12 Theory of Knowledge 2013-2014

I saw this on Facebook and thought I would share it :)

This is an excellent article from al Jazeera, Hareth. Thank you for sharing. While the abstractions of "International Law," generally projected by the United States government, are inherently convoluted and ripe with "double-standards," I still have to admit that I enjoyed my traditional 75-day libations to ease the struggle of international "peace-waging," so to speak.

Antonion Damasio is one of the world's leading neuroscientists (Appeal to Authority). Have a look at his take on how your emotions influence your sense of awareness.

I liked most of what he said, but I think that we are no closer to "World Peace" than we were 100/300/10^6 years ago. I think the opposite is true, with our logic being put to further and less productive uses (nuclear/chemical/biological/psychological weapons) we are actually regressing as a species. I also think that the emotions are not simply built upon with logic/reason but also lost with the growth in these areas. With the onslaught of pure reason that we have today I think the loss of feeling has led to a general loss of direction in society and has proven to be just as destructive as illogical and irrational behaviour has been in the past. True, a purely emotional response is often not thought through and is very impulsive; but a purely logical (I would like to say objective/subjective but I think these are not the same things at all) response can lead to dead-ends and the assumption that things must follow fixed rules.

My challenge to the other commenters-tell me why I must believe the truth. To be frank, although I think this was a nice piece that summed up skepticism in a nutshell, it really does not give me something I think I want- why I must believe the truth? It sounds like a logical fallacy of some sort, and maybe in the cold logic that our society follows it is a paradox, but that is the glaring question that I got out of this blog. To believe something and for it to be true is what constitutes knowledge, but why must I attain knowledge? Will it help me- obviously not according to the skeptics, as the truth of something is not something I can really determine on a large scale. We all like to think we're Heck, I could write a long essay on this and not produce a good answer to my question and that is my challenge to the other commenters-tell me why I must believe the truth. Truth is something we debate endlessly, but what is its value? Can I truly know something, if so then does that mean I understand it? I seriously doubt it, and that is because our definition of understanding is too narrow to constitute what I believe understanding is. I don't think I understand anything in its true form (a cave reference haha) and therefore I don't think I know anything but I do know that if I say "I don't know anything" I am saying a paradox as I know that I don't know anything. The real challenge is realizing how little I know, and figuring out what I do know Hope you guys can scratch out what I was trying to say in that mess.

Our strongest beliefs (truths) stem from our core epistemic principles; which are what tells us what is rational to believe. If a person believes that god created us, then his core epistemic principles is god, Christianity. His religion will tell him what is rational and what isn't, what to believe in and what contradicts his belief. He will view anyone who doubts his principle as irrational. It all comes down to the fact that no one can fully defend their most fundamental epistemic principles. Since we can't obviously prove out principles using the same method that we believe in, and we can't use another method because we would then have to validate this other method and we would just be going in a circular motion with no meaningful endpoint. Science is another core epistemic principle. It is taught by schools worldwide to millions of students every year. Science and religion cannot ever be compatible because the rationalisms of both are contradictory and sometimes paradoxical to the other. Did god create us? Or are we a product of natural evolution? Science is believed to be leading this battle, because through research and evidence collected would point it to be the more logical. Based on my core epistemic principles. I believe neither God nor Evolution explains how we came to be here, because there are so many unexplained variables that contradict both beliefs. For example if we are to entertain that we are product of Darwinism; then how come there is a huge gap in the evolutionary chain around 2 million years ago? In which after this period "primitive hominids appeared" out of nowhere…and also from a scientific standpoint, how can we really justify that the ancient Egyptians could build the pyramids without some divine intervention. I wont go into specifics but these points are large holes on both Darwinism and science. In terms of god, there is just no tangible evidence god exists. God is belief and belief has no meta

