Spookers+Essay

· //Complete a //**//500 word essay //**//on one of the following topics. You must write as the “knower” and include: // § //at least //**//2 //**//Areas of Knowledge // § //at least //**//3 //**//Ways of Knowing // § **//actual examples //**// from today // § **//proper acknowledgement //**// where sources of information/ideas are used //

   <span style="display: block; height: 143.25pt; left: 0px; margin-left: 54.5pt; margin-top: 371.6pt; position: absolute; text-align: left; width: 430pt; z-index: 251717632;">
 * // A. // // When should we trust our senses to give us truth? // ||
 * Can we ever get away from our senses? Of what value are your senses in Mathematics? Are your senses more important in other Areas of Knowledge? Should senses as a way of knowing be “kept in line” by other ways of knowing, e.g. reason? How useful were your senses in the maze and/or the vortex? What does “trust” mean in this question? Does it imply some sort of relationship? What does “truth” mean in this question? Can we ever know the truth? Is there a difference between knowledge and truth? ||
 * B. It is said that the great strength of Leonardo da Vinci was his ability to see the “big picture” without losing his eye for detail. //How important to knowledge is the balance of big picture and detail?// ||
 * How is knowledge like a picture? How does detail contribute to the overall picture? In what ways might a maze be like a picture? What are the details in a maze? How might a map of the “big picture” [=maze] have helped you to make sense of the pathway you were in [=detail]? How is this like trying to understand an idea or anything else to do with knowledge? Who was Leonardo da Vinci? What do you know about him- or what can you find out about him- that might help you answer this question? What Areas of Knowledge did he contribute to? ||

<span style="display: block; height: 45.75pt; left: 0px; margin-left: 54.5pt; margin-top: 5.3pt; position: absolute; text-align: left; width: 430pt; z-index: 251679744;"> <span style="display: block; height: 404.25pt; left: 0px; margin-left: 54.5pt; margin-top: 81.35pt; position: absolute; text-align: left; width: 430pt; z-index: 251719680;"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt 35.45pt; text-indent: -35.45pt;">Do we know our neighbourhood? Of course we do! But to know it absolutely, we would have to be able to describe every little street, every building on every street, every apartment in every building, every nook and cranny in every apartment, every speck of dust in every nook and cranny, every atom in every speck...How could we possibly do this? It would require perfect knowledge and infinite intelligence: neither of which is possible [47]. What happens when people think they know everything? Why can this be dangerous? What role does doubt play in the pursuit of knowledge? Who was Johann Wolfgang von Goethe? Why might his humility about knowledge have a real impact? How did your experience in the Maze confirm Goethe’s reflection on knowledge? How much did you know about a particular pathway of the maze (let’s say, one you walked through a number of times!)? How much did you know about a section of the maze...half of the maze...all of it? How did accepting your ignorance help you to get through the maze (in other words, motivate you to know more & hence, get out)? ||
 * C. “We know accurately only when we know little; with knowledge doubt increases.” (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe) ||
 * In other words, “the more you know, the less you know”. This is an example of a paradox [//what is that?//]. What is knowledge? Is it about certainty? The philosopher & mathematician Bertrand Russell once said, “What men really want is not knowledge but certainty.” What did he mean by this? How certain are you of the simplest things? Consider the following from André Comte-Sponville [see my earlier comments about the 3-D Vortex]:

