12 Theory of Knowledge 2013-2014

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

Too coolio! I love all this "Who are we?" stuff. It's so ambiguous! :) Worth a watch for interesting insights, I wouldn't recommend it when you're tired, though!

I'm so glad you enjoyed it, Ash! Things just go round in circles, don't they? What if existence goes round in circles. Like we never actually die. I can't imagine what it would be like if I died. Would I start from the beginning, like a GAME OVER scenario? Would time rewind to my beginning? You may enjoy the movie "Mr Nobody", it's completely mind blowing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYlFfEO_qh0&feature=BFa&list=SPDC5B51DB3962ADEF

Indeed the world as a game over scenario, that would be interesting. Reincarnation but it is always human? Hence maybe why some have felt they have been here before eh?

Enjoy this engaging exploration into how art redefines culture. I think you will find this an interesting discussion on race and identity.

Considering the nature of the topic discussed, I feel that it is important to consider the definitions of the terms "African", "ethnicity" and "museum". The first term, to me in this video, seems to indicate people descended from sub-Saharan Africans, regardless of their actually cultural or political affinity to this area of the world. This leads onto defining the term "ethnicity", one which I feel has next to no scientific foundation, and rather is a relic of the era of colonization. For the sake of the reflection however, I will temporarily accept Thelma Golden's usage of the term for those who are descended from sub-Saharan Africans. Finally, a museum is a place where people can go to see exhibits of culturally and academically important pieces of human discovery or creation. In consideration of Thelma Golden's lecture, I feel that the issue of identity is a prominent theme throughout it, from the term "Black Masculinity" to the mentioning of the Harlem Renaissance. All of these factors tie in together to show what Golden wants to emphasize, which is that she believes that African-American culture is something that offers much to artists for discussion and for exhibition. This is an issue that matters a lot to me, as many parts of my life revolve around the issue of exploitation of human beings. Perhaps this is why I was drawn to making my extended essay on the Zanzibari revolution, as I felt that I had never investigated the idea of African nationalism and pride in history. In consideration of the issue of ethnic identity, my personal belief is that someone is a person before all other things, and that cultural, "ethnic" and other labels only serve to destroy the individual in society. I am not saying that I am unique, far from it, but I believe that one's art should identify with one's personal passions or with humanity as a whole, rather than with a specific, and often very loose-knit group. Overall, I feel that Thelma's presentation brought up an interesting

The video to me was quite interesting as it explores the art movement in the concerned ethnicity. Perhaps was seemed most curious to me was when Golden brought up the anecdote of the art pieces by Leon Golub and Robert Colescott. The presumptions made from the woman who judged the pieces strikes upon the notions of history and concurrent ethnic-specific views upon them. The fact that the woman assigned the ethnic identities and the attitudes that were supposedly portrayed in the pieces exemplifies the variability in the interpretation of art pieces. Without context, some things can be blatantly misinterpreted which certainly puts into question of other works of art in all forms and origin. If we always apply preconceived notions and ideas into the interpretation of art, is there a boundary to what we may still deem to be a valid interpretation? Certainly, in this case, such misinterpretations hinder the original intentions of the artists.

Enjoy this philosophical foray into the aesthetic values inherent in our world.

"Art" made from fly vomit . . . Is it art?

I've always thought doing the painting and the process of making an art work by myself or by himself in this case would make the art work mine or his. That reminds me of another artist, Marcus Harvey, with the painting of Myra. He used children's hand prints. Kind of ironic creating an art piece with the face of a child murderer and painting it by children's hand prints.

The idea presented here is very interesting, increasing the depths of historical analysis through digital statistics and other forms of measurement. This provides a different dimension to studying history, as normally it revolves around studying various human factors before and after an event, the possible advent of math incorporated in the subject would enable a new and greater understanding of a particular time period, while also allowing for future speculation of events that could lead to prevention of potentially negative ones. The only problem with this talk is it is short and leaves the viewer with unanswered doubts (intentional?), such as how can one be certain that algorithms based on the past where circumstances were entirely different are reliable for predicting future events?

Jean Baptiste Michel comments on the human ability to "perceive quantities" (2:30, the mathematics of history), he goes on to explain his point with this analogy; committing 10,000 soldiers to a battle in which already 1,000 soldiers have been committed previously, is relatively an enormous quantity of soldiers to the war. On the other hand, committing 10,000 soldiers to a battle in which already 100,000 soldiers have been previously committed is a relatively low quantity in terms of war. I found this to be interesting, in how our mathematical process affects our perception of history. War is a prominent fixture in human history, while death is a way in which people can relate to history, mathematics plays a prominent part in understanding and quantifying an emotional response from an individual. Michel states to the that large numbers of casualties in war's are proportional to the relative stakes, so therefore the larger the number of casualties, mathematically could have less emotional impact to an individual. This is becomes an issue when studying war's and conflicts in our history. While we inherently bring greater importance to events in which many casualties occurred yet are unable to emotionally connect due to our mathematical and statistical reasoning and perception.

