Weekly Blogpost #12

Wednesday, October 30th, 2013

Concerning the Omnipresence of Memory

Dear Mr Koss,

You probably have heard to many people rant and go on and on about the different divisions ToK has established to categorize knowledge. I'm sorry if this is an addition to that list. For your consolation, though, my point is not really to be angry, but simply to point out my reasons why people should not have been so outraged about the singling out of memory in the categories for the Ways of Knowing according to ToK. 

Many people immediately frowned upon the sight of the word "Memory" as it appeared in the diagram you projected on the screen. They claimed that memory cannot be a separate division on knowledge because it is omnipresent. "Memory is a requirement in the formation of knowledge, because without our memory, we would not retain anything." True. Without memory, we would not have knowledge of any sort because we would forget the information that we acquire the moment we have taken it off our mind. However, knowledge is not simply the acquisition of information, but the processing of the information that is presented to us. Unless one has an incredible photographic memory, one cannot remember all the things one hears about, especially when one has no clue of what is being talked about. For example, I will go back to the case of the Uighurs we had talked about in AP World. I have begun to "hear" and retain a lot more information about the events currently going on in China concerning the unrest, in which the Uighurs are participants. My mind, my memory, had not kept the information on the Uighurs until I studied them because my brain did not see the necessity of keeping information on a group of people it had nothing to do with, it had no knowledge about. The way that I see it, memory is subjective and selective in the information it retains, just like the other ways of knowing. So yes, memory is omnipresent in the sense that it is the factor that helps us retain information, and that helps us recall information. However, alone, it cannot achieve much in giving us more knowledge than we already have. In many cases, memory is like paper. It provides space where to write down and interpret the knowledge we have using other ways of knowing, and alone is not much help, is blank. The times memory actually plays an active role in providing knowledge is during an exam, for example, when we have to remember the information we had learned.

Also, I would like to point out that I strongly believe emotion is another potentially omnipresent factor. Emotions make us who we are, unique, different from others. If we did not have emotions, and simply had memory, then we would not have different opinions and perspectives. Emotions are the main factors that make our thoughts different from one another. I remember things differently, and retain different details, from the people around me based on my emotions, based on my personal interests, and based on my "emotional state". Disregarding emotions would be generalizing all of us, disregarding that we have different perspectives. Disregarding emotions would imply the belief that we are all the same, which, clearly, is not the case.

Homework from Week #11

Monday, October 28th, 2013

"Are you more certain that 2+2=4 or that you love me?"

So I asked my parents today, and both of them said that they are more certain that they love me than they are certain that 2+2=4. But recording only their final responses takes away all the fun. Oh, I'm going to go ahead and try to rewrite the entire two-minute conversation that was mostly filled with silence.

Se Jeong: Hey, Mom, Dad, I'm going to ask you a pretty weird and random question, okay? (Parents nod.) Alright, mm, are you more certain that 2+2=4 or that you love me?

(Silence as they both process the question. My Father laughs, a laugh I interpret as a result of awkward nervousness. My Mother stops her work for a moment and stares at me blankly.)

Dad: Where did you get a question like that? (still laughing the weird laugh)

Mom: Wait, can you repeat? Did you ask whether I am more sure that 2+2=4 or that I love you?

(I nod while my Father answers:) That I love you, of course. (Then he pauses awkwardly and, somehow, looks uncomfortable. My Mother is still staring blankly. A faint nod affirms her agreement with my Father. Her eyebrows are scrunched together.)

Se Jeong: Okay. Thank you!

(As I turn around to leave) Dad: Where did you get that question from?

Se Jeong: ToK. It's like a philosophy class.

(My Father nods. He looks at the horizon blankly. After a while he says:) We all wish and hope for that, don't we? We all hope that the people we love are more certain of their love for us than the unquestionability of simple math.

(I smile. Then, I answer:) I guess... Well, thank you anyway. Love you and see you later!

My afterthoughts on this episode?

Well, I always observe the reactions of the people I talk to. And without wanting to brag, I have a pretty good and reliable way of interpreting reactions. In this case though, I don't think much talent was necessary to recognize that both of my parents were taken aback by my question, and that though they answered that they were more certain of their love for me, they are not as certain about their answer. Both felt forced to say that answer. But is that what they truly believe?

I think I made them think more throughout the whole day with this "simple" question. But then, who wouldn't?

BBT 11

Friday, October 25th, 2013.

Think about the following statements.

