Weekly Blogpost #33

Wednesday, April 7th, 2014

Achebe and the other side of History

Don't you think the novel "Things Fall Apart" by Chinua Achebe fits in perfectly with the theme we are discussing now, history and the perspective from which it is told?

One of the reasons I loved Achebe's novel was because of the skillful incorporation of European and African literary techniques. Achebe wrote the novel in the storytelling style that is much respected in the Igbo culture, in a winding and circumlocutory style through which the narrator approaches around the point he is trying to reach before finally settling in to the purpose of the story. At the same time, Achebe uses the European storyline, telling the story of Okonkwo as a tragic hero whose hubris ultimately leads to his end. Furthermore, Achebe reflects the education and sophistication of the Igbo culture by including fables, proverbs, expressions, words, throughout his novel. The incorporation of the Igbo language exhibit the complexity of the culture that cannot be translated perfectly and literally with English words. Whereas people often have a common misconception on the simplicity of the African culture, Achebe undermines this belief by hinting at its complexities and claiming the existence of many small traditions within Africa (a name often used as a synonym for a country instead of an entire continent).

BBT 33

Friday, May 9th, 2014

In the 5th edition of the IB Theory of Knowledge program outline History is defined as:

"the attempt made by professional historians to record and reconstruct the past through the study of evidence derived from a variety of sources... History can never be objective in an absolute sense and the contribution of every historian must contain a subjective element... every generation must rewrite its own history in the light of new evidence and under the influence of its particular attitudes and prejudices. History is also part science, in its approach to evidence, and part art, in recording and communicating its findings."

Why would they call history part science, part art?

History is comprised of evidence and facts collected in a systematic method that seeks to find the greatest level of accuracy and adherence to the "true" events. History is written as literary work is written. But the content of the historical work is more of a science, because it has been compiled with precision and accuracy. The historians try to seek for objectivity, yet the interpretation makes it more similar to art. History, as art, tries to persuade its audience into understanding and identifying with the perspective that they are trying to initiate and incorporate. Historians are scientists who purposely include their colours in order to make their works more poignant. They strive to find the truth, as opposed to the truths that science aims to uncover.

Homework from Week 32

Monday, May 5th, 2014

Excerpt from "A People's History of the United States,", Howard Zinn

1) On pages 3 and 4, Professor Zinn "bluntly" states his approach to the writing and teaching of the history of the United States - his thesis statement. Investigate his approach. Do you agree with it?

Professor Zinn decided to approach the history of the United States in a less conventional point of view: the perspective of the "conquered." If history is truly recorded and told from the point of view of the victors, Zinn decided to attempt a historical account through which he would tell the story on the extreme. I think that this is an interesting attitude and position. It offers another view on the events, at least to the audience. Our views are complimented by accounts from the two sides, in a way that makes our view more complete and balanced on both sides of the spectrum. On the other hand, if Zinn's work allows the audience to develop a broader and more expansive understanding, I think that Zinn is somewhat limiting himself and also contradicting himself. After all, his defense of the "defeated" people also implies a bias, that is not necessarily less strong. But I guess that his explicit statement that he will bluntly and singularly write from this point of view undermine his position as a biased historian.

2) Professor Zinn was not ashamed to say his approach to history was biased, however it just happened to be biased towards viewing history through the eyes of the common people rather than political and economic elite. Should historians write with a bias? Or rather, can any history be objectively written?

Similarly to an omniscient third person narrative in a novel, it is extremely difficult, if not quasi impossible, to write a complete bias-free account of history. This is because it is too broad and expansive to include the thoughts and positions of all the people in the world. To write a completely objective point of view, one would have to include and therefore research on ALL the people included. The wording, furthermore, is impossible to be completely unbiased, for the reason that language itself is filtered by our own biases. To write a completely objective historical account implies a book filled with an infinite number of opinions, because all the people would have to be included. Furthermore, aren't the categorizations all dependent on the people who make them? How can we ever know that we fairly judged all the involved? I guess we do the best we can, and we will have to ignore those who may potentially think that the work is not bias-free, because, after all, we only know the much we know. 

3) Professor Zinn's book was loudly criticized by some of his peers. Georgetown history professor Michael Kazin "characterized the book as an overly simplistic narrative of elite villains and oppressed people, with no attempt to understand historical actors in the context of the time in which they lived," and Harvard historian Oscar Handlin said "the book conveniently omits whatever does not fit its overriding thesis... It would be a mistake, however, to regard Zinn as merely anti-American. Brendan Behan once observed that whoever hated America hated mankind, and hatred of mankind is the dominant tone of Zinn's book." 

Formulate your own critique of the excerpt you've read of Professor Zinn's book.