I really liked this TED Talk because it looked at history in a way that I never thought would be possible - through mathematics. I found it interesting that humans behave in systematic, mathematical ways, even though we don't think we do. Natural sciences such as physics and chemistry all have some mathematical bases or phenomena that can be explained in terms of maths. Social sciences, such as economics, history and psychology are rarely ever explained in terms of mathematics. It seems illogical to think that humans behave in a systematic manner. However, I think that if this idea of mathematics being a part of history becomes popularized, this could help us in many ways. In the beginning, we would be able to understand the patterns in history, we'd be able to understand part of the human thinking process, such as the perception of quantities and how it affects our decisions, as Jean-Baptiste Michel said. Later on, however, we would be able to predict the future and possibly prevent unfavourable outcomes. I think the systematic way of looking at history may be a big step for humanity. (Although, it may cause us to act like robots, which may lead to other implications.)

I found this argument and concept very exciting. I've always been passionate and interested in learning and developing understanding of different cultures, and what different cultures find sacred. In the two main cultures I was raised in (American and Omani), mathematics plays an important role in education and careers. It had never occurred to me that individuals around the world could view mathematics in a religious and holy light. The Bamana priests found their sand divinations so sacred that they wouldn't share their "secrets" with Eglash. Only his initiation into Bamana priesthood allowed him access to the secrets. The fact that the Bamana priests guarded their divinations so much demonstrates the significance they believe mathematics has, and correlates with the spiritual qualities they believe mathematics to have. While this belief of math having divine qualities is new to me, it has been recurrent in mathematical history. Funnily enough, it sounds like Cantor believed himself to be a "mathematical prophet". Whether we believe his claim to be true or not, he also considered math a divine matter, and provided us with mathematical concepts that have come to shape our technology-driven, modern world. I've struggled with math as an academic subject, consistently viewing it as something that "needs to be done" rather than something that is fascinating and representative of culture and identity. What Eglash is doing by connecting individuals with their "mathematical cultural heritage" is inspiring. It is providing a new backdrop for mathematical education and is (I believe) fundamental to developing deeper understandings of mathematics in cultures.

What I thought was interesting was that he brought up that mathematics is in nature and it is there consciously however we are unconscious about it. All the examples from Africa explains mathematics in real life and in their culture however they do not take it as "mathematics", they just do it. They know about the mathematics that goes into the process though Englash went back the process to see the mathematics in it. This was interesting people with more developed technology goes back to understand the mathematics behind what people in Africa do in their daily life. I never thought mathematics can connect to nature or some people's daily life. To me, mathematics seemed very abstract and I just couldn't see it connecting with mathematics because I believed things that happens in nature are more spontaneous and without any particular patterns. Now I think I understand when people say "we need mathematics for everything" and "we cannot live without mathematics", though we need most subjects that we learn in school. We tend to just think about a subject in the particular class room when we should paying more attention outside of class to see how it connects to us and how most things in life is from what we learn in school.

I found this TED Talk very interesting, and after watching this and especially after today's TOK class, I am starting to realize the mathematical concepts in different situations and environments around me. One things that Mr Eglash said that really intrigued me was the function of the fractals in the villages of Cameroon. He explained and showed a diagram illustrating how the houses in a village all circle the leader's home in the middle, who is in the middle of his family within the bigger circle. Even the houses on the outside are surrounded by other houses in a circle, and I found the reason behind this mathematical layout very interesting. Eglash explained how when people went deeper and deeper in the cirles, they had to be more polite and respectful. Also the more important people were in the centre of the circles. These two factors highlight how mathematics is used as a form of representing social hierarchy/discrimination, as social class and importance in the society is reflected through one's position in the multiple fractals. Also, another thing that I found interesting goes back to a central debate we discussed in class: was mathematics invented or discovered? Eglash told us how the people in these various African tribes had told him that they had not known what fractals were, they had just shaped their villages this way because they looked attractive and interesting, and in my opinion fulfilled their social representational needs. But we have made something out of shapes within shapes, we have given thm names, applications and intellectual importance. But these African villages have given them applications and importance as well, without even knowing what they were. But a question arises: do we even know what they are? We have given them meaning through our interpretations and perceptions, but how can we know whether 'our' fractionals are the same as 'their' fractionals? Do we need to mathematically understand what something is in order to find it useful

Is this art?