I know that: 

a) the sun is shining today.

b) John F. Kennedy was killed on November 22, 1963

c) if a=b, b=c, then a=c.

d) my parents love me unconditionally.

Answer: 

1) Do all of the four statements describe the same process of knowing? 

2) Are these statements equally verifiable, that is, can they be proven in the same way?

3) Does verifiability matter in determining what is and what is not?

       First, these statements reflect different "types" of knowledge, that involve different process of knowing/ In case a), we know that the sun is shining today because we see the sun shining outside. This knowledge is based on the weather, on a condition that is not controllable by us (as it is a force of nature) associated with a state, the state of sunniness. We could almost say that this knowledge is based on our observations, on our perception of the world around us. In case b), we know that John F. Kennedy was killed on that day based on memory. For those who took US History, we have learned this historical date, and this information has entered our mind as part of our memory, of information we process and retain. In case c), this knowledge is based on reason and logic. Since a is equal to be, and b equals to c, it seems logical and correct to say that a is equal to c. This string of thought is based on logical reasoning. (As a side note, this reminds me of the logical fallacy to Rhogerian method.) In case d), we know, or at least strongly believe and hope, that our parents love us unconditionally based on emotions. It is an emotional attachment, a logic based on emotions. Emotions can often not be explained by logic and reason (as goes the famous question "Do you rely more on emotion or reason?").

       Second, these statements are all provable, to a degree. Some of them are proven in a more concrete manner while others are based on belief. It could be argued some are "more verifiable", "truer" than others, while others are more based on faith and are less concrete. For example, for case a), our claim that it is sunny today is verifiable based on our observations. Our claim is based on the observations we make, based on our perception. Therefore, this knowledge is supported by our perception, the observations we make leading towards this claim. In case b), the support we provide is based on historical evidence and records we can provide in order to support this occurrence. Historical events are from the past, and in that sense they are unchangeable. If something happened, it happened, and there is no way we can change this. The records are the proofs for historical knowledge. In case c), based on the Rhogerian method mentality, the evidence we can provide is based on reason and logic. In some way, even though the evidence can be very powerful, this way of providing evidence can also be crumbled easily (according to the physics principle of "an object, a principle, is only as strong as its weakest point"). Finally, the evidence that can be provided to verify this claim is strongly based on intangible aspects, on the emotional attachment we have. In some way, it is all based on personal knowledge, as the evidence depends on the way we receive the emotions of the individual in question (shared knowledge) and incorporate it in our personal knowledge. The proof that I have that my mother loves me is by the way I feel her love, is determined by how receive her love and how I perceive it. And these things are often not explainable in words. They depend and can be felt only by me (and, to some degree, the people involved). "Emotional proof" is often seen as not acceptable, as it is so subjective and vulnerable to multiple factors leading to different interpretation, and heavily dependent on the individual in question.

        Third, proofs are not required once we form our personal knowledge. Personal knowledge is like a selection; it is the knowledge that we acquire from the shared knowledge around us. I think that the acceptance of a shared knowledge as part of our own knowledge is sufficient evidence. Our acceptance is the acknowledgement that we have enough evidence to support the knowledge. On the other hand, proofs are a requirement for the formation of shared knowledge, for the incorporation of a knowledge in the shared body of knowledge. Any time someone presents his or her belief, he or she is immediately questioned and ask "Why?" by the people around. Proofs are a crucial element to verify the shared knowledge. I think that "proof" for personal knowledge especially comes from emotion, perception, intuition and imagination from the eight ways of knowing. Support for the formation of personal knowledge depends on the way that we accept and perceive things, which depends on the way we evaluate and interpret the situation in question. On the other hand, for shared knowledge, proof depends heavily on language, because the belief has to be communicated to the people around. Of course, the other ways of knowing, such as reason, are essential as well in order to find and support the found evidence. However, shared knowledge is formed and approved not just when an individual has managed to explain a knowledge to himself, but when he was able to spread it and communicate his ideas to the mass of people. And communication is dependent upon the use of language. Going back to the question, whereas shared knowledge is in high correlation with proofs and evidence, personal knowledge does not need to be under constant verification, because as the name reveals it, personal knowledge is "personal", accepted and held as true because that particular individual accepted it and incorporated it as part of his own knowledge.

