Blog Post #5: The Limits of Logic

16/12/2016

What is the purpose of argument? Is it important to argue with proper reasoning?

To answer this question I think you have to understand what an argument is first so this is google's definition, "an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one. A reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory." When we hear the word "argument" we associate it with heated or intense discussions of two people trying to prove a point which could be considered a verbal fight. However, I believe they can be extremely civil if the two parties are civil with this is mind I think there are many reasons for people to argue.

Arguments have to purpose of resolving two conflicting thoughts, opinions or ideas with the result of one being on top, right or seen as the better option. People start arguments to disprove others, this drive to disprove someone else can simply be caused by them wanting the other party to realise how they are wrong or what they are supporting is wrong. The drive may be caused by them wanting to the other party to understand their own logic or how their logic is wrong. It may be caused by personal emotional issues of two people which believe they have been wronged in some way, if someone has been wronged they want the cause to understand what they did was wrong, feel bad for it and apologise or change something. Arguments can be caused by a human's ego or pride with them wanting to be the ultimate "winner" that's why some people can be characterised as argumentative or looking for conflict. They have the ability to be well structured and logical with the purpose of the greater good of a cause like the presidential elections, you may consider it as a form of arguing. As the candidates are trying to argue and prove that they are better and could help the country the most with their points.

Is it important to argue with proper reasoning? This is quite hard to answer but I think arguing with proper reasoning is extremely important as it can be the deciding factor of whether or not it is a discussion or fight. If someone were to argue their point with proper reasoning and ideas to support a point they have a passion for then it allows them to focus more on civilly discussing their points with the intent of getting the other party to understand. A person who is arguing with a point and logical reasoning will be more focused on the discussion of points at hand than the argument itself. Someone who has this in mind will be more understand and communicative of their points while listening to the other person's perspectives. Many get so caught up in "being right" they forget what the argument is about or base it off something that has no actual logic or reasoning like grasping at straws. 

Blog Post #4: EMOTION

14/11/2016

EMOTION

This blog post will tackle a number of provided questions so I will attempt to organise it as best as I can. I based the selection of these questions off topics that fascinated me the most or if I had a strong opinion on.

Can there be 'correct' or 'appropriate' emotional responses?

My response is quite blatantly no, this answer may seem quite absolute or narrow-minded as it is an extremely open-handed question but let me explain. In my opinion, there isn't a possibility of a "correct" or "appropriate emotional response as we are all individuals with completely different mindsets and emotional reactions. The idea that certain responses in situations are "correct" is simply due to the norms or conformity of our society. Many are told in certain circumstances how they are supposed to act or behave which manipulates their specific organic responses. This is the biggest issue of an emotional disconnect in our society, people do not communicate certain emotion or mimic emotions that do not relate to them because it is what is expected of their behaviour.

This generalisation and stereotyping of responses create an unconscious conformism within our community. We are expected to act sad when a loved one dies because of our species this is the natural response. However, if you think about it, it is not as natural as we think as it is in actuality to expected recreation. For if someone were to not be evoked by this event they would be discriminated against as it would appear "odd" or "inhuman". We cannot place expectations of emotion on people as it is well known that each and every human process and thinks differently. This is what creates the prominent idea of individuals within society.  It is similar to studies within psychology or science, no matter how many times you recreate a study or experiment you cannot say that it proves a certain theory. You may only assume that it is true due to this support, this support leads you to make generalisations of what is expected to occur.

Let's look at a situation a bit more open rather than a death. A break up most commonly will cause a negative emotional response to the person who was not aware or a part of the decision. Like if someone were to break up with someone, the person broken up with will mostly have a negative or depressed response. We say "most likely" as this response is generalised by the public however it is not uncommon for both parties to have a positive or neutral response. The unbalanced emotional responses from both parties are expected due to our communities stereotypical customs with situational reactions. Though, a negative response is expected a different root may take place which could shock to bystanders of the situation but it is a bit more understandable than someone being happy that a relative died.

Each person has their own triggers but some are more excepted in certain situations. I don't think these expectations should dictate whether a reaction is right or wrong, who are we to tell others how their feeling or their responses are wrong. It is as if you were telling someone they are not allowed to be sensitive or offended if that is the way they feel then who are you to say what they're feeling is wrong. In life, my feelings and reactions tend to be extremely insensitive as that is just the person I am but it does not give me the right to tell someone how is sensitive that they are wrong. It is about me respecting their emotions as I do not share them, and they are to respect mine as they do not know mine.

This whole concept of "appropriate" emotional responses is how I believe psychopaths and the psychopath checklist was established. Psychopathic behaviour is usually associated with mental disease but many elements on the psychopathic checklist are based on reactions that are not "accepted" within our society. Which again brings me to my point of who are we to decide what is the right way to act in society. One of the thing on the checklist is the lack of remorse or guilt but why is this aspect of an individual expected. Another thing is the lack of empathy, how can you expect someone to be empathetic just because everyone else is. We all know individuals are different but why is their lack of empathy seen as something wrong or lead them to be perceived as a danger to society. This also ties into the next question.

