The question of truth
The Question Of Truth The goal of any philosopher is to find what can only be referred to as "truth." Truth is the undeniable, that which can be relied upon in any circumstances, obviously the one thing in life that has real meaning. Unfortunately, truth is quite elusive, as philosophers have been going at the question since Socrates, and no one has produced a definitive answer yet. In the course of my years of reading about the subject, I have accepted only a few concepts as being valid, and I would like to share them now. Rene Descartes essay "The Search For Certainty" should be considered the jump-off point for any discussion about truth. In it, he expounds one of the few hypotheses that possesses no holes-solipsism. It states that a person's own existence is the only thing that they can truly be sure of. The existence of others or of external objects, while it may be quite likely, cannot be completely relied upon. Firstly, any perception one has cannot be trusted. Our eyes regularly sees things that later prove not to be there, our ears hear voices that do not exist, and so on. If we accept that our senses can deceive us, how can we be sure that they're ever being truthful? At any given time, or all the time, our sensory perception may simply be playing tricks on us, and therefore it cannot be trusted. Similarly, we can never be sure that other supposedly sentient
The Lion King Ass.
THE LION KING Part #1: Reflection the movie, "The Lion King", and answer the following: . How are the themes below demonstrated in the movie? (Four points for each section) CREATION: Creation is the beginning where everything is perfect and good is prevailing over evil. So in the movie "The Lion King", the creation was when Simba was born in a loving society. Also, when Mufasa was still the king and ruled his kingdom with respect and loyalty to his people, and dignity for himself. Additionally, the creation was when the land was green with all the animals living in peace and harmony, and finally when he tells Simba that he will become king one day. DE-CREATION: De-creation is when evil defeats goodness. So in the movie "The Lion King", de-creation started when Scar tempts Simba to go to the elephant graveyard where his father strictly told him not to go. So Simba disobeys his father and goes to the restricted are and brings Nala along. Also de-creation occurs when Scar plans to kill Simba and Mufasa by a stamped but only manages to devour Mufasa. And it occurs when Simba loses his confidence and runs away from home thinking that his father died because of him when scar killed him. So Scar takes over the kingdom and the land becomes lifeless. RE-CREATION: Re-creation is when goodness once again over powers the evil and throws it away. So in the movie "The Lion King",
Scientific approach to History
To what extent does the author substantiate his claim that the study of history can be pursued scientifically? We often argue that history, a social science, should not be approached using scientific method-experimentation and observation of empirical evidence to devise laws of nature. Jared Diamond, however, argues that the study of history can be pursued scientifically by pointing out the similarities between the methodology that the 2 disciplines adopt and the consequent difficulties that arise-law of causation, prediction, and complexity. The author suggests that both science and history employ the same methodology. Empirical evidence is fundamental to both areas of knowledge; similarly, reasoning, either to arrive at a general law (science) or to interpret and explain purpose and functions of events (history). He explains the similarity between understanding biological features and events leading up to wars to demonstrate the common basis they work on. Diamond also argues that "natural experiments"-a comparative method, is useful in both types of science. These similarities, he believes, imply the feasibility of approaching historical studies scientifically. However, besides basic problems associated with the scientific method-the inaccuracy of sense perception and paradigmatic differences, accounts of historical events might not withstand the scientific falsification
TOK - French Headscarf Ban - This law has not only affected faiths within France, but has become a global issue, as religious groups around the world have protested against this ban as well. Religion, to some, is what defines you, and thus is an important
INTRODUCTION: Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Christians...what brings all of these faiths to band together in protest? In today's world we normally see these faiths at fists, but as you see in these striking images, this is not the case. Our real world issue of the French law banning conspicuous religious symbols, such as the hijab for Muslims or the turban for Sikhs, in primary and secondary schools has been a topic of discussion since the law was passed on March 15th 2004 but was enforced the following September when schools opened. This is called secularism, which has been a part of France since the time of Napoleon, as it was written in the Napoleonic Code. Thus, if a girl came into a school with her hijab on after the rule was set in place, she would first be given a warning and then if it continued she would be expelled as it is not breaking a school rule, it is breaking a law set by the government. There was an overwhelming majority of 494 votes for and 36 against the law in the French parliament. If there was such a huge majority that favored the law, then why all the protests? The reason behind this is that the French in France are in favor of the law, but minorities, such as Muslims originally from Algeria and Sikhs from India are against it. The Muslim population of France is a staggering 5 million which makes up 5.5% of the population. Although they are a minority in the
En las noticias diarias usted quiere, como pensador crtico, distinguir entre informacin correcta, mala informacin, informacin tendenciosa e intento deliberado de persuasin. Cmo se puede hacer?