Assuming that the excerpt is part of the introduction to Professor Zinn's book, I like that he establishes his ethos, and explains the point of view from which he will be writing his novel. He claims that "the reader may as well know" that he will be writing covering a much neglected part of the history of the United States, interpreting events from the unconventional perspective of the defeated, the conquered, the poor. He thus already states that there will be portions in his book that may seem anti-American, and his acknowledgement of this feature reflects the opposite of some of the criticisms. Professor Zinn does not "invent victories for people's movements," and rather attempts to examine, no, reveal the stories that are often overlooked in favor of the more glorious accounts of victory. The reason that Zinn is doing this is because of his definition and his belief for the purpose of history. Zinn believes that history is a subject that examines past events in order to learn from humans' past. He therefore believes it it not correct to solely praise the good. He believes we must also face the bad in order to not emulate the same mistakes. The stories he recounts are actually all incorporated in glorious accounts of the victors'. The reason that they are not more widely spread is because they are often forgotten and overshadowed by the more exciting and appealing stories of human goodness and wins. Zinn's purpose was to compile all these left-in-the-dark stories into a book, because it is by fierce exposure without any protective layer that lay bare the occurrences that are, after all, part of the story of all of us. I cannot help but note the fierce and sanguine diction he employs, such as "massacre," words and expressions associated with connotations of violence and unjust deaths. I cannot help but build a skepticism towards the point of view that Zinn is presenting, because as he is ultimately trying to reverse people's views on the writing of history, he will necessarily use and include stories that seem particularly more aggressive and brutal. 

4) Professor Zinn’s account history has been called honest and necessary, or biased and hateful.  Evaluate this claim in relation to Professor Zinn: How does who writes history shape our understanding of history?

Depending on the writer, our view on the event will be swayed by their bias. Primary accounts, especially, are retold with stronger emotions that breed a more marked and passionate account. If the account is written in favor of the victors, it will contain praises and optimistic visions that reinforce the idea of the positive effects of the events. The reader will be more prone to believe that the outcomes of the events were positive and beneficial for all. However, if the account is told from the view of one who was exploited, defeated, unprivileged, it will reveal a more gloomy and negative attitude that will influence the reader to pity and condemn the events and people involved. Professor Zinn is writing his book in order to provide the reader the other side of the story, in the hope that this alternative view will compliment and thus complete another piece of the jigsaw puzzle making up history.

BBT 32

Friday, May 2nd, 2014

"In a very real sense the study of history is more concerned with a subject matter more objective and independent than that of natural sciences. Just because historical matter is in the past, is gone... its objective reality is guaranteed."    -G.R. Elton

Does history being "objectively guaranteed" mean we have guaranteed knowledge of the past?

I define history as a body of knowledge, of historical evidence and their interpretation, humans use to describe the past, to asses past events in order to plan future actions and decisions. I believe that history is not simply the past events, but more so the interpretation of these events as well. There are many things that happen in the world, that happened in the world, and it is not possible to know everything because there are possibly a lot of evidence that have not been uncovered. The events may happen, but they may pass without being recorded; therefore, that event will be lost because it will not be known later. Some people argue that history is always biased. However, bias does not mean wrong. They still give information about the perspectives and the thoughts that happened in the time.

A Small Insight #5

Monday, April 28th, 2014

Newspaper article on Racism in Soccer

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-29/outrage-over-alves-banana-racist-taunt/5417026

When I saw this article (and video), I could not suppress a small chuckle of amusement and slight horror. But then, as I thought it over, I felt my heart warming of admiration for this soccer player, Daniel Alves.
It may be difficult to act with good humor and without anger in situations of racism, yet Alves managed to overcome the adversity by taking advantage of the situation and eating the banana that had been thrown at him. Well, I guess that, in his case, his wit came before any aggressive impulses.
It makes me wonder where racism stems from. I mean, Alves is a pretty renown soccer player, and it surprises me a little that anyone had the guts of showing the narrowness of his/her thoughts when his action was streamed for the world to see. It is possible that he/she expected Alves to react in a less-mannered and more self-deprecating, humiliating way.
Anyway, I am happy of how this situation ended pretty well. 

Weekly Blogpost #32

Friday, April 25th, 2014

Afterthoughts on Seminar

The main distinction, in my opinion, between science and religion is that science is a method to find answers while religion provides the answer. That said, let me give an example. When people turn to their faith to explain death and possibly afterlife, they do not really seek to question the explanation that is given to them. Some people can question, can have doubts and try to find an alternative answer. But in the end, the purpose of religion is to answer the inexplicable, to seek answers without having "doubts" or "questions" as the main or principal purpose. Religion gives the answer. On the other hand, science is a method to find truths. People use science as a pathway to find evidences supporting different beliefs. 

Homework from Week 30

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014

Reading: "Crystal Truth and Crystal Balls," Richard Dawkins

& "The Fallacy of Scientific Objectivity," Hilary Lawson

1) Why does Richard Dawkins think that a scientific approach to understanding crystals is "more illuminating, more uplifting, and also stranger than anything imagined" by pseudoscience like mystics and New Age gurus?

Dawkins believes that pseudoscience is controlled by the magical power of language. People are able to fool others by using bombastic and much colourful words in order to convince the others of the truthfulness in their preaching. People with less education, or with a less keen and critical eye, would be more easily gullible to the words of a New Age guru who holds on to a claim and persuasively defends the veracity of the phenomenon he is explaining. On the other hand, the scientific approach observes phenomena as they are, without attempting to embellish the natural course of things. In the atomic level, or further down, there are particles, rays, that define and are in a constant show of wonderful things that are not necessarily visible to the naked eye. Of course, tools of high technological development might be necessary, but the evidence provided by others having witnessed the natural phenomena is proof enough for the people to at least imagine (or search up on Internet) what happens naturally, in a scientific point of view.

