• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Knowledge is the true organ of sight, not the eyes". Discuss.

Extracts from this document...


[Knowledge is the true organ of sight, not the eyes] ?Knowledge is the true organ of sight, not the eyes? (1200-1600 words) 1. What does the author of this quote mean? 2. To what extent can this explain the process of sense perception? How do we know what we are seeing is the same to us as it is to another? That is a question that I frequently ask myself and I am sure many others before and after me have and will. The question is very subjective to how an individual feels and believes he is processing the reflected light that is sent to his brain to tell him of the object in front of him. If one believes that what we see is what it is, they would disagree with this statement, however if one feels that predetermined judgement plays a role in the processing of information then they would whole heartedly support it. I feel that the author was trying to express that eyes are simply a biological pass through for knowledge. And that knowledge is more emotional perception. When born, we as humans do not recognise anything, our surroundings are alien to us. ...read more.


We take in things we want to. A lot of the time, if we chose to focus on something we may miss out on various other things occurring at the same moment, as was shown with the selective vision test in which viewers did not see the gorilla when counting the amount of passes the white team made. In this case, how can we base our knowledge on what we see, if we chose to be selective and chose what we want to see. It is selective to the viewer?s limitations and interpretations. When looking at the process of sense perception, one could believe that what we see is really what it is. This is called common sense realism and is a comparatively straight forward process from which we can understand out surroundings. However, those who believe this no not allow observation to affect what they are seeing; meaning that such individuals will solidly believe an idea of fact, even of all surroundings point away from it, leading to incorrect assumptions and potentially huge gaps in their knowledge. These people will most likely believe that they eyes are simply the origin of sight and not the knowledge. ...read more.


Now if the eyes were the true organ of sight, then we would not need the signals sent to our brains to process the information, we would be able to use solely our eyes. However, with the knowledge we hold in our brains, we can successfully identify the stimulus and that is why I support the quote. In conclusion, if what is written above is correct, our sight really is heavily limited by our knowledge. This could be why certain colonies like Eskimos have many, many different words for snow, because they have knowledge of their surroundings and therefore can interpret many different types, and why certain civilisations such as the Himba of northern Namibia, have words and therefore interpret colours in five categories rather than essential eleven categories we have. For them, water is seen as white and the sky as black and therefore blue and green fall into the same word. This shows us that our knowledge really does have an effect on the way we see things and it is not just the reflected light that we process. This means that the more we learn as human beings, the more we can see and understand of the world surrounding us. TOK | PageLauren Alden 12B ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge essays

  1. What can be meant by the Panchantantra saying, Knowledge is the true organ of ...

    precise judgement as to whether or not it was hot outside, simply by glancing outside my window. If it was sunny it was obviously hot, and if it wasn't sunny then I would need my coat that day. However my method of telling the temperature later revealed itself to me

  2. There are no absolute distinctions between what is true and false. Discuss.

    Truth, in these circumstances is brought about in one of two ways: direct presentation (conflict) or otherwise through other media and aspects like character building. This discourse on subjectivity of truth is prominent in the subject area of history. History is a subject where a 'knower' is believed to do

  1. What I tell you three times is true. (Lewis Carroll) Might this formula ...

    Here repetition has worked in my favour allowing to me to induce the dates of the First World War, yet there are cases when repetition doesn't allow one to learn a truth. While I discovered the dates of the First World War, its effects on international relations from 1918 to 1939 are disputed.

  2. Two thirds of what we see is behind our eyes Chinese proverb

    Personality is defined by a third and acquired knowledge of what impact the cultural environment, level of education, training, accidental circumstances. Again only a one third is perception of the world and two thirds are genetic processes. According to my point of view, that we cannot perceive the world truly

  1. There are no absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false. Discuss

    Since we were young it is told that killing is wrong. What if someone?s trying to kill us, should we just stand or run away waiting for them to kill us? If we kill the killer for self-defense is it wrong?

  2. Theory of Knowledge: There is no distinction between true or false. Discuss

    The classical beliefs are quickly crumbled in this generation. Like many people I sometimes wonder how something can exist today if there was no beginning of it. For instance, egg and chicken. Which existed first? An egg or chicken, chicken or egg? If there were no chicken, there wouldn?t be an egg and if there were an egg then who had hatched it?

  1. Science gives us a tool to work out whether what we experience is real ...

    Plato also believed that knowledge is only obtained through reflection and reason. He embraces the four virtues of courage, wisdom, temperance, and justices. Plato proposed to find the truth by questioning the intelligent and those with authority. He would say that the truth could be found in the able, those who were exceptional like himself have all the answers.?)

  2. Human Brain is no more than a highly complex computer. Discuss

    Conclusion Technological machines such as computers have proven to be extremely intelligent, especially when it comes to calculating, following orders etc. However, a computer cannot possibly be more intelligent than a human brain due to the fact that computers have not evolved from anywhere.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work