The different ways of knowing help to establish a standard set of rules that we can apply to distinguishing between what is true and what is believed to be true, with some limitations that must be considered. Knowledge by language allows us to know something by the way it is described through words. Knowledge by Perception allows us to know something through our own personal experiences with it. Knowledge by emotion lets us know something through our intuition or a gut reaction that we fell we know is true. Knowledge by reason allows us to know something through deduction or induction or any logical process we may use to draw a conclusion that something is true. If we apply all these ways of knowing to distinguishing between something that is true and something that is believed to be true we will find that they serve as a fairly accurate set of rules. However we will also find that there are limitations in always using these ways of knowing for this purpose because they cannot be used individually for they are each flawed in their own way.
All the different ways of knowing can be used together to decipher what is true and what believed to be true. Each one brings a different consideration to your thought process as you try to tell what is true and what is false. Language helps you consider things from a social point of view or different views that different people may voice. For example newspapers like the Boston Globe or magazines like Newsweek provide us with information about political events through words and descriptions which we believe to be true. Perception helps you consider things from a personal point of view through your own experiences and interactions. For example I know my brother worked on a movie being filmed in Chaddam because I was there to see him work on it. Emotion helps you consider your own point of view in situations because it comes from your intuition or your gut reaction to something. For example I know when I am happy to see someone and when I do not want to see them because I can feel it in myself when I they approach me wither I have a good or bad reaction to seeing them. Also, reason helps you consider things from a scientific or technical point of view through logical analysis. For example scientists know the conclusion of their experiments because they have used a well thought out and logical process called the scientific method to reach that conclusion. If all these factors are considered and as long as a person uses their best judgment in a given situation these ways of knowing, when utilized simultaneously, can help the person make a much more accurate distinction between what is true and what is belied to be true.
Though useful when considered together, each way of knowing individually has its limitations and therefore cannot be used by itself. Language can be deceptive because the sources that convey the language may not always be telling the truth. For example knowledge by authority can be corrupt like when Adolf Hitler printed nationalist newspapers in Germany during WWII to be used as propaganda for his own benefit. Perception can also be false because what we perceive in any given moment may not actually be what occurs. For example our memories can sometimes be inaccurate like how I remember when I was very young and I used to see hands running across the windows of my bed room at night, frightening me, and I can still picture the image that way even though in reality it was just the shadows of tree branches outside. Emotion can be false as well because our intuition about certain things is not always accurate. For example you can know someone you love who may have committed a crime but just because you love them and you feel they didn’t do it does not mean they didn’t do it. Finally even reason has its limitations because sometimes we fail to detect faulty logic. For example a false syllogism like “all jaguars are black; my cat is black; therefore my cat is a jaguar” may seem like a perfectly logical conclusion to draw from the evidence stated but it does not mean that it is true, since a cat can obviously not be jaguar. Clearly when used individually these ways of knowing are not very accurate in helping one distinguish what is true from what is false. In fact it can be said that as a rule the more of these ways of knowing you use simultaneously in a given situation, the more accurate your conclusion will be. And by that logic using all of them together will get you the most accurate conclusion.
The implications of this argument are that it will sometimes be very difficult to distinguish between what is true and what is false and it is therefore completely up to the individual to use their best judgment to decide. This means that while there are some absolute truths in this world and there are some sources willing to communicate those truths, in the end every person on this planet will need use their own best judgment to draw an accurate conclusion about what is right and what is wrong. From my own classmates who will need to analyze the information told to them by their teachers, to the citizens of this and every other nation who will need to decide if what they are being told by their government is what they should really believe. All the people of this earth will need to use their own intellect to decipher between what is true and what is not.
The counter-claim to my argument is that there are occasions on which each individual way of knowing has proved to be accurate in discovering the truth. In other words there have been cases in which language, perception, emotion, and reason have been used successfully and individually without the aid of each other to reach an accurate conclusion about a certain matter. However I believe this is only true because on rare occasions there is always going to be an exception to the rule, but because these exceptions are always rare they cannot be applied the most common, everyday occurrence. Another counterclaim to my argument is that one way of knowing is more efficient or more important than another and that is the one that should be used to tell what is true from what is false. This may in fact be true in certain situation, however as I have shown, each way of knowing has its values and limitations and they all have an effect on one another so it is fair to say no one is ever truly better than the other.
By this evidence it can be concluded that the different ways of knowing, language, perception, emotion, and reason, can be considered simultaneously in order to more accurately distinguish between what is true and what is believed to be true. Each way of knowing does have its limitations and cannot be used individually for an accurate conclusion except in certain rare situations. The greater the number of ways used in a given situation, the greater your chances are at accurately telling what is true from what is false. The ways of knowing can, to this extent, help distinguish between what is true and what is believed to be true.