For example, people are sometimes tricked into believing star signs (ie astrology) is very much true. It is possible that there is a correlation between the positions of the stars and planets and the personality of an individual. However, instead of listening to a woman or man using their mystical powers and their persuasive eloquence to find out, the people might better seek out to look at the stars themselves, and try to find a relationship between  the two supposed factors.

Haven't many people experienced the placebo effect, where a patient believes himself cured because he was told he had ingested a medicine? Well, this is a clear example of humans' tendency to believe what we would like to believe, even though it is not necessarily true.

Alchemy might be another example. It is said that gold was tried to be produced in a man-made fashion. Instead of seeking this out of sole trial-and-error, it might be better to try finding the sources from where gold is produced in the earth, and then try to emulate this. If not, just enjoy the view and thought of how gold is produced, a fascinating process for some, I am sure.

Black holes are covered in myths, due to words and language that distorts the way they actually are. But when one delves into the core of the truth, maybe he will find the beauty from their terrifying power. Truth is not reflected by language, a medium through which scientific knowledge is spread.

2) Why does Hilary Lawson think that science is a "fiction" that tries to achieve objectivity but can't?

Lawson thinks that scientific knowledge is also tainted by bias. The scientist can present his thesis, his ideas, his data, and his evidence in such a light that makes his hypothesis seem right. People might be tricked by his skillfullness in presenting his research, and then adopt these faulty findings due to practicality. The common use of this knowledge incorporates it in everyday life until it is not questioned, and is bothered to be questioned, anymore.

For example, Galileo never offered concrete evidence that the world turned around. He had not observed this, yet everyone eventually accepted it. None of them carried conviction, yet we accept that the earth revolved around the sun as common knowledge. Or in physics. Many of us don't understand, grasp, or have witnessed the phenomena that we discuss, yet we accept them as true due to a certain dogma. We believe so because it seems right. Lawson suggests that science might lose credibility someday as well, as religion did in the past.

3) How can we square the circle? Create a theory of your own that allows for both "crystalline truth" and "scientific fiction."

The truth is, even though we have not been able to observe them with the naked eye, there are things that happen in the microcosmic world that we have to accept happen. For example, we are made of atoms, even though we do not see each individual particle. Are we going to start questioning that because we cannot see it? We could, but what would be the use? Of course, scientific knowledge can have a source of bias, but that is why we receive our own education, to be able to raise our skepticism when we feel something is not right. We have the right for judge for ourselves, choose what we want to accept and don't, and this is applicable to science as well. There are things that allow for imagination to take its course, and what allows this to happen is the veracity of the scientific knowledge that we have (or at least our conviction of their happening). After all, this does refer back to the question we had at the end of the Perception lesson: What would life be if "seeing" is not believing.

Weekly Blogpost #31

Sunday, April 20th, 2014

The significance of a moment

I suddenly remembered this question, and I have a little distinction to add. There are, indeed, some moments that are more significant in the sense that they have an impact on one's future. For example, taking a college entrance exam is a major step when applying for colleges. And, therefore, the day you take the exam will have much significance towards that person's future (at least relatively). But then, there are moments that become significant when reflected upon, even if their significance had not been noted at the present time they had happened. For example, sometimes relationships are built from random moments of connection. I might begin a friendship by helping someone out of a difficult situation, without even knowing that the person had been in need of someone. The moment would be considered significant later on, when reflected upon, as the two try to remember when their friendship started. 

I guess a moment's significance should be considered on at least two criteria: Was the moment known to be significant, or did it become significant through memory?

BBT 30

Friday, April 11th, 2014.

Give some examples of things that were believed to be true by scientists

but which we now know to be false now.

Why does this happen?

Examples of such cases were: 

1) geocentrism, when people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that all the other stars and planets revolved around us;

2) that the Earth was flat and seafaring travelers would reach a point where they are at the end of the world and fall off (terrible monsters and a hole at the edge);

3) the identification of certain diseases as a "punishment sent by God" instead of a result from bacteria pr virus;
4) the atom being the smallest particle (more atom models have been developed, with protons, neutrons, electrons and all the microscopic world);
5) the fountain of youth giving immortality;
6) alchemy (making gold out of a combination of clay mixtures).

This happens because new information is "discovered" and discards or expands upon previous beliefs. Scientists find new information that complements or alters the body of knowledge that has been formed and called scientific knowledge.

Weekly Blogpost #30

Wednesday, April 9th, 2014.

Reduced (or expanded) to formulas

The law of gravitational force, the law of action-reaction, the law of inertia, E=MC^2. All these formulas, among many more, are the laws of physics that summarize life around us. The laws of physics can be written out as words, but are more often transcribed into a logical and scientific combination of letters, numbers and symbols into a formula. 

Isn't it weird to think of the world summarized into an equation? At the end of the day, when physics students or physicists, or any individual really, work with these formulas and these theories, it is as if they are holding the fate of the world in their hands. At least in theory. But, most of all, isn't it weird to find cases of null solutions, or when a whole sequence and process of reasoning, is proved completely wrong or unsound? If the formula is a model representing life, does it mean that life was wrong as well in a sense, if the model was inaccurate?