<span style="display: block; height: 52.5pt; left: 0px; margin-left: 51.5pt; margin-top: 7.25pt; position: absolute; text-align: left; width: 433pt; z-index: 251682816;"> <span style="display: block; height: 377.6pt; left: 0px; margin-left: 51.5pt; margin-top: 72.85pt; position: absolute; text-align: left; width: 430pt; z-index: 251721728;"> What do you think democracy means? How does it compare with other means of government? What might a democratic approach to knowledge look like? What are the benefits of everyone being involved in the pursuit of knowledge? How could a democratic approach to knowledge turn into a “tyranny of the majority”? Are really smart people less likely to make mistakes when making decisions? How might this apply to witnesses in a court trial? What sorts of knowledge do you think lead to good decisions? How did you make decisions in the maze? Did you work by majority rule? Was this the best way? Would you have preferred an expert to make all the decisions for you or to have all have had some input as a group even if that meant regular failure? || <span style="display: block; height: 28.5pt; left: 0px; margin-left: 51.5pt; margin-top: 500.75pt; position: absolute; text-align: left; width: 433pt; z-index: 251683840;"> <span style="display: block; height: 211.5pt; left: 0px; margin-left: 51.5pt; margin-top: 544.3pt; position: absolute; text-align: left; width: 430pt; z-index: 251723776;"> You should be able to make some links between this statement and the emerging importance of science as an Area of Knowledge. Is science the ultimate road to knowledge or truth? How does experiment help with the following knowledge situations: whom to trust, establishing my interests, whom to marry, discovering my life’s purpose, etc. What way of Knowledge does experiment come under? Is this way of knowledge superior to the other ways? ||
 * D. “A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers.” (Plato) //How much more important is expert knowledge & authority than merely accepting a consensus?// ||
 * This quote reflects Plato’s [//who is he?//] unease with the notion of democracy. Plato argued that democratic self-government does not work because people have not learned how to run the state. They are not familiar with such things as economics, military strategy, conditions in other countries, or the confusing intricacies of law and ethics. They are guided by unreliable emotions more than by careful analysis [//reason//]. According to Plato, a better way is to be governed by a committee of really smart people such as philosophers. In other words, informed rule- even if that means rule by the few- is much better than participation by the ignorant masses.
 * E. “The true method of knowledge is experiment.” (William Blake) //Is this true?// ||
 * What do you think William Blake [//who is he?//] means by the key terms: “true method”, “knowledge” and “experiment”? How would he prove this statement? Is there an experiment that would show that the true method of knowledge is experiment?

<span style="display: block; height: 45.75pt; left: 0px; margin-left: 51.5pt; margin-top: 10.7pt; position: absolute; text-align: left; width: 433pt; z-index: 251680768;"> <span style="display: block; height: 452.6pt; left: 0px; margin-left: 63.5pt; margin-top: 84.6pt; position: absolute; text-align: left; width: 430pt; z-index: 251725824;"> What is imagination? [see ir.lib.sfu.ca/dspace/bitstream/1892/9937/1/b37359654.pdf ] How is it different to knowledge? Which ways of knowing are “open” to imagination? Which are not? Likewise for Areas of Knowledge? Albert Einstein was a famous scientist. How might imagination work in science? In designing experiments, interpreting results & developing theories? [see [|www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polyani/TAD%20WEB%20ARCHIVE/TAD21-2/TAD21-2fnl-pg16-28-pdf.pdf] ] For Einstein’s use of imagination you could look up the following in the index of Walter Isaacson’s (2007) //Einstein: His Life and Universe// Simon & Schuster: New York “Einstein, Albert creativity and genius of” “Einstein, Albert intuitive approach of” “Einstein, Albert visual thinking by”
 * F. “Imagination is more important than Knowledge.” (Albert Einstein) //To what extent would you agree with his claim?// ||
 * The sentence that follows the above quote is: For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.

How much knowledge of the maze did you have? How did you use your imagination in the maze? Did you visualise the next few pathways? The bit of the maze you were in? How your bit of the maze fitted into the rest of it? Did this help you in anyway? || <span style="display: block; height: 29.25pt; left: 0px; margin-left: 51.5pt; margin-top: 775.2pt; position: absolute; text-align: left; width: 433pt; z-index: 251686912;"> <span style="display: block; height: 274.5pt; left: 0px; margin-left: 47.75pt; margin-top: 832.8pt; position: absolute; text-align: left; width: 430pt; z-index: 251726848;"> If all knowledge is relative [//that is, knowledge is never absolute or totally certain//], does that mean all knowledge is of equal value? So for example, your belief in an earth-centred galaxy is as good as my belief in a sun-centred galaxy. If you look at the history of scientific thought is there a movement of knowledge that is less true to that which is more true? Does science ever fall back into errors that have been understood and refuted? What did you know when you were in the maze? At any time, did you think you knew something only to discover it was false? Was that knowledge false before you discovered it to be false? How did you find out your knowledge was false? ||
 * G. //Is there such a thing as false knowledge?// ||
 * What is the opposite of false? Can we speak of knowledge as either true or false? And if so, how can we ever be sure that what we think we know really is true? If knowledge is a mixture of truth and error (=false?), how much error is allowed before it becomes mere belief or opinion?


 * H. “  Life is a travelling to the edge of knowledge, then a leap taken.” (David Herbert Lawrence) //What is the link between knowledge and belief or understanding and commitment?//    ||

What is the link between belief and knowledge? Can you claim something to be true without believing it? Is believing something the same as knowing it? Is there a link between faith and reason? Does faith require some knowledge? Which ways of knowing might help faith? Consider the opposing arguments of two philosophers: Hegel (1770-1831) and Kierkegaard (1813-55). Hegel: “Reason is Reality and that the only reality is Reason.” Kierkegaard: not //what// you know, but //how// you react. For Kierkegaard, faith and reason are mutually exclusive opposites. Life is not merely a fact-gathering exercise, it cannot be lived scientifically. We must act, make a “leap” beyond the evidence. And this will result in a deeper understanding of ourselves and what it means to be human. ||
 * What do the key terms mean: “life”, “knowledge” and faith or commitment [=’leap’]? Do you think knowledge is finite or infinite? If knowledge has “edges” [=limits], what lies beyond it? What is the content of this “beyond-knowledge”? How would you recognise it if you “landed” there?