Is it 'correct' to be horrified by the accounts of torture?

I don't think there is a correct response to torture, the expected opinion of someone is to be horrified, disgusted or feel remorse for the victim. However, if someone does not respond in these ways how can you say that is wrong as they might just be desensitised to the situation at hand. This desensitisation may seem like a negative thing but if that specific individual is doing nothing harm with these emotions or reactions then how can it be seen as wrong. Let's look at the more extreme point of view, what if someone were to gain enjoyment from torture as much as we do from a joke? To think of this turns my stomach but I still don't consider it an 'inappropriate' response as I am not that person, my brain and personality are not wired like them. If someone were to have this natural response how can you say it is wrong, you would be dismissing their natural form of enjoyment. Whether they acted on such feelings or emotions in a negative way would determine is they behaved appropriately. In saying this, actions can be heavily based on emotion but I still can't it is wrong to feel a certain way.

You can't expect everyone to have a horrified response to torture because it is not even like that in pop culture. With horror movies like Saw, some are so disgusted they do not watch it, some get past the gore to watch the story, some like every aspect of it and some just love the fake effects. All are responses to the movies which are fake forms are torture, these may be fake but still forms of torture that people pay to observe.

Is it possible to experience an emotion, a feeling, an attitude or sensibility that cannot be expressed in language?

I think it is incredibly possible to experience something internally that is indescribable. The human language was created by multiple human beings in order to aid communication between one another but it is not perfect. Many of this generation did not create the vocabulary we use so we can't be expected to relate to something that we did not exactly experience or create. We use language as a tool in the hopes to convey what we are feeling to communicate effectively but many words do not reflect how we actually feel. They may not reflect what we feel exactly but we still use them in an attempt to describe ourselves as creating new words to depict attitudes is just as useless. These words aid the expression of feelings as they can describe but they will never be concrete ways of communicating our feelings. This is caused by the differences in emotions between individuals. Your sadness may be radically different from mine but we use the same word to give each other an idea of how we will in that current pint in time.

A difficulty like this causes emotions to get lost in translation, we may use certain words to describe exactly how we feel but the interpretation of those words depends on the second party. This interpretation will never be the same as everyone processes information and attitudes differently. It allows us to be individuals but allows countless miss interpretations to take place as people may try to the best to convey their emotions part how the person interprets this information is out of their hands.

(may add more later)

Blog Post #3: Sense Perception- "Rippin' the Rainbow a New One"

I apologise if this blog post is a little bit more unorganised or a mess but today the topic is a little more difficult for me to grasp an answer. After listening to "Rippin' the Rainbow New One" which is a podcast we are meant to respond to the prompt, "write a response about how imagination and culture may play a role in the way that we are able to perceive the world around us. Use at least one personal example. Remember that making links to real life situations is a crucial aspect of the course so feel free to give multiple examples.” This is hard to pinpoint as at first, we have to identify our own form of imagination and culture that may influence our judgement or view of the world. Sometimes, it is difficult to differentiate the aspects of life that influence you as it usually is happening subconsciously so we usually aren’t aware of it happening. However, I will try my best to delve into what has made me perceive the world the way I do.

Let’s keep into the topic of colour like the podcast for a second, everyone sees some degree of colours. Even people who are colour blind usually cannot see certain colours but can see a degree of them. Yes, we know that your blue may not be the same as my blue, your yellow could be my blue but let’s not get into that for now. We may see different colours or shades but from an education and from what we have been told is yellow or blue, we know the colours. Colours are all around us, present in nearly everything, but there is more to what we see. No matter what colour you see or if mine is different than yours, colours contain a spiritual or symbolistic property. This quality is heavily influenced by your culture or religion, artists can choose colours meticulously to convey a certain message, to evoke a reaction with the audience or simply on what is visually pleasing. It is our background which interprets the colours and tells us how to respond. Red can be a symbol of communism, good luck, passion, anger, love or danger depending on the culture or religion you are part of. Let’s say there is a room with two artworks, one is heavily washed with the colour of white while the other is enriched with black. If people from a more western background saw them, they would assume the black painting was presenting a darker scene of death or mystery while the white was pure and peaceful. However, if a person originating from a more Asian background like China, they would assume the opposition, that the black piece was purer and held prosperity while the white had a sense of morning, death and misfortune. The two people would assume different things while the artist could have just wanted to create a contrast between the works.

I can admit to this as everyone should, in Art it is very easy to push your own ideas onto a work you did not create but then again that always could be the goal of the artist. See most just want to evoke a reaction or emotion in the audience, but you always have to be aware of other perspectives that were influenced by different things than your own.   

Sorry, this blog will mainly be discussing how culture and imagination develop your perspective on the world dealing with art because it’s what I have experienced the most…Well, what I personal can think of right now.