Weekly Blogpost #29

Friday, April 4th, 2014

Thoughts arising from an experiment on "Index of Refraction"

I am sitting here, with my sister, helping her finish a lab report on an experiment testing the correlation between the index of refraction and the angle of refraction. (As a side note, in case the scientific terminology is throwing off, the index of refraction is the "velocity at which light passes through a medium", and the refraction is the passage or deviation of light off a surface. Or something on that order - I am not a physics person, and never completed an in-depth physics course.) And while I help her go through the "proper organization of a lab report," questions keep popping up in my head, as I have flashbacks to the good times when I had to spend lovely hours and hours, sometimes for two or three days, writing a lab report on the female guppy mating preferences or the proliferation of a fruit fly population with the ratio of the different manifested phenotypes (and genotypes).

The scientific method has been devised to conduct experiments in the most controlled and properly ordered manner as possible. Experimenters nowadays, whether from natural or human sciences, use the scientific method to conduct their researches, and further their understanding of a phenomenon or expand upon an ongoing study. I am not saying that the scientific method is wrong, and that all research conducted in accordance to the scientific method is flawed. However, I do think that it is in use because it is the best that we have for now. In other words, it is not perfect (if perfection exists, that is).

For example, as I conducted experiments, I would always repeat treatments, because more trials increase the chances of eliminating or identifying skewed data. However, along my trials, I would often realize more fallacies in the set-up of the experiment, such as variables to control. The problem would be that I could not change the faults, because that would change the controlled variables of my experiments and therefore affect my data. Even though I found faults, I could not modify my experiment, because that would mean the repetition of the entire experiment, which was not possible in the class time limits constraining me. Of course, others could say that I should have come later, and dedicate hours afterschool to correct my mistakes. But then, isn't there a possibility of me finding more errors to correct? Would there ever be a point of perfection I could reach to my satisfaction? Might I not fall in a pattern of starting-again's that captures in an eternal cycle of unfinished experiments?

Well, I guess that is what science is about though. Science asks that we identify whether the initial hypothesis was supported or rejected, and the mistakes or areas of improvement that could be used for later. Science leaves the space, and encourages (or pressures?), the experimenters to continue their experiment, to fall into an eternal cycle of the search for truth. Science, as we had discussed in class, is based on the assumptions that have been proven to not be false, as opposed to be proven true.

I wonder, does this characteristic of scientific study make science a reliable source of knowledge? Science is the best knowledge we have of its kind, yet are people not often forgetting the somewhat ephemeral reliablity science has? Aren't people often in equivocation of the possibility that a fact (which had been proven to not be untrue) might suddenly be found completely false in the near future, whether tomorrow or in a year or in a century?

As I sit and help the write-up of this lab report, I wonder how people grew to trust science so much. Yes, most knowledge classified as scientific has undergone thorough investigation and all, but it is often things that we do not "see" or perceive with our own senses. I mean, we just assume, take things for granted, that there is bacteria everywhere (for example), or that there are molecules composing the water we are drinking. We had finished off the section on Perception by asking "What would life be if perceiving was not believing?". And now I ask myself that, yes, although we are perceiving science to a certain extent, we do not have the absolute confirmed certainty of its occurrence; therefore, how did our heavy reliance on science grow?

Weekly Blogpost #28

Tuesday, March 25th, 2014

The world in slow motion

Do you remember when we talked about humans having a number of filters that allow perception?

Well, I was wondering whether you've ever had a time when you felt that everything, you and the people around you and the world, seemed to be moving in slow motion. I am not sure why it happens, but it sometimes occurs to me. I seem to hear things (or is it that people seem to talk?) in a slower manner. It is as if all my senses have been put on a slow motion, everything going in a ritadando, and I do not understand why. But thinking about it along the lines of the time filter, maybe it is because that time filter of mine has been "ticked" momentarily for some reason. 

It also made me think about the question "Is there a moment more significant than another?". I mean, even though the moment that seemed to be going more slowly did not seem important in any way, and was pretty random actually (unless someone thinks watching someone charging bought goods at a supermarket is fascinating), yet maybe something was going on in my subconscious mind that kept me from speeding in the "real", conscious world.

Oh well, I do not know anymore. Anyways, the random speed-changes in my life, though pretty rare, seemed to be significant enough for me to share on my blog today.

BBT 28

Friday, March 28th, 2014

What makes a claim "scientific"? 

Is there something different about a scientific knowledge claim that makes it distinguishable/distinct/unique from other types of knowledge claims? 

A claim that is "scientific" is proven "true" by a scientific experiment following the scientific method. It is one that has undergone the correct processes of a scientific experiment, with hypothesis and variables and controls and so on and so forth. Scientific knowledge is part of the "universal" knowledge that is accepted as true, that is not questioned often. And this is probably because they have not been proven untrue. Most, if not all, scientific knowledge has been accepted because they have not been proven false, instead of having been proven true. 

Weekly Blogpost #27

Saturday, March 22rd, 2014

Reflections on SAAC Fine and Performing Arts 2014, at Nido, Chile

Well, talking about art in ToK. I am back from the trip, and am very exhausted (excuse any incoherence in my thoughts, if there are any). But I thought that the connections between the two, trip and subject of discussion in class, so great that I decided to talk about it.