INTEGRAL Colegio Internacional de Educación Holística para la Paz Nombre: Karina Rosero Fecha: 23 de Enero de 2008 Curso: 3º Rojo En las noticias diarias usted quiere, como pensador crítico, distinguir entre información correcta, mala información, información tendenciosa e intento deliberado de persuasión. ¿Cómo se puede hacer? Diariamente, podemos ver leer o escuchar noticias de ya sea e la radio, periódicos o en la televisión, pero ¿como podemos estar seguros de que son algo real y verdadero, y no una mala información un intento por engañarnos? A lo largo d este ensayo voy demostrar que el lograr distinguir las noticias es algo posible en algunos casos pero no en otros y como podemos diferenciarlos o distinguirlos. Muchas veces cuando nos enteramos de las noticias a través de los medios de comunicación, como podemos estar seguros que lo que estamos leyendo es algo verdadero y no un invento cualquiera, el cual es usado para llamar la atención del publico y de esa forma lograr subir el numero de ventas o de audiencia, eso es algo real, ya que para algunas personas lo mas importante es el nivel de audiencia o de lectores que tienen y a cambio de eso incluso podrían inventar una noticia, pero ¿como podemos darnos cuenta de eso?. Un ejemplo muy reciente es la denuncia puesta por el actual presidente al ex presidente Lucio Gutiérrez, el lo acusaba de
IB TOK ESSAY
IB TOK ESSAY MAY 2008 TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING YOU NEED TO RELY ON YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE AND CULTURE. DOES THIS MEAN THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE? No it is possible to have objective knowledge. Experience and culture play a big role in understanding some sentence or for example other representation A. But it does not follow from this that we can't know objectively whether A is correct or not. For example take A as a bit of arithmetic e.g an odd number. To understand it you have to call some background experience of type of numbers in mathematics. In short to understand this requires being inducted into a bit of mathematical culture. But the fact that your understanding of this claim relies mostly on mathematical culture, doesn't mean that once you have understood you can't acquire objective knowledge whether the claim is true. Is it possible to understand without relying on experience and culture? This question differs from the above. It is possible to have objective knowledge but it is not possible to understand without relying on experience and culture. You have to have some cultural experience and then objective knowledge comes in later. In my own understanding and research all knowledge seems to have a subjective element and that there must be a knowing subject in order for something to be known. Hence objective knowledge is dependant on subjective
Knowledge is a true organ of sight
"Knowledge is a true organ of sight, not the eyes" is a quite interesting quote by Panchatantra. To answer this question it would be easiest that one would first translate it into an easy understandable sentence with a clear message, since this quote can have multiple meanings. The way I found this quote to make the most sense is when I translated it into the following sentence; Knowledge is a real consultable source of seeing, not the eyes. I find this the best translation to understand this quote, since it is very clear and straightforward. The next questions one could ask him/herself is: Is the quote true, and till what extent is this quote true. Is the quote "Knowledge is a true organ of sight, not the eyes" true or not? To say if the quote is true or not is a big statement to make right away, therefore I found It easiest to look at an example which could help to understand this quote better. A good example to start off with is this: When one is watching television and one sees something on the news about an arrested murderer and one sees his face one might think, he looks like such a nice guy, but one knows that he did commit murder and therefore is probably not such a nice guy as one thought initially. What you know to be true and what might seem true to the eyes is not always the same, this does not mean that it is never true but the eye can be misleading. In this case
Discuss the strengths and limitations of perception, language and reason as ways of knowing.
Discuss the strengths and limitations of perception, language and reason as ways of knowing. Knowledge is also said as 'ways of knowing'. It means 'information and skills acquired through experience and education'. The acquisition of knowledge is done by three main factors; perception, language and reason. In this essay we sought to see the strengths and limitations of those learning approaches. Let's take an example, how do we know that in a bottle, labeled crystal, there is water? We would use this example to explore the three cases. Perception is the way of taking messages and processing it by the brain to obtain meaningful information. Using the example above, we would do anything possible to conclude that what we are consuming from the bottle is water. That is we would observe, smell, taste, etc. We can see that we use our senses to identify the substance. We would observe the bottle, its labeling (name, ingredients etc.), colour of the substance and advertisement on the substance; we would smell the substance and even taste it (this would be last because we fear it might be harmful). All this shows that using our senses, we can identify objects and moving organism; this is the major strength of perception (immense knowledge is gained). Another point would be upon losing one of the senses; we are able to intensify the others, which help us even more in detection but
What might be meant by Nietzche's comment that "rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme which we cannot escape". What implications might this have for knowledge acquisition?
What might be meant by Nietzche's comment that "rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme which we cannot escape". What implications might this have for knowledge acquisition? To be able to explain what is that Nietzche was trying to say, I think that first I should define some terms that are found in the statement he made, as well as in the actual question. "Rational thought" is also called logic thinking, what would imply then that the line of thought would follow a determined set of stages, which consist in the interpretation of a giving premise or the attempt to follow a given rule, what will then enable the thinker to arrive to a valid, if not true, conclusion. "Knowledge" is something we claim to be true, justifying this belief with evidence. I think that what he means is that no matter what is that we are analysing, our mind will always go through the same process to reach a conclusion about new knowledge gained, trying to make it fit in one or other classification, so as to be comfortable with it. This classification could be simply true or false, or would come to form part of other evidence that would either support or question a previous conclusion we had arrived at before that seems to be true because, nothing, to our knowledge, seems to disprove it. I agree with what Nietzche states and I will try to explain why this is and how this affects the way
Filters of Perception
"In order to find out how things really are, one must understand the filters through which one perceives the world" Discuss and evaluate As we develop, from a small baby, to a child, to a teenager and finally to an adult, not only do we develop on the outside (physically), but we also develop in the inside since we learn new things all throughout our life, things which stay recorded in one of the most fascinating organs in the humans system: the brain. It's pretty obvious to state that each one of us, human beings, have our own perspective of the world or in other words we perceive the world in a different way. This is due to the different filters and perception methods each person experiences. Let's start by defining these two words. Perception can be defined as the process of absorbing information using our five senses (sight, sound, touch, taste and smell), organizing and making sense of it. Filters are anything which influence the way each one perceives the world. There are various filters which we need to outline when discussing this statement The first filter is age. Throughout our life our mental capacity develops therefore a child might see different things than adults, since their brain (the organ which interprets what you see) is not fully developed. A person's gender also influences the way they see the world. Men have a different perception of the world in