Weekly Blog Post #11

Thursday, October 24th, 2013

Language and Thought: How the world is shaped by language

The section I am covering in Psychology right now covers Language development. One of the topics touched upon in the course of the section was called linguistic relativity. According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis on linguistic relativity, different languages carve up and name the world differently. Different language structures lead to perceive and interpret the world in different ways. As I kept reading the section, I realized the vulnerability of language in the face of interpretation, depending on the perspective of the recipient at that specific time. The book gave an example that illustrated, and clarified, linguistic relativity tremendously:

"This was the time I was in nursing. A doctor saw an elderly patient and, at the end of the visit, told her in parting, 'Take it easy.'. He meant is as an informal way of saying goodbye, nothing more. But this poor lady took it as a medical advice, promptly took to her bed, and refused to get out for the next two weeks, until the doctor returned from what turned out to be an ill-timed vacation. By that time, the little lady was so weak from her self-imposed inactivity that she was unable to walk."

In this case, the woman's thoughts were shaped by her condition. She interpreted the sentence "Take it easy" as a medical warning because of her case of illness. Had the woman been in good health, she would not have thought of the sentence in that way. She would have taken it in the informal way, as the doctor had meant it. 

If the first example illustrates the vulnerability of language in face of different conditions, the following example shows the vulnerability of language in a different perspective:

A little girl got sick after a meal involving a bit of over-indulgence in nachos, the dip for which she knew included some squashed pinto beans. For amny months afterward, she refused to eat anything called "beans", whether these were pinto beans, green beans, black-eyed beans, or even jelly beans. 

The book said that this could be paraphrased with Voltaire's statement as "I speak, therefore I think". Although this case can be explained with the girl's young age, it cannot be hidden that grown-ups are victims of similar incidents as well. Grown-ups overgeneralize some terms as well, though the overgeneralizations may seem less apparent and absurd.

I thought about how much language does shape the way we view the world, how we use language to describe our view of the world. The way we say things, the way we interpret the things we hear, play a crucial role in determining our perspective. I had always heard about the power of language, and about how humans' ability to communicate was the unique feature that distinguished us from other animals. I had not realized that, just as language could be powerful in a positive way, it could also be powerful in less positive ways, sometimes even leading to a close-mindedness. Language might be the strongest barrier in opening us up to the many stories around us, as they constrain us and make us more prone to the danger of a single story, our own story.

BBT 10

Friday, October 18th, 2013.

"If you don't know where you're headed, you'll probably end up someplace else."

How can we apply this quote to what we do in school, like grades, tests...?

Many students say that their teachers enforce their policies upon them. Even though there is some level on truth in this claim, it is not completely 100% accurate. Ultimately, students have the choice of doing what they want, of ordering their own lives. The teacher does not decide what each student does. At the end, students themselves decide what is going to happen with their lives. For example, if a teacher gives a lab report due a week before the deadline, the students have the choice of deciding how they are going to submit the assignment, yet of whether they are going to complete the assignment or not. One may decide to begin the write-up the day one receives it and get it over with as soon as possible. Another may decide to work on it the whole time, revising the work in order to produce the best work possible, using the extent of the time. Yet another may decide that he/she will leave it up to the end and procrastinate for a couple of hours before the deadline. These are just a couple of possibilities of scenarios, of possible options the students may choose to follow. The students' grade, and the knowledge they acquire, are all the fruits of their efforts, of the decisions they make.
Furthermore, that is not the only way of looking at this quote. We need to have a goal in order to make the best use of our education. The goals we set ourselves are the driving force behind our education, behind the efforts we put in for our achievements. If we did not know what we were receiving our education for, if we did not have set goals, we would be similar to an insect going through kinesis, or random movement. We need to have a goal in order to aim for success, as the goals are what determine our aims, help us in evaluating ourselves. Goals are the paths we are heading towards, that determine where we are heading. Goals determine our success, because success is defined as the attainment of goals.

Homework from Week #9

Thursday, October 17th, 2013

Creating a Knowledge Question

Case 1
Real-life situation:
In France, October 17th, A 15-year-old girl Kosovar girl was detained during a class field trip, as her family had been denied asylum and was not allowed to live in France. This generated much anger, not only among the students but also the media. Earlier today, students erected barricades in front of their schools and marched through through Paris to protest against the expulsion of immigrants, some of whom had been their students. Despite few cases of violence, most of the protest was passive. The students hope to pressure the government into allowing some of their friends whose expulsions had been unfair. Furthermore, Kosovar and her family, like many other people who are in their situation, have nowhere else to go. They do not feel like they belong to the "country they come from", do not have means to survive in that country.