Monday, September 21, 2009
The Elephant Man
1. (A) Is John Merrick a Monster? In your answer, consider how you could use the following Areas of Knowledge to justify your claims.
John Merrick is not a monster. Although his looks would suggest otherwise, we know he is not a monster because of his kind actions and his gentle nature. In terms of his History we can see how he has always been a compassionate soul and this can help justify that he is not a monster. In terms of natural science his biological structure would also suggest that he is human and therefore not a monster. In terms of social sciences his progress in his life to become a part of normal functioning society would also suggest that he is not a monster. And in terms of the Arts his interest in art and his ability to create it like the model of the church he created would suggest that he has human qualities and is not a monster.
1. (B) What is the counter-claim for each Area of Knowledge?
For history the counterclaim is that history shows how monsters have always been perceived as ugly in their appearance just like John. For natural science it could be said that his ability to reproduce is monstrous because he could create offspring with similar deformities. For social sciences it could be argued that John will never be able to fit into society because of his shyness and his deformity. And for the Arts it could be argued that he was simply replicating the church and cannot actually create art.
2. John Merrick claimed, "I am not an animal, I am a human being?" What does he mean? How does he know?
He means that he besides his deformity he has all the qualities of a human being and therefore he is one. He knows this because he knows himself and he knows what that he is capable of human qualities.
3. Dr. Treves claimed, "Am I a good man, or am I a bad man?" What does he mean? How does he know?
He is suggesting he may be a bad person or putting John on display for the world and allowing himself to become famous because of it. He knows this has happened because he has seen it happen.
4. What role does the herd mentality play in the film? Please be specific in your answers.
The herd is the group of people in the film who follow the example of leaders in their society and therefore are influenced into believing that John is a monster at the beginning of the movie and that he is a human at the end. For example in the movie one herd of people follow the night watchman’s example that John is a monster and the herd of people in the opera house at the end of the movie follow the opera writer’s example that he is not.
5. How did the community react to the different Monsters in the film? Please explain your answer.
The community reacts to John in a terrified manner do to his deformity. They react to the carnival man in a manner of disgust do to his treatment of John in beating him and starving him. They also react to the night watchman in a manner of disgust for his similar mistreatment of John in profiting from his humiliation.
6. John Merrick claims, "We are afraid of what we don't understand." Do you agree? Does this statement apply to the modern world or have we learned to treat perceived Monsters with dignity? Please be specific in your answer.
I do agree that we are afraid of what we don’t understand. I think this statement still applies even to modern day because although we may publically treat them better we still discriminate against those people who may look or act different from us, for example mentally disabled people.
John Merrick is not a monster. Although his looks would suggest otherwise, we know he is not a monster because of his kind actions and his gentle nature. In terms of his History we can see how he has always been a compassionate soul and this can help justify that he is not a monster. In terms of natural science his biological structure would also suggest that he is human and therefore not a monster. In terms of social sciences his progress in his life to become a part of normal functioning society would also suggest that he is not a monster. And in terms of the Arts his interest in art and his ability to create it like the model of the church he created would suggest that he has human qualities and is not a monster.
1. (B) What is the counter-claim for each Area of Knowledge?
For history the counterclaim is that history shows how monsters have always been perceived as ugly in their appearance just like John. For natural science it could be said that his ability to reproduce is monstrous because he could create offspring with similar deformities. For social sciences it could be argued that John will never be able to fit into society because of his shyness and his deformity. And for the Arts it could be argued that he was simply replicating the church and cannot actually create art.
2. John Merrick claimed, "I am not an animal, I am a human being?" What does he mean? How does he know?
He means that he besides his deformity he has all the qualities of a human being and therefore he is one. He knows this because he knows himself and he knows what that he is capable of human qualities.
3. Dr. Treves claimed, "Am I a good man, or am I a bad man?" What does he mean? How does he know?
He is suggesting he may be a bad person or putting John on display for the world and allowing himself to become famous because of it. He knows this has happened because he has seen it happen.
4. What role does the herd mentality play in the film? Please be specific in your answers.
The herd is the group of people in the film who follow the example of leaders in their society and therefore are influenced into believing that John is a monster at the beginning of the movie and that he is a human at the end. For example in the movie one herd of people follow the night watchman’s example that John is a monster and the herd of people in the opera house at the end of the movie follow the opera writer’s example that he is not.
5. How did the community react to the different Monsters in the film? Please explain your answer.
The community reacts to John in a terrified manner do to his deformity. They react to the carnival man in a manner of disgust do to his treatment of John in beating him and starving him. They also react to the night watchman in a manner of disgust for his similar mistreatment of John in profiting from his humiliation.
