Tell the world about a TOK moment you have had in one of your classes recently. Don't forget to identify yourself.
By the way, the picture on the left is a photo of a painting by art teacher Mr. Smith.
Biology Class this week: In class we were talking about a video we had seen, about a scientist working on the genome project. He believed in the theory of evolution; however, Mr.Amato told us that he is also very religious. His belief is a theory in between the two: God created the original world and allowed the species to evolve, knowing that they would. This is a perspective on science and religion shared by quite a few people, and then of course there are the many that cannot think about the possibility of both theories being true and so stick to one and define the other as false. But how can we know that scientific proof of evolution is in fact proof at all? If what is observed in carrying out experiments on a subject is truth, do our eyes tell us the truth, or are perhaps only machines able to tell the truth?
In math class we talked about the golden ratio and the golden rectangle. The number is 1.618033. It is a specific ratio that can be applied to many things such as faces, ears and shells. Apparently humans perceive anything with a golden ratio as beautiful - subconsciously, of course. The Mona Lisa, for example, was painted to have a golden ratio (Leonardo da Vinci knew about the golden ratio). This theory was also tested on faces of celebrities, such as Brad Pitt. So if we are faced with the question: What is beauty? Maybe we should answer: When an object has a golden ratio.
Nuria, interesting connection between two areas of knowledge - maths and art. Lynn, a good example of emotion and knowledge perhaps? Religion and Science.
here's a question; base on your concept of knowledge between the connection that Nuria and Lynn made, how can anyone say something can be defined as good or bad: isn't our concept between good and bad taught and therefore limited.?
In history class we were reading sources that were talking about Stalin and his involvement with the USSR secret police and his participation in the assassination of Kirov. The totalitarian sources accused Stalin of being behind the assassination,yet at the same time, the revisionist sources claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to accuse him of his actions. So my TOK moment was: how do we know which sources to trust and how do we know if their knowledge has been proven?
In my art class we are working on a project about time. We needed to build our project upon the idea of time. When I was researching time, and what it really was, I just could not make any sense of it. Apparently, time does not exist and we are not in the present right now. This was my TOK moment that almost made my head explode:
We see our lives as a linear flow of events. The human mind somehow created the idea of 'time' so that everything doesn't seem like it is happening all at once. We believe that time consists of the past, present, and the future. We feel that we are being dragged through time as if through a flowing river. Therefore, we feel that time must exist. We live in the present which is the most real perception of time that we can experience, but almost everything that we perceive as the present, has already become the past. You are reading this sentence in the present, but as you read, it is already becoming the past. We can't measure the present as it is an extremely narrow point in time. The past and the future, however, we believe we can measure. But how can we really measure time? We use time to measure motion, such as miles per hour. This allows us to see that time is really just some form of motion. Our mind expects the future, which becomes the present, which the mind attends to, then becomes the past, and the mind remembers. So if we created something called 'time' for our own benefit in our everyday lives, then does time really exist at all?
The 'Block Universe' explains time as a landscape of the past, present, and future existing together in different dimensions. If you imagine that you are driving down a long road, the road that is behind you is the past, but it still exists. The road that is in front of you is the future, but also still exists. We believe that the past has disappeared, and the future does not yet exist. But it would be like saying that as you drive, the road behind you disappears and the road in front of you is not there yet. The 'Block Universe' explains that time is like a long road. This means that dinosaurs still exist and that multiple copies of you and different versions of the universe still exist at this very moment. So there really isn't a special moment as the present and there isn't any process that turns our future to the present and then to the past. Tim does not flow. Time does not exist and is not required in the natural world.
When I think about it, time feels to me like one of the only certain things in our universe because I experience 'time' everyday and I can see time passing by. But if time does not exist, then what do we know for certain about our lives here on earth? Anything that you perceive with your senses can be completely wrong. The present that you are feeling at the moment, might not even exist at all. You, at your birth, could still be existing now, and your death could also be happening right now. Your loved ones who have passed and people from history could all still exist at the moment. This also means that if the 'block universe' theory is correct, time travel will be possible one day. So are our lives completely laid out? Do our actions matter at all or will we experience the same outcome in life no matter what we do? The fact that time does not exist, makes no sense to me! I have no idea how it might be possible that the present is not really the present and that there is no past or future. If time does not exist, I don't know what does. In the end, all this leads me to one question though; is it possible that there are some things in life we just shouldn't question and simply leave alone?