I think it is although it doesn't look like one of those "typical" art pieces. Things may be called art when the creator or the founder calls it art.

I cannot access this. Any ideas why? So far, not art!

Not Required but relevant to our current study of morality and law . . . .

Nearly one thousand students pack Harvard's historic Sanders Theatre to hear Michael Sandel talk about justice, equality, democracy, and citizenship. Now it's your turn to take the same journey in moral reflection that has captivated more than 15,000 students, as Harvard opens its classroom to the world.

I remember form last year Mr. Frederickson asked us the same first two questions and we had to answer what we would do. In the first question I would make the turn and kill one worker instead of five, because I am only killing one person. So by killing one, I was able to save five people's lives though I killed one. So what in this situation is, "less harm = less guilt". The professor should have also ask, what if the one person was a family member. As we talked about the Heinz dilemma last class, now the person is someone you know and obviously you care about. Would I make the turn to kill one of my family member and save the five workers, or actually kill five to save one person? Or what if the one person was a famous person or your idol? Would you still kill him/her to save the five "workers"? I have emphasized on the word "worker" because this may bring a sense of less value. One is famous and the five is "just" workers. In this situation the person is not close to me or does not have a close relationship with me and I do not know him/her other than watching that person on TV. But just because he/she is famous, does that mean he/she is more respected and valued than the five workers? In the second question I would actually do nothing and let five people die, because if I were to push the fat person to save five I am involving myself into the situation that I wouldn't be in if I didn't push the fat person. Although I will be watching five people die when I had the choice to do something, I wouldn't. The original situation always seems to go under the statement of "less harm = less guilt", but the altered versions most likely leads me to do nothing and let the five die, due to the fact that I don't want to harm the innocent and non- involved one and to not involved myself into the situation. Either the pushing or the killing to get the organs, involves me to the situation physically and to take action. By taking action, I feel more guilty and feel

I remember a few years ago, one of my friends who was doing the IB Diploma asked me the trolley car question. It stuck with me for a long time. Last year, Mr Frederickson asked the same question. Now I finally know where this question is from. The first half of the video really made me wonder about why it feels more and more wrong to kill one person instead of five in the examples Sandel gives. I realized that the physical closeness to the person increases the emotional closeness to the person increases as well. You see the person, you can assume things about them from the way he is standing, what the person is doing or his facial expression. I once saw a video that spoke about how we deal with having our own personal space in crowded places like subways. The speaker said that we subconsciously objectify the people around us - they appear to be merely objects that are placed within the walls of our personal space. I would assume that this applies to people that we see on the streets too, except reversed. I believe that this logic also applies in the trolley car example too - the person that's closer seems more real, so it seems more immoral to kill him. For the second part, the question 'what is the moral work of consent?' intrigued me because I used to think that consent would make something acceptable. However, this video got me thinking - what if consent is being given not because the person is actually giving consent, but because they're doing it for some other reason be it the greater good or other personal reasons. This could apply to the shipwreck example (if Parker had given consent), as well as other ones. What if the reason why a person is giving consent for something to happen is so immoral that the action shouldn't be regarded as acceptable anymore? Would this put the people who do the action at fault? Or would it still be okay, would the action be excused because of their obliviousness?

Required Viewing

I found the ideas presented in Sam Harris' TED talk extremely intriguing and thought-provoking. I was very captivated by his concept of moral-genius in the same fashion as it applies to genius in any other scientific subject area. I found that his ideas accurately applied to the real-world, where people's subjective opinions of morality, fueled by cultural stimulus, interfered with the goal of human well-being. This led me to wonder what the causes of such ideas and actions. I came up with a possible explanation for the phenomenon. Moral questions rely heavily on social aspects which is expected since our sense of morality is shaped by our interactions with our community and ourselves. When we talk of the subject of morality and what we perceive as morally right and morally wrong, we encounter several different distinct, morally correct answers to solve moral problems. There is a certain range of actions that we would distinguish as morally correct. In a scientific-based subject such as physics, as Harris discussed in his presentation, the answers to questions are concrete and precise. This is due to a lack of social interaction in order to achieve an answer, the range of correct answers which is present in moral questions is now eliminated. I believe that this is due to the fact that social interactions are not part of the journey to reach the answer. This allows physicists or people in general to dismiss incorrect answers to questions without hesitation, if an answer is incorrect, a clear demonstration of the faulty logic that caused the deduction of the incorrect answer may be explored. Morality however, may not be explored using the same procedure. People are afraid to point out the faultiness in the deduction of moral answers of other people because they do not want to dismiss the moral beliefs of other people in fear of insulting them by discounting their beliefs. I find this similar to what occurs in a subject such as English. English is also a subject which