The theme for this SAAC was "Otredad." Now, what does it mean? The only "guidance" we received was the expression "I am me because you are you." Then, the phrase was left for our own interpretations. The diversity of interpretations was most obviously noticed in the art students' works, as they had to paint benches in groups of four to five in response to the theme. However, even in the other realms of art such as Band, Choir and Drama, the theme was reflected. We were all different, pertaining not only from different schools but also different backgrounds, yet we were all striving towards a common goal: to create art. Whether painting a bench, or singing, or performing a play, or playing a song, we were all working towards the goal of creating art. And the result, the reception from the audience, depended on how well we managed to work together, help each other out, to achieve this goal.
Therefore, I think that in any time, the way that art is "evaluated" is by how well it manages to connect people. Because that is what art is for. To express and leave an impression that allows space for more expression and interpretation. 

Weekly Blogpost #26

Saturday, March 15th, 2014

The Illusion of Language

Dear Mr Koss,

I say that you make the 11th graders read Heart of Darkness if we talk about Language in ToK. As I prepare my research paper for English and read many, many sources, I cannot help but imagine conversations that could rage in the class on the theme of language.

According to the essays of literature experts I have read, language is a paradox in itself. Language has the power to create, is a medium to communicate past experiences, yet it has so many limitations. Language, though attempting to emulate reality, can never reflect past events with the same exact details. Europeans had embarked upon the Congo River and "civilized" the Native Africans there, enforcing their language and hierarchy in the silent, disorderly wilderness. For example, Europeans referred to Africans as "fiends" and "enemies," to which Marlow commented with much sarcasm that the Africans were barely more than shadows of humans. Even though language attempts to enlighten truth, it can ultimately cover the truth and lead to a d greater darkness.

And then, even when the truth is covered, the external surface of words is pierced to the core of truth, there may lie "a horror," as declaimed by the dying Mr Kurtz and later Marlow himself. Marlow had initially revealed his distaste for lies, a sign of mortality; Europeans relied on language, therefore implying that European lives were an illusion, a lie, the exact thing that Marlow dislikes so much. Although this is according to a number of sources only, Conrad's novel Heart of Darkness is a criticism of imperialism, of the imposition of Western ideals that are all illusions and lies of civilizations.
I have not formed my stand on Conrad's position on imperialism, not just yet, but I've got to say that the points made on language were all very interesting. Language can be a liberating yet binding way to retell stories, to recount true events. After all, the only people who know the truth, reality, are those that assisted the actual scene. Even then, different perspectives will create different realities for the actual observers as well. There are always filters, because humans have reason and a mind filled with their personal knowledge. But there is nothing wrong with that. We may all have different realities, but that doesn't make one reality less real than another, right?
I didn't fully study and understand the principles of Kantian transcendentalism, but I think that I agree with this philosophy the most. It is true that people formulate their knowledge, their thoughts, based on different ways of knowing, using different "filters" such as time, space and causality. Even language. The speaker and the audience are all under the influence of these filters and of the personal knowledge to recreate the told tales.
All in all, the power and limits of language are a contradiction that would be interesting to touch upon in our ToK class, don't you think?

BBT 26

Friday, March 14th, 2014

If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

If a tree falls, it will make a sound, whether a person is there to hear it or not. For me, a sound is any kind of noise that occurs, ignoring the presence of an audience for it. There are many things that go unnoticed in the world, but that does not mean that they do not happen.

Homework from Week 25

Thursday, March 13th, 2014

"Allegory of the Cave," from Plato's Republic

1) What does the cave represent, and what does the outside world represent?

The cave represents one's own reality, the world one creates with only the knowledge has acquired. The cave is the world that is shaped by one's perception of the world, by the external stimuli detected by one's senses and thus drawn into one's consciousness. On the other hand, the outside world represents "reality," encompassing all the "information," "stimuli," and so on, that exists in the world. 

2) Socrates says that the reality of prisoner who is let loose from the cave is "more real" than the prisoners who are left behind. Do you agree with him?

If we defined the term "real" as containing more information from the external world, if "real" referred to more exposure and experiences in the outside world filled with infinite sources of stimuli, then I would agree with Socrates. The reality of a prisoner who is let loose from the cave would be more real than those of the prisoners left behind because that prisoner would have faced a wider variety of external stimuli. He would have been exposed to another perspective that would help him in redefining and reshaping his own, drawing him somewhat closer to the external reality. It doesn't really matter what initial reaction the prisoner may have. He will somehow adapt the "new information" to redraw his reality, molding it closer to his updated perspective, perception, of reality.

3) To what extent is perceiving always believing?

Perception defines each person's belief, because it is through perception that one registers external information into one's reality, one's world. What one cannot perceive, one will have difficulty believing. Many people might scoff at the possibility of a pink unicorn because they have never perceived such a creature in  this world, in their reality. However, I am pretty certain that were a pink unicorn to appear in the middle of the school tomorrow, many people in our school community at least would change their minds, or have a shaken certainty on its existence. Perception is the identifying and analyzing of the stimuli our senses capture. It is the way for our minds to collect information, either in the conscious or unconscious minds, and therefore creates and shapes our view of the world, our perspectives, our realities.