A big influence of my own perspective of the world was not from my culture but more from the ideas and concepts presented to me from an early age. I have an unusual appreciation for forms and shapes that most people would lack, I shouldn’t say "lack" because it’s not a bad thing. It is just something heavily dominating my imagination of the world around me, it doesn’t matter if you do it or not it’s just how we grew up. In my life, I grew up with two parents who were heavily artistic in their own ways. My father being a graphic designer and my mother being a florist and gardener, they both had the main thing they were captivated by like the natural world or stylistic qualities. However, they both retain an appreciation for art and the forms around us. I have been exposed to this for as long as I can remember and it has caused me to have the same views. Not only the same appreciation for art in general but the appreciation for forms which many would simply overlook. Forms around us or even us, I see the world in a more dysfunctional way as I pay an absurd amount of attention of shapes and figures. These two appreciations come hand in hand, I got into art because of my influences and found body painting because of my appreciations of form especially the human form. I tend to visualise or analyse the human body in a way because of my love for shape but also the possibility of what I could do with mediums. While others won’t even care to focus on anything like the form that much but my parent's influence has pushed me down the road of art, which lead me to analyse or appreciate shapes more than others.

I know, it is something minuscule but it is a change in perspective and imagination as many times I will look at something or someone and manipulate with qualities of them in my mind. I sound really crazy right now but I promise it’s not that weird. It is just something I have a habit if caused by my up bringing that others will not have caused by theirs which may give them traits or perspectives I lack.  

Blog Post #2: The Space Between...

For my second blog post, we were asked to reflect on some of the topics discussed in last class. One being our clouded concept of certainty and whether total certainty actually exists. This is quite a messy topic to discuss so sorry if I seriously ramble in this post. If we think of certainty with our ToK brains then in my opinion it does not exist. Our strive as human beings is curiosity, curiosity about simplistic or complex theories we can only hope to imagine. As a race, we have a motivation to find an answer for everything but these answers are never full proof that is why many are just theories. However, even if we look away from these deeper subjects for a second and say that you are certain your name is your name. It is so easy to break down that unquestionable truth, how do you know your parents didn't change your name, how do you know you aren't a dream created by someone else with a different name, how do we know? Ignoring theories, everyday items can become disputable. For example, there is a red book in front of you but how is that manifestation evident. Yes, to you there is a red book but what if that colour is seen differently from someone else? Is the validity of the colour still relevant give that each person may be interpreting it differently. What about it being in front of you, how can you trust the direction of the book when direction is another phantom idea derived form the human race. Also, we never actually know if it is there, there is the matrix theories and don't even get me started on whether it is a book or not.

It's not like we need certainty though. If a mysterious man came and started instructing us on what to be certain of and what not to be, giving us all the answers then we would still express distrust. Humans search for the answers of the universe and life but still doubt there own solutions, it's our way of life. In saying this, it's crazy to think that we aren't all in a mad house simply because we don't know what we don't know and don't know what we do know. This is the middle ground we live in, the middle ground between absolute certainty and absolute doubt. Living in this middle ground allows us to question and theorize without going insane over our ignorance and own theories.

Okay, I'm done questioning my existence so talk to you later.  

Blog Post #1: How do we know?, Maps, Certainty

04/09/2016

This is my first blog post, there is no specific direction for this post but let me start off by saying that the subject "theory of knowledge" equally intrigues me and makes me hate it. I absolutely love questioning everything as it unravels life as we know it but it also kills me every time I hear "How do we know?" It's simply something I have to get used to, get accustomed to and learn to love.

Let's begin with the quotation "The map is not the territory," by Alfred Korzybski and this seems quite basic to me but you never know I might be wrong, To me, it's conveying how no matter how hard you try to  make a map as accurate as possible it simply will not be the real thing. So if you tried to map out the same place as many times as you wanted to get it perfect, the image will simply never be the territory. For you, to understand the image and the place you must physically go to it and see it with your own eyes. This expresses the main portion of this subject as we as people may think we know something perfectly but we can never be a hundred percent sure until we have concrete evidence. Magritte, Rene's metaphor is also an example of this, we may think that what presented is a pipe but it's not. We respond ti the image but it's exactly that, an image, it's a canvas showing us a pipe but it is far from a pipe. Do I want to answer this question, "What other "maps" (concepts) from your life can you now question the certainty of? Does this mean that they are less helpful than you once thought?" because has made me question everything. I guess, images is now a big part of this but we also do this to ourselves with animation. 


Most aspects of Theory of knowledge can be translated to the other subjects we take in the DP. Especially Maths and Science are those are two "factual subjects when if you look back further enough or look at the theories there is no concrete evidence to supports its teachings. As for History, it's based on others memories and these memories could have a personal biased or perspective. These things could all exaggerated or simply made up because we are going off others teachings, we are placing our trust in people who do not know what they are talking about. While in Art, we are being taught about a visual representation that is interpreted differently by every single person. It's as if you were to teach a language in which everyone would understand differently but somehow can communicate slightly.

I think that's enough deep thinking for the end of the night, so we will discuss more later.