When you were in the maze, did you only act after all the evidence had come in? Did you ever make “leaps of faith”? Why did you do this? How reliable were these “leaps”? If you sat down until you had all the evidence where would you be now? Is not acting still a decision? In other words, is not acting still an action? ||
 * Think about the many things in life you just accept by faith: that your senses are reliable, that your memory works well enough, that other people have minds and that life is not a dream.


 * I.“Knowledge is knowing that we cannot know.” (Ralph Waldo Emerson) //To what extent would you agree with this claim?// ||

You may want to look at the questions and comments that follow Essay C. above. There is some overlap between this and that essay. ||
 * How is this claim a paradox? How can knowing be not knowing? What is the difference between knowledge & truth [//clue: it has something to do with certainty//]? Does not knowing //everything// equate to knowing //nothing//? If we cannot know, how can we know this? In other words, if we know nothing, how would we know what knowledge is, what ignorance is? If we cannot know, how does Emerson expect us to know what he means?


 * J. “To walk safely through the maze of human life, one needs the light of wisdom and the guidance of virtue.” (Buddha) //Discuss this vision of the relationship between knowledge and ethics as the means to overcome the complexities of life.// ||

How is wisdom the same as knowledge? How is it different? Do you know anyone who is intelligent but not wise? How is Forrest Gump a good example of someone who is wise but not overly wise? Do you have to know a lot of information to be wise? How does a person become wise? ||
 * What do the key terms mean: “human life”, “wisdom” and “virtue”? How is human life like a maze? How does the Buddha advise one gets through “the maze of human life”? Who was the Buddha? What was his contribution to an understanding of knowledge?

What is the relationship between wisdom and virtue? Do they complement each other? Is there ever conflict between them? Do wisdom and virtue help us to work out the purpose of knowledge? [//Does knowledge have a purpose?//] Which ways of knowing and Areas of Knowledge are involved in wisdom and virtue? Did you observe any wisdom (as opposed to knowledge) in the maze? How did virtues help your group work well together in the maze? How does your experience in the maze help you to understand the Buddha’s claim? ||
 * How is virtue the same as knowledge? How is it different? Is all virtue of one kind? Are some virtues more intellectual [=based on knowledge] than others? Where do virtues come from? How do we decide what are virtues and what are not? How does a person become virtuous?


 * <span style="display: block; padding-bottom: 9.6pt; padding-left: 13.2pt; padding-right: 13.2pt; padding-top: 9.6pt;"> ** EXAMPLE ** ||


 * K. “The learning and knowledge that we have, is, at the most, but little compared with that of which we are ignorant.” (Plato) //To what extent would you agree with this claim?//  ||

I have tried to help you with this in the red “boxes” under each question. Ask the right questions to point you in the right direction. Start with the obvious and then dig deeper. Finding out the context will usually help you to get a handle on the text. Who said this? Where was it recorded? What came before and after? How does it fit into the whole body of that person’s work or thoughts? All of this takes quite a bit of time to cover. However, as they say, it is all in the preparation. The best paint job in the world will not make up for a lack of sanding and plastering. I would suggest you work through a series of steps. You can modify this as you see fit. Very generally, you need to 1st “Understand” the question & the material required to answer that question; 2nd, “Plan” the essay: that means putting the required material into an appropriate structure (being mindful of the word limit); 3rd, “Commit” your words to paper [=start typing your essay]; 4th, “Edit” your essay- not just once either!


 * <span style="display: block; padding-bottom: 7.6pt; padding-left: 11.2pt; padding-right: 11.2pt; padding-top: 7.6pt;"> ** Understand ** ||

I’ve read the question a few times and it seems rather straight forward. To make sure that I don’t miss anything, I’ve made a note of what I think are the key terms (“learning”/”knowledge”= “little”; “ignoran[ce]”=much). I think I know what Plato is on about and if I’m right, I actually agree with him. However, I don’t know that much about Plato, so I am going to do some research on him. After I learn something about Plato, I’m going to find out what Plato‘s views were on knowledge and the lack of it. I’ll record my findings in the box below.