Weekly Blogpost #25

Saturday, March 8th, 2014

Singing along

I was walking along the beach with my sister. We were playing a game where one would begin singing and the other would join in, and vice versa, and so on. There were moments when I would not recognize the song (as in artist and title), yet I remembered the lyrics and rhythm and everything and would be able to continue the game. This made me think about the relationship between perception and interpretation, and the force of the unconscious. Apparently, sometimes, the unconscious can really play a more vital and active role than its misnomer may imply. Maybe the unconscious actually is more dominantly in our perception of the world, though the interpretation seems to rely more on the conscious.
For me, perception means the taking in of the stimuli raging around us, in the environment. It is the information, the knowledge, that we pick from around us, that we may or may not necessarily be aware of. Interpretation, on the other hand, is the bringing into consciousness of the stimuli that we collect. Even though I could not recognize the song, I knew somewhere deep inside what it was. 

BBT 25

Friday, March 7th, 2014

Are all moments equally significant?

I believe this depends on the person or people we are talking about. Any moment can become significant to the person or people involved. The audience determines the significance in a moment, or moments. For example, in order for a moment to become significant in history, it would most likely have to have an impact upon a vast number of people, or several nations. A moment that was significant for the US might be different from a moment that was significant for Kenya, as an example. The moment the Civil War began in the US might not be as significant for an Australian. But then, how important is the moment of Jeanne d'Arc's death for Americans? In both cases, not as much for the people not involved as the people from that nation.

If that could be categorized as a shared significant moment, it would be different for a personally significant moment. A personally significant moment would be one that has had an impact on us, one that has some kind of meaning that attached it deeply in our memory. The significance detached it from the rest of the moments in our life, becoming a bookmark in our stories. Personally significant moments might have importance for one individual only, yet they would be the ones that are treasured the most by anybody.

BBT 24

Friday, February 28th, 2014

"All art is quite useless."

                -Oscar Wilde

What do you think he meant by this? Do you agree with him?

I think that Oscar Wilde is going against the whole idea/issue of categorizing and judging art. Wilde is stating that art is not made for the purpose of being judged upon as one way or another, as in good or bad. Art is simply made for the purpose of entertainment of the intended audience, and for the artists themselves. Wilde is not saying that art itself is useless. Rather, he is saying that all attempts to judge art and enforce a certain interpretation or criteria of judgement is a useless and vain effort. Art is more of a personal experience, not a shared knowledge that should be decided upon by convention or majority vote.
Or at least that's the way that I decide to interpret his meaning.

Homework from Week 23

Friday, February 28th, 2014

Questions for Discussion from "What is art?" readings

A) Are the arts important? If so, is this despite or because of the problem of finding the standards by which to judge them?

I believe that the arts are an important component in our lives, and the value of arts expand further than the issue on standards of judgement. Art is a form of expression, whether for personal knowledge or shared knowledge. The arts have been a way to share the knowledge (emotions, thoughts and all) for centuries, probably almost since the beginning of times. It doesn't really matter to find universal or "proper" criteria to judge arts. And this is because the purpose of art is not to gain attention, but rather to express and reflect the artist's purpose. This purpose may be to raise awareness, or to unleash secrets or hidden messages, or for his own personal enjoyment, or to give as a gift to a given audience, or who knows what. Point is, I believe that art is important, even though there are no agreed conventions to judge art pieces, because the essence of art is not to be judged by the same standards by all the individuals in an audience. Art is a form of expression, for the artist and for the audience's interpretation. Art is "open-ended" because it is this quality that allows its versatility and accessibility to a variety of people.

B) What place does rationality have in the arts?

Rationality defines the realm of acceptability, or maybe the realm of credibility and pleasantness for artworks as seen by the audience. I don't think rationality has much importance in the arts, because what might seem rational to one may not seem rational to another or the rest. Rationality is another area of knowledge that is much open to personal interpretations. But rationality helps in defining the audience's response to the art piece. If the art piece made sense in the individual's rational, then that individual is more inclined to appreciate that piece. If the artwork did not fit an individual's rational, then that individual is more likely to dislike the piece and discard it as "bad art". Rationality is a contributing factor to people's response to the arts because people tend to appreciate what they can understand and dislike what they cannot decipher.

C) What are the standards for artistic judgement?

I don't believe that there actually are universally set and accepted conventional standards for artistic judgement. I do believe that there are underlying ideas that are shared by the majority of humans, meaning that there are qualities that seem more attractive or pleasant to the human eye. However, I do not believe that they are legitimate, meaning that they are neither strict nor enforced upon anybody. Art often forms part of the shared knowledge, as many artists share their pieces to an audience. Nonetheless, artistic judgement itself is personal knowledge, because the interpretation of the arts is a personal experience. Each individual will judge the piece he or she is viewing according to his or her own values. Although there might be a sphere of acceptable interpretation, I don't believe that anyone can say one's judgement is off or wrong, unless maybe by the artists themselves. But even then, by spreading the pieces for the world and leaving them open for individual views, artists are giving a license to viewers to decide their views on the artworks for themselves. A melody could sound happy and light-hearted to the majority, yet there might be a minority who hears a sorrowful tune. Is either of the interpretation wrong? Not really. We cannot condemn people for individual differences, or emotional state, or memories, or any other factor that contributes to diversity and the uniqueness of all of us.

D) Which people are best qualified to judge the arts? What qualities should they possess?

