Sunday, 20th January 2008 - 11:30 am

Due Date - 15th January 2008. Extended to - 16th January 2008. Submitted - 20th January 2008. Why?

Well, the reason is --> Because emotion clouds judgment.

I sat down on Wednesday evening (the 16th) to write my blog entry, but couldn't think of a satisfactory and still publicly-describable incident from my life to write about. I thought that if I give it more time, I might come up with a better topic. I had hope. I had the 'emotion' of hope. This clouded my judgment of "What if Mrs. Balan gets angry?" "What if she refuses to correct my assignment saying I was late?", however, it did cloud my judgment. It wasn't that I had a pile of work waiting for me, it was just the mere hope that I could write something better that kept me from writing it on Wednesday. That is an example of how emotion clouds my judgment.

I could've said that I had been thinking about this assignment day-in and day-out, every passing moment for the past 5 days, but that would be a lie. I could've easily stated that, but the emotion of guilt, and that of lying, kept me from doing so.


Now for the counter-example. I realised this morning that I had a TOK assignment due, and decided to finish it off once and for all. Again, the lack of a suitable topic. Then this problem itself became my topic. I thought to myself, I could lie "I had written my assignment on Thursday, but my computer crashed" "I had written it on a piece of paper and TDQ stole it" etc. etc. This resulted from the feeling of fear, fear that Mrs. Balan would get angry, and would be annoyed that the assignment due 5 days back was being written today. However, emotion does not always cloud your judgment. The emotion of guilt (which could also be seen as a moralistic explanation of honesty) led me into saying that I was in fact writing my entry on a Sunday morning, at 11:30.

Truth Quote - Jack London

Since a few people had already written about the quote by John Reseck, i decided to talk about the quote by Jack London,

"Truth is what you trust your life with"

- Jack London

Now, this quote explicitly states that the truth (rather, what you believe to be the truth) is something you are so sure abut that you can bet your life on it, something like "I am sure that a body at the equator of the Earth experiences a gravitational acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2". This is a scientific fact that people take to be true.
This quote seems rather feasible, in the sense, it leaves room for the concept of relativism, a concept that states that two people with contrasting views can have different "truths" with neither of them being wrong in their own right. Take for example, the India- Pakistan issue (Yes, again, seems to be quite a useful conflict for beliefs and truths!). For the general Pakistani, a prejudiced one, India is evil. He can lay his life on the line to back this thing which he believes to be his "truth". From his point of view, he is not entirely wrong, in the sense, the Indians might have done something to affect him, or his family; which leaves a lasting impact on him. The same applies for Indians (the other way around, of course). Hence, this quote seems to comply with the idea of relativism to a great extent.
However, this statement is not completely right in the sense, there can be a contradiction. What about the new concept you learned at school today? Take for example, hybridization. The concept of hybridization (Chemistry) may not be completely understood by someone, and it may not make sense to them. To them, it is not "true". However, what about the whole scientific community which believes that it IS true?! What about those researchers who have spent billions of hours trying to prove using the VSEPR theory that hybridization does in fact fit into the chemistry model that exists today? (Apologies for the chemistry example, but it best suites the argument I am trying to make) To them, hybridization is true. There is no room for relativism. There is this kid, who is ready to claim that this concept is false, yet, to the rest of the scientific community, it is true, they can lay their life on it. What about this case?
Hence, in my opinion, this quote is true, to an extent, where it fits in with the concept of relativism, but it falls short in some cases as there might be something that is true which you are not ready to lay your life for, so something you are ready to lay your life for, which is not "true" to the rest of the people.

John F Kennedy's Inaugural Address to the United States of America

To highlight a speech with has both language and power, I chose John F Kennedy's Inaugural Address to the USA.

It reads as:

Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom - symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning - signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe - the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans - born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage - and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge - and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do - for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom - and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required - not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge - to convert our good words into good deeds - in a new alliance for progress - to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbours know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support - to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective - to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak - and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course - both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew - remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belabouring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms - and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah - to "undo the heavy burdens -. and to let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavour, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again - not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are - but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" - a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shank from this responsibility - I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavour will light our country and all who serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

Statements of Knowledge

Of the 9 statements provided, we cannot assume any of them to be “knowledge”, as they all rely on opinion, assumption, morals and/or beliefs.

“I know stealing is wrong” is a moralistic statement, in the sense; we consider it “morally” wrong to steal. For us, stealing may be seen as a devaluing action, however, for the Mafia, someone who steals is considered to be extremely capable. For a poor kid, who has been brought up in extreme conditions and been taught to steal, “stealing” may not be wrong. To him, it is a way of life; it is required for his existence. Here, relativism comes in. To quote from our TOK textbook “According to relativism, there is no such thing as absolute truth that exists in an objective way independent of what anyone happens to believe is true. Instead, truth is relative and may be different for different individuals.” What may be true for you may not be true for me. “I know stealing is wrong” is one such statement; it varies from person to person. It is a belief, not knowledge.