France has often been seen as a place of escape, and this has caused much illegal immigration to occur. There have been innumerable cases similar to the one of the Kosovar teenager. The reason that this case mounted up and caused an outrage on the net is because people have had enough. This case had been the last straw, the one pull that broke the tense nerve. Critics support their claim by sardonically pointing out the irony for France, a country championing human rights, to violate the rights it claims to promote and defend.

1st order claim:

French immigrant officials have decided to deport a Kosovar girl as her stay was not permitted, even though they knew she did not have a place to go following her expulsion from the country. Would the officials have expelled the girl if they had not been in their position, if they did not have this job?

Knowledge question:

To what extent do social norms and the necessity to fulfill our social duties and role affect the decisions we make?

Wednesday, October 23rd, 2013

Case 2:
Real-life situation:
A thirteen-year-old boy carrying a replica gun was shot dead by police in the US state of California. Officers say they opened fire when the boy refused to drop the rifle which they had believed to be real. The day before, a twelve-year-old boy had shot dead some of his teachers and two of his fellow students before committing suicide. This boy had, as well, refused to drop the gun upon the entreaty of sheriffs.
1st order claim:
The sequence of events may have influenced the police officers. The possibility that the thirteen-year-old, who had been holding a replica rifle and they shot dead, could commit the same actions as the other boy of twelve, would not have presented itself if these events had not been so close to each other chronologically speaking. Might the police officers not have shot the boy dead without further and much investigation if the other incident had not occurred to previously close in time?
Knowledge question:
How do our emotions influence our thoughts and memories and, ultimately, our perception of the world?

Weekly Blog Post #10

Tuesday, October 15th, 2013

A Shared Knowledge of Peace

Sometimes, I think it is true that "older" people learn from children. Maybe it's because children are honest, as in they don't hide any of their thoughts. Children blurt out what is on their minds, because they have a less strong and set notion of other people's emotions. I mean, children are probably one of the most egocentric beings in the world (meaning we have all been the most egocentric people in the world for a while early on in our lives), and children only think about themselves and their desires. Okay, I'll stop right there, because I do not want to look as if I shun children, because really that's not true. I love being with children, especially when they make me think, as unconsciously they begin a series of reflections in my mind. 

At the end of the school day, I was walking down the hallway to go to my locker when a little boy ran up to me, looking very enthusiastic. "Hey! I remember you!", he told me eagerly, his eyes shining. I could not suppress a smile when I recognized him as well.

"Oh really?", I asked. 

He nodded, "Mhm, you came into my classroom last year, when I was in 1st grade, and you talked to me and the others about Peace and not fighting and being nice to each other." He stopped his little discourse, thoughtful. I tilted my head to the left, curious about the little boy's sudden silence. Then, he began again, more measuredly this time. "I thought about what you said. And now, I always try to stop myself and think about the other person as well, because I don't like fighting. But, I have a question. How do you know about all these things?" 

"Mm? What do you mean?", I asked, slightly confused. 

"I mean like, you know, like how do you know about what other people think. And about how to not fight. And about how to stop fight. And about how to understand and be nice. And about the things you said about Peace." A pause. Then, "How do you know that there is going to be Peace if we do what you said? I mean, I don't fight as much anymore, and Mommy said I was nicer and that I played with my brother better now. But how? And why?"

I opened my mouth and shut it again. To tell you the truth, he looked so serious, looking up to me as if he was seeking all the answers in the world from me, and I did not know what to reply to him without either confusing him or disappointing him. But the teacher called him as his mother had come to pick him up.

"Mommy!" He turned to me and smiled. "I have to go. But we will talk more. I just wanted to tell you. Because I remembered you, and you are nice, and I wanted to tell you."

I bent down, putting a hand on his shoulders. "You are a very thoughtful young man, you know? And I'm very happy you came to talk to me. Let me know if you have anything else you want to say, okay? You should go now. Your mother is waiting."

He threw his arms around my throat. "Bye!"

I waved as he ran to his mother. I saw him pointing at me, excitedly reporting our conversation (I assume it was our conversation). But I had blanked out, thinking about his questions. I have my definition of Peace. Actually, everyone probably define Peace one way or another. All of our definitions may have similarities, and differences as well. Peace is something felt within, something achieved within. We need peace inside us to be able to spread peace to others, with others. Peace is intimate, yet peace in the world involves interactions with others.