Any person is qualified to judge the arts. When artists to spread and share their work to an audience, they are granting those individuals with the right to judge and interpret them accordingly, in their own ways. The different values beheld by the people are the qualities that enable them to have different interpretations. Lacking imagination, or emotional responses, or memories, or any area of knowledge might limit or prevent an individual to interpret and judge the artworks. However, this doesn't mean that the individual is less qualified as a viewer of art. Any viewer of art, any person who has the curiosity or desire to view an artwork, is qualified to judge art. Because art is made for the purpose of the intended audience, from children to adults to anyone else and including the artist him/herself.

Weekly Blogpost #24

Monday, February 24th, 2014

Poetry, an often shunned form of art

Marianne Moore strings upon a truth in her poem "Poetry". She addresses the negative response people tend to have towards poetry. Her main point? People tend to dislike things they do not understand in general, and poetry may fall into that category. Moore also draws a line between "curiosity" and "appreciation". People may be desire to know more about poetry, and this interest hints at their attraction to poetry. This, however, does not necessarily mean that they like poetry. Appreciation comes with comprehension, therefore people cannot decide whether they like something or not until they understand it completely. 

When I think about it, this is very true. I have often seen people change their mind about their liking for something once they understand it. As an example, students might hate the novel "To Kill a Mockingbird" when they read it as a sixth grader, yet they might love it when reading it again as an undergraduate. It is not "accurate" to decide one's opinion on something when one does not understand the meaning completely, because this misunderstanding builds a frustration that breeds prejudice against the subject in question. As Moore puts it, one must first inspect the "imaginary gardens with real toads in them", grasp the meaning and find the realities, the truth, they reflect and seek to transmit, before having the qualities and the right to decide whether they like it or not.

Weekly Blogpost #23

Wednesday, February 19th, 2014

To what extent can an individual have impartial judgement?

Dear Mr Koss,

I tried formulating a KQ this time for my weekly blogpost. I do not know if it fits the characteristics of one, that it is open-ended and general enough, but anyway. I will not stray away from my main point.

The reason that I came up with this question was following the questionings of people I know and reading several articles on the Sochi female individual figure skating competition for the Winter Olympic Games of 2014. Many people asked me my thoughts on the participation of Korean skater Kim Yuna, twice gold medal winner and aiming to win the gold medal three times back-to-back. On one hand, "Do I think that she will win? What are my expectations? Do I believe she has a chance?" On the other hand, "Do you think that that fact the Olympics are in Sochi, Russia, this year will influence the judges' scores? Do you think that Kim Yuna will be affected in some way or another?". And all those kinds of questions.

Looking at the results for the short program, Kim Yuna placed first with waves of supportive and positive comments, praises, from judges and audience all around the globe. Yet what I see is Adela Sotnikova as the runner-up, the second position, right behind the Korean "Ice Princess." 

I would like to believe that the judges will be impartial tomorrow, that Kim Yuna will perform and be judged under impartial eyes that are not prejudiced. But, deep inside, I feel that this won't be happening. I do not like to accuse, especially without any evidence, but I do not trust the Russians and the judges fair judgements. It is possible that I am wrong, but I cannot help but have a weird premonition. 

I say all this, but even then, I admit that my opinions are biased. After all, I am Korean. But more than anything, more than because of the desire to see another gold medal join my country of nationality's flag, I wish that Kim Yuna will win first place for her own sake. I wish that she performs her best, that she reaches the zenith of her career, as this will become her last performance at the Olympic games. She has talent, determination, perseverence, and I hope that this will overcome anything that may happen and grant her an impartial judgement that does not lead to doubts on integrity.

As a side note, my KQ was formulated by my wonders of whether it is ever possible to be completely and entirely free of bias. As humans, we have our thoughts and opinions on everything. Our reason allows us to use the information that we have, and this influences all else that we do. I wonder whether it is possible to be completely fair, amid all our backgrounds, overcoming the webs of information and consequent biases.

Weekly Blogpost #22

Friday, February 14th 2014

Reflections on Today's Class "Controversial Debates"

Today, we talked about different controversial topics, those that are bound to raise an array of opinions in any class or among any group of people. Furthermore, the two questions that we addressed during the second half of the class were, in my opinion, very closely related: "Is there one life that is more valuable than another?" and "Can one deny rights to other based on their actions/behaviours?" (or at least something along those lines).

Most of us, if not all, were of the same basic opinion. "No, there is not one life more valuable than another as all lives are of equal value" and "No, it is not right to bar people from their fundamental rights". Georgy was the only person who had guts to challenge the majority's opinion by defending his country's position on the issue of "gay propaganda" in Russia. Many people, especially our dear Francisco, loved to shoot him down. And many good arguments were made, from all the various positions that arose. However, one question did come up to my mind: Is it possible to have equality despite differences?

As I had said earlier in class, I believe that all lives are valuable. Not because it is embodied in a human or plant or animal, nor because it is that of the president or celebrity or friend or family, nor any other reason except because of its essence. Life is life, and there is nothing that can be substituted for it. Throughout history, people have been placing prices on different life forms, whether on prostitutes or slaves, or food, or flowers for the backyard. People have been saved, others have been killed, based on what would it best for a country or humanity in general or another point of reference. This is a truth in the world, and I don't think there is a way for us to change the way that we have shaped it. Yet, theoretically, all lives are of equal value. And the reason is because all lives are life. The greatest present, a miracle that all living organisms have been gifted. On a similar note, I believe that all people should be granted the same rights. It is unfair for people to suffer the denial of their rights based on the precedents of others (i.e. the children of past dictators), or based on differences they cannot help from having (i.e. people with disabilities or with different inclinations). Rights are to be granted to every living being and should not be taken away UNLESS there is a good reason, based on the individual's actions or a given circumstance in which the denial of certain rights would be for the better.