“I know it is raining”. In fact, you can never know if it is raining. First of all, due to a lack of skill, we cannot distinguish between rains, “a type of precipitation, and a product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapor that is deposited on the earth's surface”, and sleet, “a type of precipitation intermediate between rain and snow.” (Source: www.wikipedia.org). What someone may perceive to be rain may be sleet to someone else; though not a very convincing argument at first, if given thought it starts to makes sense. Secondly, my favorite argument; isn’t “rain” rain in the opinion of the person who decided to call it rain? What we take to be knowledge, undoubted knowledge of rain, is merely the opinion of people who decided to term it as “rain”. To me, rain maybe something else, and since rain is not something that can be “proven” (like the earth being round using satellite images that seem to be “foolproof”) but merely “defined” using a judgmental understanding of precipitation, there is no concrete evidence as to the “knowledge” of rain being based in anything other than purely opinion. Furthermore, how can you be certain it is “rain”? It may well be orange juice, or coca-cola or even whiskey. Just because it is colorless and tasteless (as someone might argue saying “I see it” or “I taste it”) does not mean it is water, unless it is actually tested using laboratory equipment. Again, laboratory tests may not be fool-proof; what if another liquid has a boiling point of 100 degrees Celsius? What if another liquid has the same density? What “proof” do you have that it is indeed rain and not anything else?

“I know how to speak French”. Okay, let’s suppose someone has been learning French for say 2 years, and then one day, he goes to France and is faced with a problem; the key to his rented apartment doesn’t open the door. He returns to the owner and forgets the word for door (la porte). Now, this person is unsuccessful in trying to convey to the owner of the house that the key does not open the door, due to a “memory lapse” the person cannot recollect this particular word. (Note: the person still recollects the vocabulary to have a perfectly normal conversation with a fruit-vendor) Now, does this person know French? Knowledge of language, according to me, is very subjective. During the conversation with the house-owner, we can very well say that the person did not know French, as he did not manage to convey what he meant to. However, he still knows how to speak French with a fruit-vendor if required, “Je voudrais deux kilos de pommes, s’il vous plait”. Knowledge of language is more of an opinion; an opinion about the extent to which we believe we can successfully communicate using that language (ignoring the minor memory lapses here and there). So the statement “I know how to speak French” may hold true for a person at one point of time, and may prove to be false just a few minutes on. It is more of an opinion than knowledge.

These, were three examples to show what I mean that knowledge cannot be known. It is more of something that needs to be understood. I could explain the rest of the knowledge statements in a similar way, to prove that they are indeed not knowledge, however it would involve similar repetition, and hence, I have not. All of the knowledge that we know, is based in belief, assumption and morals, and hence comes with an inherent bias. Hence, knowledge isn't knowledge, it's someone's knowledge which has been passed on. The definition and perception of knowledge vary, from situation to situation. Knowledge, to me, is something assumed to be concrete, which isn't actually so.

Note: I have picked three of the knowledge statements as examples to substantiate what I am trying to explain. If anyone wants, I could try and offer similar arguments for the rest of the knowledge statements.

All knowledge is biased (?)

From last class, we saw that there were two types of knowledge. The first one is Knowledge by Acquaintance, which is a sort of knowledge we know by experiencing something (i.e. by being "acquainted" with it). With the given example "I Know Paris", we saw how the definition of knowledge varied depending on who you are, a tourist or a local resident for a period of time. For a tourist it could mean the monuments, the roads or even the culture. However, for the local resident, it could imply the Parisian life, what Paris means to that person, or experiences which the person may have had in/around Paris. It could also mean the personal attachment the person shares with the city. This sort of knowledge is something that is felt, perceived, and in a sense, it can be termed as "private knowledge" as rarely would you expect many people to know what you know about a city (by "know" here, I mean your experiences or your attachment).
The second one is Knowledge by Description, the sort of knowledge which we obtain from a secondary source, and not by personally experiencing a thing. The given example stated that "I Know Paris is the capital of France.", and people said they knew that Paris was the capital of France in various ways:

1. Somebody told them
2. From an atlas/newspaper/magazine (written source)
3. School/internet
4. Live(d) in Paris

This is the sort of knowledge that is published and printed in various places and which people are sure "exists". This can be termed as "public knowledge" as it is taken to be a fact, something that is "universally accepted".
Also, it was seen that all opinion is knowledge, as having an opinion means that you know such an opinion exists. That gave rise to the concept of "biased knowledge" and about how much we know is actually true and how much is biased. According to me, all knowledge is biased, and all knowledge is based COMPLETELY on opinion and what people perceive to be true. It is what people find best-fitting to the current understanding of the current aspects which they know about. Every "fact" and piece of "knowledge" is based on the most concurrent opinion between the people deciding on that fact. What seems to fit current understanding may be far from the actual truth, but is still taken to be "knowledge" as it seems to fit understanding. As a result, in my opinion, all opinion is based on more opinion, and all knowledge is biased.