· Pupil of Socrates (470-399 BCE) [Socrates: famous for declaring that the unexamined life is not worth living; the “Socratic Method”: analytical discussion involving questions and answers; pronounced wisest of men by oracle at Delphi & Socrates’ response: wisest because he is aware of his ignorance (or lack of knowledge); “wisdom begins when a man finds out that he does not know what he thinks he knows”] · Much of what we know about Socrates comes from Plato · Socrates put to death for basically teaching men how to think (according to Plato) · Plato’s theory of knowledge: sense experience not reliable; the best knowledge is that which is closest to the source of reality; the “stuff” around us is always changing & it is not as real as the “Ultimate Ideas” of “Forms” it is based on, e.g. a chair is not as real as the Ultimate Idea of “chair-ness” [=what it means to be a chair]; before we were born we existed in a higher realm of being, the realm of “Ultimate Ideas”; the shock of being born made us forget what we knew in that realm; when we are asked the right questions or have certain experiences, we remember or “recollect” these innate (or inborn) truths · Difficult to pinpoint reference for the quote that heads this essay question · Most likely, Plato is recording Socrates responses during his trial, as found in Plato’s //Apology// (21-30) · Socrates says: //I know very well that I am not wise, even in the smallest degree// (21b4-5) //I do not think that I know what I do not know// (21d7) //I knew very well that I possessed no knowledge at all worth speaking of// (22c9-d1) //He among you is the wisest who knows that his wisdom is really worth nothing at all// (23b3-4) //To fear death is to think that we know what we do not know// (29a6) · Socrates does not mean that he knows nothing at all · Socrates means that there is a lot that he does not know, e.g. the he does not know how to build a house · Socrates also says that neither he nor anyone else knows anything that is really worth knowing · Plato, later, claims that he has found this “knowledge worth knowing”; this knowledge consists of the “Ultimate Ideas” ||
 * · Plato (c. 428-347 BCE) is best known ancient Greek philosopher


 * <span style="display: block; padding-bottom: 7.6pt; padding-left: 11.2pt; padding-right: 11.2pt; padding-top: 7.6pt;"> ** Plan ** ||

Now that I feel I’ve got enough to answer this question, it’s time to plan the essay. An essay usually has three main parts: an INTRODUCTION, a BODY and a CONCLUSION. An introduction has a number of sentences which introduce the topic. A simple way to do this is to include the question, this time as a statement. The body is the “heart” or “guts” [//take your pick//] of the essay. It has at least 2 to 3 paragraphs which develop your argument or explanation. You should start a new paragraph for each new point. The first sentence should state the point and the following sentences should give supporting facts or evidence. The concluding paragraph is a summary of all the points you have made. This paragraph should agree with what you said in the introduction.


 * <span style="display: block; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%; text-align: center;">Introduction ||


 * <span style="display: block; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%; text-align: center;">Start with quote ||


 * <span style="display: block; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%; text-align: center;">Mention maze experience ||


 * <span style="display: block; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%; text-align: center;">State my view: affirm ||


 * <span style="display: block; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%; text-align: center;">Brief mention of Plato ||


 * <span style="display: block; padding-bottom: 7.6pt; padding-left: 11.2pt; padding-right: 11.2pt; padding-top: 7.6pt;"> ** Commit ** ||

Now that I’ve got a fair idea of the “skeleton” of the essay, it’s time to put on the skin & throw in a few vital organs. In other words, it’s time to start typing my words. I need to be aware of the different type of sentences (e.g. topic sentences, transition sentences, etc) and perhaps play it safe by going with shorter rather than longer sentences (these are easier for the reader to follow). I also need to make sure I acknowledge any sources for my ideas. I will attempt the introduction first, but will not be too worried if I find it easier to start with the body and work back to the introduction.


 * <span style="display: block; padding-bottom: 7.6pt; padding-left: 11.2pt; padding-right: 11.2pt; padding-top: 7.6pt;"> ** Edit ** ||

Now it’s time to proof-read my essay and do the necessary editing. I need to go back to the question and check that I have actually answered it. If so, I need to take a closer look at the structure to see if it flows well. Then there are the words: are they suitable? Precise? Concise? Have you thoughtfully used adjectives and adverbs? Have you used strong verbs? Have you used the active voice rather than the passive one? Have I made sure that my sentences do not contain more than one idea? Spelling correct? Have I included my references? When I feel satisfied with my essay I will get someone else to read it. Preferably it will be someone that doesn’t know that much about TOK. Do they understand what I’m getting at? Another pair of ideas might just pick up what I can no longer see. All good, time to submit the essay.