I think that what Harris has presented is an interesting point of view, but I think that his viewpoint on moral topics are quite narrow minded, because of the fact if that morals are not determined through scientific concepts. I feel that when he continues to think about these topics he only considers the points of view out of practicality, instead of looking at peoples emotions and the morals that they have based them of off. Personally I believe that morals are based of not only religions, but also the community that people reside in, as often we base what we do on our surroundings, as we don't want to be ostracized by our community. For example, one of the theories Harris offers it to look at the idea of moral leaders just like we have leaders in religion, but I think that what he might fail to understand is that morality, is much more fluid and abstract than basic science, as there are many variables which differ at the same time. I think one of the main problems with having "moral leaders" might be the fact that they will not take the culture into consideration.

I would like to start this response by stating my initial thoughts on the topic of the article and the author himself. When I first looked at it I thought of the fact that I find applied psychology rather hilarious, as I find it not only inconsistent, but also scientifically unjustified and rather subjective. Furthermore, upon reading that the author was a born again Christian, I got the feeling that he was trying to justify religion and try to make it a scientific concept, when I believe it is not. However, I must admit that both of these thoughts, in reflection are logically unsound, as they show the "ad hominem" fallacy. Therefore I will discuss the importance of this article in a more justified way, by approaching the argument itself and not the writer of the argument. I will approach my response from the central question: "To what degree is morality subjective or objective?" First of all, I would like to highlight that the dichotomy between subjectivity-objectivity and empiricism-transcendentalism is that the two are connected on which sources of morals they identify; with subjective-empiricist morals being derived from each individuals' perspectives and objective-transcendentalist morals derived from the idea that morals are universal construct, waiting to be found. I would like to define morals as the rules by which one believes they can lead a just life. Objective morals are defined as morals which disregard the idea of them being constructed by an individual and therefore can be upheld universally, and subjective morals are defined as morals which can only be upheld by an individual. I feel that this article creates a false dichotomy for me, as I do not think that morals are simply ideas which can be followed empirically or transcendentally, but rather that they are ideas which have far more complex origins. As the article looks at societal morals and the way that human interaction encourages certain moral beliefs, I would like to highlight the fact

To start, I do not consider myself a religious person, nor do I consider myself a particularly spiritual one either. I've only lived a few short years and cannot really determine or even express my religious/spiritual beliefs and/or to what extent I am invested in these beliefs. I do know, however, that when I read this article I couldn't help but agree with the basic principles and values of transcendentalism (to my surprise and slight consternation). According to what I knew of transcendentalism (picture Walden-esque scenarios and Thoreau's argument from which unfortunately stems superficial 'appeal to nature' arguments) this 'realization' did not sit well with me. On further reflection and reading of my edition of The Philosophy Book, I think perhaps due to some superficial discussions I've had regarding transcendentalism, I disregarded this belief as having little to no merit. I believe this to be an example of 'the fallacy fallacy' or 'argument from fallacy'. So, to correct my earlier statement, I agree with the philosophical movement of transcendentalism as described by Mr. Edward O. Wilson. At first glance, transcendentalism suggests a universal set of rules and rights that everyone should uphold. This is the idea that I subscribe to, although further exploration into transcendentalism proves to be problematic to me. For example, I do believe that there are universal rights and wrongs, but who determines these rights and wrongs? And who am I to know if my concept of universal rights and wrongs are truly right or wrong? This of course 'muddies the waters', and although we discussed this in class on several occasions I cannot help but continue to be frustrated by this. Wilson continues on to discuss the 'evolution of morality'. I find this both intriguing and problematic. Through studying IB Biology, I've learned that traits and characteristics in any individual are passed down from parent to offspring if the parent is successful enough to survive

(continued from above) to reproduce. This would then apply to early human individuals and morality as individuals who expressed cooperation and 'morality' would survive to pass their genes on. I took this statement to suggest that every human alive today would somehow be a culmination of years of evolutionary biology, producing us as the 'most moral' to date. However, over time civilizations would develop and humanity would move from its hunter-gatherer phase to its agricultural phase. It seems to me that given this drastic change in living conditions, Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' ideology would not apply as much to these people as it would have to Wilson's Paleolithic hunters. This change would provide opportunities for mutations to occur and be passed down, therefore altering our 'biological moral compass'. Not only would this change in living conditions alter social ethical codes but, following in form with Wilson's suggestion of the inheritance of morals, change our biological morals as well. Instead of the 'most moral' surviving, the survivors (and therefore our predecessors) would be the individuals who managed to appear the most moral or hold the most power, regardless of actually being the most moral.