My TOK moment, occured yesterday in Math. We got to know Pascals triangle, and how binominal expansions work. That's when I had a TOK moment, I was thinking about the presentations we made, where we got to know, that all the scientists or most of them, made their discovery by accident. Was this triangle made by accident like Roentgens discovery or did he intend to find this?
In chemistry we just recently finished the unit on bonding. We learn all about single bonds double bonds etc. I started wondering how people even found out about atoms and molecules and ions and of course the neutrons and electrons and protons. So my TOK moment was: how can we really know what atoms look like (and how they bond) if we can only generate images on the computer based on measurements.
While I was working on my extended essay on Monday, I got an e-mail from Mr. Welker, who is my advisor for my extended essay. In the e-mail he told me, that my topic is too ageless and to general. I needed to set a timeframe for my essay, to make it more specific. What is the definition of a timeframe? Time plays a big role in economic, as you can divine between short- and long-run. Time is very important for a firm, because of the different options a firm faces as the amount of time varies. I decided to include the economic crisis of 2008/2009 into my topic. This timeframe included the years 2008-2009 and had a huge impact on the economy in the whole world. After I changed my topic I thought about if the world could work without ‘time’ as ‘time’ is one of major factors which keep the life circle running. I could not find an answer. Tim B.
My TOK moment occurred in History while we were talking about the implications of the Congress of Vienna. It is interesting that from the exact same facts, multiple conclusions can be drawn from a single event. Some of us defended the Congress, calling it an enlightened attempt to find a balance of power in Europe. Others called it cynical, citing the suppression as remnants of outdated values. This led me to an interesting question: is the impact of an event quantifiable? Can we judge a war for instance based on the number killed in it? Also interesting was the almost childish way the nations behaved, making treaties and disregarding them the very next year, unwilling to compromise, and going to war for the most trivial reasons. Most of the delegates held, or represented, absolute power in their respective countries, and most of them were chosen by divine birthright. Is it inherent that a king will be more predisposed to an uncompromising, stubborn will due to the way he has been brought up, or is he just as stubborn as any other person?
My TOK moment happened not to long ago. I was in History (in your class) and you showed us a map. You then told us it was a map of Europe under Napoleon's rule. I then said that was in correct. Later I then said it was a visual representation of a picture of a painting of a map of Europe. The map therefore is not Europe. A map a real map of Europe needs to be the same size as Europe the same color, etc.
My TOK moment was in Philosophy class. We watched a movie called "Inside John Malchovich" were he was a 'puppet' controlled by different minds. We discussed theories of the self and came to the conclusion:can we define the self as one single entity?
The TOK moment that I had this week, actually happened about TOK. There was a misconception about the TOK blog, as I perceived the blog to be under a different address than the one it was. I wrote the address of the blog down, so interpreted it to be correct; the fact of the matter was that it was actually wrong, but I took my own word to be fact. It was only after a friend pointed my mistake out, that I realized his knowledge in this area was far superior to mine.
My TOK moment took place in biology not even a week ago. We were having a look at a DNA strand and the teach told us it was a DNA strand, however in reality a DNA stand is far too small to be seen. When I mentioned that to one of my class mates they looked at me shook their head and grumbled something about TOK and how they forgot to do their homework (just like me)but that was the best TOK moment I have had all year outside of the TOK classroom.
My Tok moment was in Chemistry when thinking about atoms and molecules. The problem is that we have never been able to see the protons and electrons that we assume act in certain ways and react in certain ways. How can we assume that they do exactly what we assume they do?
My ToK moment was during German class this week when a group of people had to form a sculpture, representing the characters, in a certain situation in the book that we are reading. Every person had a different idea of how to represent the same situation. So what i thought was interesting that there was no "wrong" way of displaying the sculpture, because everyone represented his/her own opinion.
