guess I am compelled to ask this question: why are we so quick to accept an idea simply because we see "no other choice?" I mean seriously, you only thought about that whole discussion for 10 seconds (maybe less) before you arrived at the "well, there are no other choices" conclusion. Are we so limited in our perspective that we cannot think of another option than the one we are currently accepting? Any takers?

Hi Yukiko, you raise several really interesting and reflective points regarding this discussion. I suppose many of us--I know I can--relate to the idea in which we state "I have no choice" while simultaneously confronting a wide array of choice. Ah, the irony. Your final question about the source of originality may allude to Plato's Realm of the Forms. The other class hasn't addressed this yet, but remember how Plato claims that the realm (wherever that is) is the "location" of all original design, including "justice," "beauty," and so on? Those Forms have always existed, and they are eternal and changeless. According to Plato, there is no way to create an original idea, because that idea simply pre-exists human thought. All we do is imitate the idea. This actually has connections to Hareth's questions in the other class regarding the point of originality. Maybe he will jump onto this thread too!

Hey all, I relaxed the moderator's setting so that students could upload their own findings. I did not realize I had to approve them. Sorry, I will get better at this. Post away!

This thought experiment came up in ToK 2 today. Have a look at this sketch out . . . make sense? Any questions?

What is "quantum suicide?"

Welcome to diigo ToK All-Stars! This interesting article from the Washington Post is relevant to our developing discussion on truth, belief, information, and knowledge. You might relate to the research-related conflicts which get discussed In this easy-to-access article.

Consider this example, which we discussed in class, as a representation of the importance of looking beyond "surface clues" to make conclusive decisions.