6. John Merrick claims, "We are afraid of what we don't understand." Do you agree? Does this statement apply to the modern world or have we learned to treat perceived Monsters with dignity? Please be specific in your answer.
I do agree that we are afraid of what we don’t understand. I think this statement still applies even to modern day because although we may publically treat them better we still discriminate against those people who may look or act different from us, for example mentally disabled people.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Monsters
1. After learning about how the Bosnian War began and the role of Karadzic and Milosovic, was it fair for the Independent to use the word "Monster".
I believe it was fair for them to call Karadzic a monster because they were referring to their own definition of what they believed a monster was and since they deduced that Karadzic was allowing these terrible war crimes to take place (knowledge by reason) and remembered reports that were told to them of him allowing them to take place (knowledge by remembering and knowledge by authority), they are reasonable in assuming that they know he is a monster by their definition.
2. How do you think this phrase would be justified, according to Plato? Use specific examples from the reading and the documentary, The Death of Yugoslavia, to justify your claims.
In The Death of Yugoslavia Karadzic lies about the violence taking place in Bosnia but the people writing the article deduce that these are lies by examining the snipers and the troops in Bosnia which is knowledge by reasoning. Also because the article was written after these things happened these people are recalling this information which they received from news reports coming out of Bosnia and therefore they are exercising knowledge by remembering and knowledge by authority. The only one of Plato’s ways of knowing that does not appear here is knowledge by empiricism because they did not directly experience the crimes taking place I Bosnia.
3. When the term Monster is used, what do you think it means. (You can look it up in the dictionary, but as you know, that has limitations).
I believe that as a general term monster means a brutal and terrifying creature. However when used to describe a human I believe the definition changes to mean a person who commits horrible acts without acknowledging guilt of remorse for them.
4. Has your answer changed since your first entry? Why or why not?
The answer itself has not changed from my first enter but the reasons for writing that answer have. That I have a better understanding of the situation in Bosnia I can back up my answer with more detail from the occurrence and explain how they support my conclusion.
I believe it was fair for them to call Karadzic a monster because they were referring to their own definition of what they believed a monster was and since they deduced that Karadzic was allowing these terrible war crimes to take place (knowledge by reason) and remembered reports that were told to them of him allowing them to take place (knowledge by remembering and knowledge by authority), they are reasonable in assuming that they know he is a monster by their definition.
2. How do you think this phrase would be justified, according to Plato? Use specific examples from the reading and the documentary, The Death of Yugoslavia, to justify your claims.
In The Death of Yugoslavia Karadzic lies about the violence taking place in Bosnia but the people writing the article deduce that these are lies by examining the snipers and the troops in Bosnia which is knowledge by reasoning. Also because the article was written after these things happened these people are recalling this information which they received from news reports coming out of Bosnia and therefore they are exercising knowledge by remembering and knowledge by authority. The only one of Plato’s ways of knowing that does not appear here is knowledge by empiricism because they did not directly experience the crimes taking place I Bosnia.
3. When the term Monster is used, what do you think it means. (You can look it up in the dictionary, but as you know, that has limitations).
I believe that as a general term monster means a brutal and terrifying creature. However when used to describe a human I believe the definition changes to mean a person who commits horrible acts without acknowledging guilt of remorse for them.
4. Has your answer changed since your first entry? Why or why not?
The answer itself has not changed from my first enter but the reasons for writing that answer have. That I have a better understanding of the situation in Bosnia I can back up my answer with more detail from the occurrence and explain how they support my conclusion.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Karadzic The Monster
"How do they know what they know?" How have they attempted to justify their knowledge claims? Please be specific.
In the article The Independent justifies their claims that Karadzic is a monster mostly by reasoning. Instead of believing the authority of Karadzic and what he tells them is true and because they are not directly experiencing what he is doing they use induction and deduction to reason what the truth really is. The article mentions many contradictions between what is happening in Bosnia and what Karadzic says is happening; for example they notice that although Karadzic says there are no snipers in Bosnia there still continues to be many deaths every day in caused by snipers and they therefore realize that Karadzic is lying about these murders and they call him a monster for doing such a horrible thing.
In the article The Independent justifies their claims that Karadzic is a monster mostly by reasoning. Instead of believing the authority of Karadzic and what he tells them is true and because they are not directly experiencing what he is doing they use induction and deduction to reason what the truth really is. The article mentions many contradictions between what is happening in Bosnia and what Karadzic says is happening; for example they notice that although Karadzic says there are no snipers in Bosnia there still continues to be many deaths every day in caused by snipers and they therefore realize that Karadzic is lying about these murders and they call him a monster for doing such a horrible thing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