My TOK moment for these two weeks, to place during my extra-curricular trip for Model United Nations Paris. I was chair of the UNESCO committee, and like every year, our committee was presented with a crisis situation "Sexual Tourism and the Prostitution of Minors". This is where the TOK question arrived. Countries, such as Thailand, rely heavily on sex-tourism as a large part of their touristic income. Therefore, the UN cannot legally demand that sex-tourism be abolished as this could be economically disadvantageous for countries. Never the less, this is a grave moral issue that needs to be addressed. So here is our TOK problem, do we let countries develop economically, or do we do what is morally right, even if this can harm a whole country.
From Paris, France. Dedication to Mrs. Lanford, Art History Teacher.
My TOK moment occurred during my extra-curricular trip to Paris for the 10th annual Paris Model United Nations Conference. I was given the opportunity to visit the fantastic Monet Exhibition in the Grand Palais.
It was quite interesting to look at this exhibition from an 'art' perspective, based on what we previously discussed in TOK class. I was thinking about the artist's objective in painting certain canvases. I was also reflecting upon Picasso's statement "Art is a lie that brings us nearer to the truth", and realized that art is not necessarily a lie as it represents the artist's truth.
This exhibition broadened up my view on Monet's works. It was totally unique in as far as we could see in the exhibition several paintings of the same landscape or portrait. This is the reason why the exhibition is fully booked - generally, in a Monet exhibition, one can only see one of his Houses of Parliament paintings. However, in this exhibition in the Grand Palais, we can see approximately five. We can then see how Monet was interested in playing around with the different view points, the time of the day, and other various factors.
Speaking of the Golden Ratio.. in math lately we've been studying trigonometry and most specifically how a unit circle (a circle with radius 1 unit long) can have degrees put into radians. TOK moment: how can we transform something that normally is 360 degrees into 2pi, when pi is an infinite number and will never equal 360 degrees?
Why are some things beautiful to humans? Why are some things less beautiful? Why are some things ugly? In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary beauty is defined as 'the qualities in a person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses, mind, or spirit.' What is it about beautiful people or things that give us this pleasure? Maybe it's the Golden Ratio, but maybe its something on the inside of a beautiful person that cannot be explained by math or science. Do we always need an explanation to the mysteries of life? Will we ever find the true answers to what exactly creates beauty? If we did, would it be a positive thing? If every human being on the planet looked perfect and had the exact same "perfect" features, would we finally be satisfied?
Who decided that a rose is beautiful and a cockroach is ugly, anyways? What is it about a rose that appeals to us and a cockroach that doesn't? Are we born to see beauty in a certain way or are we taught to see beauty that way by society? Throughout history have people always seen beauty in the same way? Does the view of flawless beauty change from time to time? Why are people so obsessed with beauty? Is the search for beauty potentially dangerous for our souls and our society?
Zofi - you are like a question generating machine. And great questions, by the way. Knowledge comes through generating interesting questions. Graet comments all ye folks - now how about some more comments on comments - I only see Mathilde's and Zofi's.
Reply to golden ratio: How can people say an object or a person is beautiful due to the golden ratio, if we can't even see it? I due believe, that there is some truth about the golden ratio. Objects and humans seem attractive if their head, shape, eye, ear, etc. is in the shape of the golden ratio. However, with truth, the thought of a false fact will always come along. If everything had a golden ratio, then why would not all people consider one person, who is so perfect because everything on that person is "golden" as not pretty or not beautiful? Then why is there taste? Is that an exception? Does the golden ratio not work fro everyone?
In Philosophy class we are currently studying religion. We discussed that there is no proof for either religion or scientific evolution. But as nothing can come from nothing, most people choose a theory to believe in. Is it possible to believe in something that has no proof of even existing? How do we know anything is 'the truth'? Science is always evolving and improving, so how do we know what we know now is the truth? Is religion an imagination of our minds? Religion answers the questions: What are we doing here? And questions about the human condition. Does that mean that we should believe in religion? But science has 'evidence' of how we got here and why things happen the way they do. Is believing in religion or science just a way of assuring our existence and giving us a reason to answer all the questions: why?
Nathan, you have brought up an interesting point here. I was also confronted with the same crisis situation and I found your link to TOK very interesting. Many of the issues faced by the UN bring up interesting TOK points. Decisions made by governments are tricky to make and regard important moral issues. The case of sex tourism is quite problematic since it is 'morally wrong' but it is also an important part of a country's economy, such as Thailand in this case.