To tie it with ToK: I wondered whether Peace would be defined as a Shared knowledge or a Personal knowledge. At the beginning, I thought Peace would be a Personal knowledge, as it is something felt individually and intrinsically, unique to each and every person. But then, I thought maybe Peace is actually a Shared knowledge that we made Personal. Maybe the reason that there isn't Peace in the world is because people think of Peace as Personal only, because they do not try to turn it into a Shared knowledge. If people tried to understand each other, tried to define Peace in a way that the knowledge of Peace becomes Shared, would we maybe have Peace in the world?

I realize, as I type this post, I am becoming increasingly abstract and fumbled up in my explanation. But that's what always happens when I talk about Peace. See? That proves my point. It is so difficult to talk about Peace because it is mostly internal, and it is hard to shape/word something that is felt only. It reflects the obstacles in transferring Peace from the realm of Personal to Shared.

BBT Week 9

Friday, October 11th, 2013

"The more connections and interconnections we ascertain, 

   the more we know the object in question."

                                      -John Dewey

There are more than one way to interpret this quote. And this is because of not only the quote, but also knowledge. The thing is, for any quote, the interpretation depends on the context it is presented it. Depending on the textual context of the quote, depending on the mood of the reader, depending on many other factors. The way that I interpret this quote is that Dewey believes the more connections we make, the broader our perspective, the more comprehensive and complete our scope of the world is, the more we will ultimately understand the world around, as we will have a better understanding of what happens. The more stories we receive and understand (as in are able to interpret and analyze, to connect with what we already know and grasp), the more specifics we will know about the subject we are studying and the better we will comprehend it. 

I am going to say that I do not necessarily agree with this quote. I think that finding out more, making new and more connections, usually has the opposite effect of raising more doubts and questioning what we had thought, our knowledge. This is because more connections help open more views, more insights, more stories (referring to last week). Well, let me ask a rhetorical question: Don't we feel more doubts when we talk with others? Don't we get more questions when we find out more information? Oftentimes, the further the path of knowledge we travel, the more questions will arise as we observe the unknown territory.

At the same time, as I listened to the others during our class discussion, I came up with a different view. I realized that there are two categories of ways to define knowledge. Knowledge can be seen as a state of certainty. In this case the quote is not valid. The more knowledge we gain, the more uncertainty we may have because new information leads to questioning of past knowledge. knowledge can be seen as the facts that we gather, the information we gain. Under this definition, the quote is valid. The more connections we ascertain, the more information and evidence we gather, then the more awareness we will have of the world around us. The more data we have, the more knowledge we are going to have. On the other, knowledge can be seen as the facts that we gather, the information we gain. Under this definition, the quote is valid. The more connections we ascertain, the more information and evidence we gather, then the more awareness we will have of the world around us. The more data we have, the more knowledge we are going to have. Even if we are uncertain and confused from the gained information, we nonetheless have new information, an addition to the knowledge we had before. After listening to arguments from both sides, I realized that both sides are correct, appropriate according to the context they are presented in. Again, this made me reflect upon the importance of defining the key terms and concepts that are involved when we are in an argument, in the process of explaining something.

Weekly Blog Post #9

Tuesday, October 8th, 2013

Afterthoughts on Maps and Bias

Recently, cartography has been chasing me everywhere. I read an article that made me ponder about maps. The writer asked "Why do maps look the way they do?". He pointed out that, technically speaking, the landmasses did not have to be set out the way they were. Africa could have been situated at the top of the map, and Europe underneath, because Earth is, after all, an ellipse that does not have defined top and bottom. This comment made me realize how weird it was for me to picture a map of that sort, a "reversed" map, and it reminded me of the surprise I had felt when I had seen the upside-down map of the world. I was so used to seeing the world depicted the way I am used to, with the countries on top on top and the ones underneath underneath, that my mind had accepted and ingrained this as a truth of some sort. It had captured that map as the real image of the world, and somewhat rejected images that contradicted this idea.

How do maps shape our thinking? Most of the times, top is associated with superior and better, and bottom with inferior. Is that categorization applied as we view the map of the world as well? It made me think that there was a possibility that maps do indeed reinforce the stereotypes we have, and that they may not be as unbiased as I had thought they would be. Well, no, let me clarify. I knew that maps have distortions, depending on the aspect the cartographers decide to be most faithful to. But I hadn't thought about how maps might affect the preconceptions we may have on different countries, different areas of the world.