Hareth, I have thought a great deal about the question you proposed regarding whether or not knowing the truth is of any value. I certainly cannot convince you of the value in the pursuit, nor will I try; in fact, I offer that this search (or its value) is something that rarely can be instilled in another. You formulate an interesting hypothesis insofar that if discovering truth is unattainable, then "why bother?" Maybe a rejection of individual or societal purpose is the point. Uh oh. Now we have carved out another paradox. If rejection is the point and I reject the notion of finding a point, have I, in fact, found the point? When I was younger, I tended to believe that the purpose of life was undefinable (see without value) but not in a dark or macabre sort of way. I found this liberating actually and still do. This ideological subscription to a vast nothingness is at the heart of absurdism, and, as Camus tells us in the "rediscovery" of the Myth of Sisyphus, the moment we discover that the universe does not care about our needs, we find freedom. So, reject any sort of obligation to pursue the truth. Transcend the quagmire of philosophical "bleh" and embrace "life." Tell Socrates and his wrinkled old mantra "the unexamined life is not worth living" that the unexamined life is for amateurs. Wait, if you do that, aren't you actually examining life? Dang. Back to where we began.

Ahahahaha you saw this too? Hahahaha xD I love this

Does this mean that any form of complimenting or encouraging words we give are simply empty and without purpose? Does this mean that giving compliments are simply just a ritual in its entirety? Somehow I don't believe this as I like to believe that there are still genuine feelings expressed to one another in this materialistic world of ours. Perhaps this is my own interpretation but maybe the exchange of these so-called meaningless words are just to actually carry out a civil conversation. I can understand the author's perspective regarding the waiter aspect as when they ask about my food, I simply reply with a "It's delicious" or "Fine, thanks". I see this happen with my parents as well when they are so obviously displeased with their food. Before I proceed onto a tangent about food, one last point. From my perspective, these "empty, but necessary conversations" are just a method of showing proper etiquette as well, as it would simply be rude to ignore a "meaningless" question. Hopefully this comment serves of some purpose.

I think the writer of this article makes some valid points. It is true that all of us say things just for the sake of saying them. Often we ask questions we already know the answer to or we say things that we don't really mean, just to make conversation. However, the author seems to be making fun of the way people do this and so he undermines the importance of 'talking no purpose'. Personally I believe that this 'talk of no purpose' is quite important. It is this talk that allows us to interact with the people we don't already know and it is this talk that makes daily life more comfortable. Imagine a world without no- purpose talk; waiters that serve you and then stare at you instead of asking you how the food is or a half-time team talk in the locker room where the coach just stares at his players instead of saying obvious things like "Play better defense!" Or sitting next to someone on a bus in an uncomfortable silence just because you don't have anything purposeful to say to them. Wouldn't that be awkward? We must also consider the fact that some of the most important relationships in our lives may have started with 'talking no purpose'; Best friends, spouses, girlfriends, boyfriends etc.

Sorry for the late submission, I finally found the comment button :). I found this article very interesting and it made me think a lot about my daily life. I hear these meaningless phrases, which the article refers them to, numerous times every day and only now do I start to question the actual meaning behind these words. I agree with the article to an extent that it seems kind of pointless to ask certain questions if we already know the answers to them, however I disagree with the fact that they are meaningless. Some questions asked by people may come out of habit and maybe the answer doesn't actually interest them, however by asking the question it shows that the person has acknowledged another person which may affect them at a more emotional level. An example for this would probably be the most common expression used, "Hi, how are you?". How often does the person asking actually 'care' whether the person responds with 'good', 'okay' or 'alright'? However, to the other person it may give them a warm feeling because someone has recognized them and put in the effort to 'talk' to them. I think it's the same thing with comments made such as "good luck!", "great job!" and "nice try". I can relate to this very well when I'm playing sports, especially mentally challenging sports such as volleyball, because if I'm not completely focused, it becomes very difficult to play well. For example, if I go up for a hit and end up messing up by hitting the ball out, I would usually get very frustrated , put my head down and stop swinging at the ball. However, if my team mates make comments such as "keep trying", "nice try" or "better luck next time", it really helps to bring my confidence back up and I'll have the courage to go up and swing at another ball. These comments however may come naturally and without great meaning from my team mates, but to me they make a huge difference.

Before reading the title of this article and leaping to a conclusion, read the whole article for a wider perspective.

I have an array of varying sites that pinpoint the UN resolution to declare internet access a human right, and most of them mirror similiar news stories. I simply chose this one because it raises several critical and interesting issues. I will post a follow-up that offers a slightly different perspective.

I'm not going to add to this because I'd love to hear what you have to say. Credits of the words go to Aldous Huxley, as for the image, I'm afraid I don't know who made it.