|
08-12-2009, 03:56 PM
|
#1
|
Motorboat!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Atlanta
|
Theory of knowledge (TOK)
So who all took this course in high school?
I am a senior in HS and i just started this class a couple days ago. It seems really cool.
It includes both politics and philosphy, but Im betting the phisophy section will work alot better because your minds are more open. This is an out of the box type class.
I really have no idea what this class is about yet. My teacher said we wouldnt find out until halfway through the next semester. Basically it is about discussing the relation ship between AoK's (Areas of Knowledge) and WoK's ( Ways of Knowledge).
Most of it is based off of this knowledge wheel. Basically the inner circle are WoK's and the outer circle is AoK's. The inner circle is the knowers, which is kind of like if someone knows something but doesnt tell anyone, is it really knowledge?
So lets get to discussion. Basically you can say anything you want and other build of it. Ill start first.
Does our knowledge about poverty bring with it an ethical obligation to do something about it personally? If so, what can we do?
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS FIRST QUESTION, YOU MAY CHANGE THE PACE (and topic) OF THE THREAD AT ANY POINT. THERE ARE NO RULES, NO REGULATIONS, JUST STATE SOMETHING INTERESTING AND SUPPORT YOUR POINT OF VIEW.
What would be a discussion if you are discussing your cause with someone who does not view it the same as you? Also in vice versa
__________________
Professional in all you do.
Last edited by JohnMcHugh : 08-12-2009 at 06:48 PM.
|
|
|
Sponsored Links
|
Remove Advertisement
|
Advertisement
|
|
08-12-2009, 04:29 PM
|
#2
|
|
Well, this does seem like an interesting topic. First off, I believe that knowledge of poverty means not so much an obligation as much as pity or even sympathy.
Second, I find it odd that logic isn't mentioned, has it been replaced by Reason?
__________________
If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right.
-Henry Ford
|
|
|
08-12-2009, 04:34 PM
|
#3
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnMcHugh
Does our knowledge about poverty bring with it an ethical obligation to do something about it personally? If so, what can we do?
|
Well, poverty wouldn't exist if we all took the right amount instead of more. We produce enough food each year to feed every person, but over-eating is like a religion in the this country. When the rich (north america + europe) take the same as the poor (africa, middle east, etc.) we won't have to worry about poverty. Yes, IMO we should do something about it personally, whether it be donating food or cutting back on the amount we eat.
|
|
|
08-12-2009, 05:46 PM
|
#5
|
Postmodern Sophist
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Florida
|
It does sort of sounds like a homework thread. Plato (via Socrates?) and Aristotle say a lot on the subject.
"To know good is to do good"
But the to "do" good is different from person to person. It depends how people define good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Poverty_of_Philosophy
You can find a copy online. But this is what your teacher expects you to read so just read it now and he (or she) will be surprised at how well read you are.
__________________
"No passion is stronger in the breast of man than the desire to make others believe as he believes...It is not the love of truth, but desire to prevail that sets quarter against quarter and makes parish desire the downfall of parish. Each seeks peace of mind and subserviency rather than the triumph of truth and exaltation of virtue-- But these moralities belong, and should be left to the historian, since they are as dull as ditch water" - Orlando: A Biography
|
|
|
08-12-2009, 05:48 PM
|
#6
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnMcHugh
Does our knowledge about poverty bring with it an ethical obligation to do something about it personally? If so, what can we do?
|
So before I get jumped please read my entire point before jumping to conclusions. In my personal opinion knowledge of poverty does not create an obligation to do anything about it. An obligation means that failure to act is punishable. Who would enforce these obligations? You have an obligation to show up to work and do your job. If you don't your employer can punish you. With poverty who do you have this obligation to? The poor? Does that mean that if I spend my money on a new TV and can't afford food and I approach you and say "I'm hungry and I can't afford food" and you now have knowledge of this and you choose not to feed me can I sue you? Can I have you imprisoned through the state?
Now if no means am I saying that poor people are poor because they spend their money of TV's and are lazy and expect handouts, it's just an extreme example to illustrate a point.
This falls under the idea of positive & negative rights. I am a believer in negative rights, the concept that I cannot do harm to you but in no way does that mean I have an obligation to help you. If you are starving and I have 2 sandwiches I cannot be punished for not sharing my second sandwich with you. This doesn't mean I cannot choose to help you it just means that nobody can punish me for choosing not to. Now, if you had a sandwich and I stole it from you and you starved then I am accountable because I was the cause of your harm.
The problem with positive rights and obligations is that others own your property and life. Others get to dictate and threaten you. I wholeheartedly disagree. Look at some of the super rich Bill Gates and the likes. They have donated large amounts of money to charity, they had no legal obligation to do so, but that doesn't mean they cannot choose to do something either.
Jr,
|
|
|
08-12-2009, 06:46 PM
|
#7
|
Motorboat!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Atlanta
|
This is not a homework thread at all. My class does home work from the things you hear about in class, if you choose to research it you can, if not whatever you better be prepared for tomorow. It is a class where anything goes and it is completely out of the ordinary. It is not a person preaching to a class, more like a class discussing with the teacher.
back to the thread.
this is a very diverse discussion. At any point and time you feel, you may change the topic.