BBT Week 8

Friday, October 4th, 2013

"The Danger of a Single Story"

It is not enough to know a story from only one perspective. We have to look for all possible perspectives to understand an issue at its core. Had we only one perspective, we would only have one window through which to observe and examine and evaluate an issue. This can lead to a higher possibility of misinterpretation, as out view would only be under one strong bias.By looking for many stories, instead of relying on only one, we find ourselves less vulnerable to gullibility, to a strong and dominant inclination.

Let's consider a common scenario. Let's imagine that Anna and Lisa got in an argument, and that the argument resulted in a fist fight. This fight gets reported to the principal. If the principal looks at the issue from only one perspective, he will not be able to get a complete view of the whole event. If the principal looked at it from only Anna's or Lisa's perspective, he would only have heard one side of the event, one story, one character's position in the story, and therefore he will have an incomplete knowledge. If he listened to only witnesses' stories, he still would not have the entire story because he lacks the thoughts of the main characters Lisa and Anna, the one who participated in the plot and action. The principal has to aim to the entire event, to the entire scope, to know all the stories within the big story. He has to aim to understand all the relevant components of the story.
The danger of a single story is that a single story is not enough. A single story does not become the whole story. It is important to keep in mind that although one story helps in getting a better idea of what happened, a single story alone cannot be relied upon entirely. We all have to aim to know the most stories possible to acquire a more comprehensive and complete knowledge. It is like a puzzle. One piece is not enough to reveal the entire picture. But a piece is a step, a part, essential to complete the puzzle. Instead of being satisfied with only one story, we should aim to collect the stories that we can.

Weekly Blog Post #8

Monday, September 30th, 2013

"Flowers for Algernon": The Right to Know

I began reading "Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Keyes this evening. It is such a good book! Moving and sweet, yet heartrending as well. I am only at the first third of the book, but I can still give a brief synopsis of what I read. 

Charlie Gordon is a man with a very low IQ. He lives a peaceful and happy life, unaware of half of the things going on around him. However, after he was chosen to receive an experimental surgery that will increase his intellectual capacities, Charlie's life begins to change. Charlie becomes aware of the things, people, emotions, the world, and himself. As he comes out of his ignorant bliss, his unaware blindness, he begins to understand the complexity of life. He realizes that the people he had thought of as his friends actually made fun of him the whole time, that the reason they always kept him around was to fool him and laugh at him, to ridicule him. Charlie begins to see the bad in people. Prior to the operation, he had thought of the world deprived of evil, yet he witnessed theft and jealousy as he worked in the bakery. Most of all, Charlie began understanding the depths of his emotions, discovering himself.

This book is an amazing book that places many key questions on the development of humans. Though an adult, Charlie is only recently and suddenly opening his eyes to the world. Is he ready to face all the issues, the complexities, the difficulties around him? Technically, Charlie is expected to "grow up" all of a sudden, to adapt to all the changes that he is undergoing in the immediate moment. Charlie gets surprised by all the events, overwhelmed by all the new things he experiences. Charlie did not even know what he was going to be going through. How ethical is to include an unaware participant? Most of all, how ready is Charlie to receive this vast amount of information, to be exposed to this whole knowledge?
A quote in the book that I found key was:

                    "'If you'd read your Bible, Charlie, you'd know that it's not meant for man to know more than was given to him to know by the Lord in the first place. The fruit of that tree was forbidden to man.' "

In ToK, we had talked about how humans are constantly, and probably eternally, searching for truth. We are probably driven by this curiosity, this quest for knowledge. I have not heard of a pill, surgery, or other kind of scientific development, that would boost human's intellectual capacities overboard. So the scenario depicted in the novel is not applicable word for word. Yet I can connect this with times a particular time in human development: the maturation process. Psychologists have warned many times that there is a right time for everything. Even an infant should not take his/her first steps before he/she is physically ready. Parents always try to shelter their children from knowledge they believe inappropriate for that certain age.

"Flowers for Algernon" raised many thoughts in my mind, especially about human development and knowledge. Is it wrong to know too much, to know more than we should know? One case that really struck me was thinking of this. Imagine being able to read other people's thoughts. How would we be affected? We would not have hope, fantasies, because there is no gap in our knowledge for our mind to fill in. Maybe we do know enough. Maybe we do know the amount and things we should and need to know. Maybe ignorance is truly bliss. At least in some way.