Amal's posterous

Seeking to know is too often learning to doubt.

TOK essay questions

Just me ranting about how I would approach a chosen 3 of 10 TOK essay questions:

1. To what extent is truth different in mathematics, the arts and ethics?

Very apparently “truth” has to be defined here and then redefined in terms of the above three topics. Obviously truth in mathematics is concrete and more or less irrefutable. There are certain axioms and theorems upon which other truths are formed. Such as the sum of the angles in a quadrilateral is 360°. Certain ways of knowing don’t really have a place in mathematics such as sense and perception and emotion (except for maybe intuition). Language and symbols and reasoning do have a place in mathematics. The opposite is true for the arts where arguably perception and emotion play a major role and symbols and reasoning don’t. Hence in the arts, truth is in the eye of the beholder and how one perceives the work of art. The creator might not always get his point across to each and every audience member (again opposite of mathematics where everyone must be on the same page). As far as ethics is concerned, that is a more hazy area for truth. As the truth in it is decided by a collective group of people (usually the majority). Hence this is a similarity to truth in the arts and a difference again in to truth in mathematics.

6. All knowledge claims should be open to rational criticism. On what grounds and to what extent would you agree with this assertion?

I fully agree with this assertion on every ground and to its full extent. The key phrase is ‘rational claims’; and even if that were not specified it would still be fine as people are free to waste their precious time trying to disprove gravity or some other such concrete phenomena. However, knowledge claims can be challenged in all areas of knowing. One might think it would be ludicrous to do so in the sciences and mathematics but that is not true. Many theories in physics and chemistry still require clarification (mostly theories to do with the very large [stellar black holes, worm holes, etc.] or the very small [particle physics, quantum mechanics, even the atom is not yet fully understood]). In math simple operations such as division are still not fully defined (dividing by zero). And so many things need criticism as that is the only way innovation will once again enter these fields and allow mankind to progress. But then again some ‘knowledge claims’ can never be proved or disproved, claims such as God is real has been troubling mankind for eons.

9. Discuss the claim that some areas of knowledge are discovered and others are invented.

Areas of knowledge such as science and math are considered discovered as they are all around us and we just created a medium to express them and harness them not actually create the area itself. For example by observing gravity in action we concluded the law of gravity, not by inventing the law of gravity did gravity come into action. However, areas such as ethics, arts, human sciences and history are invented. This does not undermine the importance of those areas but is just a fact. Economics and its theories are as, if not more, important than let’s say chemistry; as it has very wide real world applications. Without it, economies world over would fall into anarchy. Hence, by inventing it we have kept order. Same goes for ethics, as we do not want to live like animals where survival is of the fittest, rather we want to give everyone equal opportunities and rights (so we don’t want people cheating each other, etc.) and that is good.

Is Mathematics a language?

I do believe Mathematics is a written language. As it conatains its own grammer, syntax and axioms. Therefore Mathematics' equations are equivalent to Englishs' sentences of which both are coherent to a literate in the respective languages and both convey a message to the reader. Mathematics is also a sophisticated language as it contains humour for e.g. sinx/n = ? some say six = 6. That ofcourse is incorrect but funny to some. As is comparable to english "why did the chicken cross the roads" joke. Also,

Is it possible to think without language?

I think it is possible to think without the use of language as thinking in a certain language is not required, if that was the case then one would be assuming that new-born babies do not think. New-borns do think, very elementary thoughts, but thoughts nevertheless. They think in pictures and in the other 4 senses, i.e. sound, smell, touch and taste. They also think in terms of emotions and hunger, etc. It is fully possible for people with disabilities such as dyslexia or being deaf or dumb to think as proficiently as people without these disabilities. Such as Helen Keller she wrote a book filled with her thoughts and she could not speak or hear even a syllable of English or any other language, it can be argued that she knew sign language but nevertheless she could think and did think.

What I believe

I believe in a God or higher power. I believe that it exists, but I do not KNOW, that it/he/she does exist. I believe so because of my parents and their parents and so on who have passed this cultural belief on to their proceeding generations for millenniums. If I chose to, I could also, not believe in God or a higher power as it is my personal belief and I may believe whatever I like, it is nobody else’s business. Which I did until a few weeks ago, you see until a few weeks ago I did not believe in God or any higher power and was constantly opposed to the concept of it. I thought that it was illogical and God was but a symbol made by mankind to blame, thank and look for guidance when in trouble. Essentially God is a figment of a collective race’s imagination, the only difference being their religion and the way they perceive it, it is just their own conscience acting on them, their moral compass per say. Possibly natures built in way to stop anarchy from humans and make them civilized, maybe belief in God was the first step to civilization and government from the devolutionary survival of the fittest idea and total freedom. Until, I realized I was the one being illogical, what were the chances that so many people in the world (all non atheists) could be wrong, I’m not sure but not much probably. Also, as logic would have it believing in God is far better than not believing in God, as if he does not exist then no harm, no foul, but if he does…

what I know...

I know that I will die. I am sure that there will be a time in my lifetime when I will cease to exist as I do in this body. I will stop breathing and thus delivering oxygen via my blood to my various muscles and organs, because of this they will shut down and I will not respire, grow or do any of the other things which are defined for a living being to do by today’s scientific society. But above all, my body will never become lively again, as it is at the time this is written. I know this for a fact as I have experienced death of other beings first hand and know that no one lives forever, as no one ever has or will. I will not be the first.