Ex: I believe poverty has stemmed from people having no intuition to work. They are not smart, they have low life jobs, and basically do what upper class people would not like to do. Some upper class people help people below the poverty line while others have them work hard, but in the end they still reap the profits. It all boils down to money.
Another good one is the radio reports rain today. There are drops of liquid coming down onto your winsheild. How can you actually prove this is rain? Will you pull over your car and detect the h2o? How do you know that it is not the acid rain from the plants across the river? How do you know that it is even rain at all? What we may call rain may be called something different somewhere else.
This also brings up the Absolute certainty thing thats going on. If you were absolutely certain about everything in life, wouldnt everyting be true then? That would make you a relivativist because you would know all the answers, yet know nothing.
__________________
Professional in all you do.
|
|
|
08-12-2009, 07:56 PM
|
#8
|
Wow, it is blue.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New Richmond, WI
|
One problem with this issue is that poverty is relative. How would you define someone as "poor"? Someone who can only afford to live on generic ramen noodles every night in America might be considered quite rich in some third world countries.
There's also the issue of inflation. So you give all the poor people money so that they're not poor anymore. They have more money to spend and can buy stuff, and that's an increase in demand, with the same supply. Basic Economics time folks, prices go up. Net result, the poor are still poor, but now spend more for their generic ramen.
You want to improve things across the board? Encourage property ownership. Not mortgages. That's NOT ownership. People don't own anything anymore, the bank does. Come up with a system where people can actually own their own home. You can't be foreclosed on when you actually own it out right. Things get hard? Sell big property, buy smaller property, live on the balance until things get better.
|
|
|
08-13-2009, 12:38 AM
|
#9
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnMcHugh
So who all took this course in high school?
I am a senior in HS and i just started this class a couple days ago. It seems really cool.
It includes both politics and philosphy, but Im betting the phisophy section will work alot better because your minds are more open. This is an out of the box type class.
I really have no idea what this class is about yet. My teacher said we wouldnt find out until halfway through the next semester. Basically it is about discussing the relation ship between AoK's (Areas of Knowledge) and WoK's ( Ways of Knowledge).
Most of it is based off of this knowledge wheel. Basically the inner circle are WoK's and the outer circle is AoK's. The inner circle is the knowers, which is kind of like if someone knows something but doesnt tell anyone, is it really knowledge?
So lets get to discussion. Basically you can say anything you want and other build of it. Ill start first.
Does our knowledge about poverty bring with it an ethical obligation to do something about it personally? If so, what can we do?
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS FIRST QUESTION, YOU MAY CHANGE THE PACE (and topic) OF THE THREAD AT ANY POINT. THERE ARE NO RULES, NO REGULATIONS, JUST STATE SOMETHING INTERESTING AND SUPPORT YOUR POINT OF VIEW.
What would be a discussion if you are discussing your cause with someone who does not view it the same as you? Also in vice versa
|
I'm suprised no one has mentioned this yet, but this branch of philosophy is called epistemology. What it really deals with is what constitutes knowledge and whether or not human beings can have knowledge.
It was once thought that knowledge was justified, true belief. However several examples have been shown that interfere with that notion. For instance, if a clock is broken and stopped on 12:00 (unbeknownst to me) and I happen to look at the broken clock when it was in fact 12:00, would I actually know that it's 12:00?
There are several formulas that attempt to capture what actually constitutes knowledge. Many of them include justified true belief + one or two additional conditions. Look up "Alvin Goldman."
|
|
|
10-30-2009, 08:32 PM
|
#10
|
Keep Satan in Christmas
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: A tin can
|
Strangely enough, i was googling an image to get all of the AoKs and i saw this thread on here.
As for my opinion on ToK, it's generally a waste of time and i'm glad it's ending for me very soon. The last major thing i have left to do is a presentation on a contemporary knowledge issue (i need to figure out what i am going to do soon. Last time i talked about the usage of the words "******" and "*****" and got a 19/20 on it). There is some interesting things i learned in the class, but a lot of the stuff is just stupid.
Now back to my homework, which is answering the question "Who are you?" and i need to draw who i am, explain how i came to this conclusion using truth tests and relate it to at least one AoK.
|
|
|
11-01-2009, 07:29 PM
|
#11
|
Der zigeuner hasser
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sandwich!
|
please keep the IB off the internet I don't want to deal with it on nation let alone in school. Its just another silly class for ignorant students to realize they don't know anything about knowing how knowledge is or isn't acquired.
|
|
|
11-06-2009, 03:48 PM
|
#12
|
antirevelation
|
I'm taking an epistemology course at the college level as of now, and here lately we've been discussing where knowledge exists. Even more specifically, we've been contrasting 'knowledge' and 'information'.
My assenting conclusion is that knowledge itself is absent in empirical reality - it only exists within your mind. Language is a medium in which to convey knowledge, or rather, language is the gateway between the mind and empirical reality. On the other side of that gate, information exists empirically. Information is knowledge as it is passed on through language. So any 'knowledge' that exists empirically is information- any knowledge that exists internally is knowledge.
We've also talked about a lot of other concepts, both political, social, psychological, and even economical. The class is centered around a behaviorist-constructivist continuum.
Oh and apparently no two people can have the exact same knowledge of any one thing. Knowledge is distorted, albeit sometimes only slightly, because of the confines of language.
__________________
Reason obeys itself;
and ignorance submits to
whatever is dictated to it.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|