The problem lies in the capitalized word, "unless". Who is allowed to determine the use of this word, who is allowed and can rightfully use this derivative? Who can be granted that "power" without making it unfair to others? People are individuals, all different in their own ways, all unique. It is therefore difficult to come up with a norm without infringing upon different beliefs. What might be right for one person may not seem so apparent to another. It is almost, if not completely, impossible to bring "happy justice" to everybody. There is always a difference that will arise, a little minority who will disagree. For example, going back to the Russia example, Georgy said that anybody who is practicing the spread of propaganda is violating a law. He also claimed that there is no freedom of speech in Russia. People lashed back, saying that the limit on speech is a violation of a basic human right. I do not agree with limits on speech either. But who are we, individuals who are not even Russian citizens, to say that the Russian government is doing wrong? If the UN, or some other big and influential organization, to try to enforce upon Russia the repeal of such laws, wouldn't it limit the power of the Russian government as well? Wouldn't it be some kind of violation as well?

I guess that my question is, who has the ultimate power? Our class discussion ended up open-ended, as expected for any debate of this sort, but I also wonder. The infringement of rights, the valuing of one life more than another, don't these happen in an attempt to strive for security and peace? If no limits were placed, couldn't there maybe be more wrong happening? It is not possible to find a "happy justice" for all, because there are always differences. Were all these differences considered, would there actually be any laws left? (This is relying on the assumption that we should be governed by documents outlining our rights and laws, but who says we should rely upon those, then?) If no decisions were made, would we maybe not be living in some sort of anarchy and chaos? At the end of the day, we are not living in a utopia, a world of harmony where everyone agrees with one another without doing "bad".

But then, again, I guess there is no wrong with imagining and dreaming. Dreams are made to help us strive towards a better future. Dreams are there to help us hope, and, well, to dream. And who knows? Maybe, one day, we will reach complete harmony. Someday, somehow.

BBT 22

Friday, February 14th, 2014

 What is a knowledge question?

Can you use ToK terminology in your definition?

A knowledge question is a question that uses ToK terminology to attempt to answer a question about knowledge. When I saw knowledge, I am referring to knowledge itself, I believe you had worded it as the "nature of knowledge". KQs are not about real-life situations, although they may be based off a real-life event, and they do not address specific cases, focusing on broader topics instead.
KQs are open-ended and general, and are about the nature of knowledge itself.

Homework from Week #20: KQ for Semester 1

Wednesday, February 12th, 2014

Adherence to Traditions and Adapting to Change

Real-life situation:

When they were first conquered, the Native Americans tried to maintain their traditional lifestyles, to adhere to their native cultures and not succumb to foreign influences. However, the constant pressure from European colonists and settlers eventually weakened these peoples' defenses: they lost their territories as people took over their land and transformed them into farmfields; they were prohibited to practice their native religions, usually centered around reverence for nature; they were "europeanized". Whereas people may argue that these changes were practically enforced upon the Native populations, it is difficult to deny that the adoption of firearms and horses, among other influences that greatly affected their lives, was greatly of the Natives' own wills. The Natives saw the benefits of owning a horse, as this animal eased transportation and quickened communication, helped them conquer the fields. The Natives realized the power of guns and other firearms, as these not only were more powerful than traditional weapons such as the hurling of rocks and stones, but also inspired fear in their enemies and rivals. The Natives eventually turned against each other as well, fighting over territories and accesses to trade that had been taken away from them by the colonists. The Natives often weakened themselves, their kin, or the people they were related with (at least by being native of the Americas) by using the tools the Europeans had used to defeat them. Not only that, the use of firearms may have increased the pride and confidence of some Natives, inspiring them to abandon their traditional ways of living in order to adopt a more modern attitude that gave them more power.

1st-order claim:

Some Natives abandoned their traditions from ambition, sometimes to secure their authorities, other times to regain belongings they had lost yet believed were rightfully theirs (and so on). 

Knowledge question:

How does the pressure to change, conform or adapt, affect faith?

(As in: When does one decide to abandon one's faith, culture, traditions, in order to adapt to changing conditions? If this happens, does it mean that one's faith was actually not that strongly held and treasured? Or do different conditions and situations engender different opinions, as some people may say "ambition" while others say "adaption"? Is there a difference, and does this difference make one worse or better than another?)

Note: I did use the Native populations in the Americas in this case, but this was because I just studied them in AP World, and this is fresh in my mind. This case can be applied to many other people. Actually, maybe all of us. Because, realistically, there are people in our world who act out of ambition, hurting their family, friends, sometimes themselves, by not being true to themselves and adopting styles they "were not born with". For example, "The Great Gatsby" by Fitzgerald was concerned with the new rich and the old rich, the rise of the prior while the latter slowly faded and crumbled down.