"My ToK moment was during German class this week when a group of people had to form a sculpture, representing the characters, in a certain situation in the book that we are reading. Every person had a different idea of how to represent the same situation. So what i thought was interesting that there was no "wrong" way of displaying the sculpture, because everyone represented his/her own opinion."
I'm not sure how much of a TOK moment this is, it seems trivial that different people have different opinions. It does however raise the question if one should be allowed to reinterpret a work in general. For instance, to put on many theater productions, one has to rent (not purchase) the script, and it is a breach of copyright law if anything is altered. Surely if you are putting on a stage production, the limitations or advantages of your surroundings could play a role in how you direct the play? I was particularly puzzled that the scripts are rented, and cannot be kept. It would be as though you buy a DVD for one viewing, and then are legally obliged to return it. The reinterpretation of works has some strange legal aspects that in my opinion detract from the experience of the actual work.
The last few minutes of the book of life, got me to think about all the questions that were asked. One question was "Are they going to be smarter? And will this make them happier?", I have never thought about this before. The question that one hears is "Does money make you happier?" but not will it make you happier if your smarter. This got me to think, and I believe, that you won't be happy if you have a lot of one thing, "money, cleverness", maybe "love" is an exeption. However, your mostly only truly happy when youve got a little bit of everything.
While watching " The Book Of Desire" I had a TOK moment. The main character in the movie was talking about what the future would be like. He was askign question like 'What will they look like?" or "How smart will they get?" These are also question I ask myself sometimes, What will the future be like? In a hundred year how will the world have changed. Many things are allready changing so fast. For example technology is progressing at a very quick pase. If you compare a TV from the 1990's to the TV's that are being produced now you can spot an immense difference. Tv's are now becoming three dimensional and the size of a piece of paper. Many people are not aware of these changes because they have grown so acostum to these rapid changes. I also ask my self about the problem of global warming. Will cars be runnign on the same feul in a hundred years? Will the worl;d have ended?
Reply to Nathan R. I think what you wrote was very interesting. Thailand is only one of many countries which make great income with prostitution. I personally had to think of the Netherlands who have the world famous Redlight district and even smoking marijuana is allowed, which to me is also moraly incorrect. Now lots of people go to Holland to legaly smoke a joint so what would happen if you forbid the legal consumption of weed would that kill the tourism? It's a good question which would be worth further discussion.
I can completely identify with what Nathan wrote about perception of our own knowledge. Many a time has a similar event occurred to me when I too thought that a piece of homework was either not assigned altogether or that it was simply due another day. However if we cannot take our own word to be fact to some extent we will never be truly happy for we will forever question what we are doing or if what we are saying makes any sense. In my opinion it is of grave importance to trust our own word but that does not mean we should become arrogant or ignorant.
Reply to Pascal's Triangle: I think that you, Sarah, have described a scientific phenomenon that many discoveries were made by accident. My question is how can we relate a scientific phenomenon to a mathematical discovery? I think that Pascal's triangle came about when working with binomial expansion and Pascal noticed the patterns that occurred while expanding binomial terms to different powers. I think that this was not necessarily an accident just a pattern that was noticed.
In Hal Hartley's movie "trust", it becomes clear that the man's apparent respect, admiration, trust and "love" for her have on just been founded, as they have only just met. Yet already he asks her to marry him, and she falls off a dangerous height because she trust he will catch him. Is this kind of trust and care natural, or even real?
I've thought about this before too. We interpret the results from an experiment to form some sort of meaning. A few units back in chemistry we talked about the mass spectrometer, which is used to separate particles according to their mass. From this we can learn about masses of different ions. But is that really what the mass spectrometer is doing? Maybe there is some unknown force which we don't know about that is also contributing to results. Since we can't see atoms, should scientists be allowed to determine facts based on experiments only? In particular, if things are too small to be seen, how can we ever be 100% sure about the results of an experiment? In Biology class, we are learning about genetics. If two parents produce offspring which are all displaying a dominant trait, can we be 100% sure that the parents only carry the dominant trait as well? Even if two parents produce one hundred offspring, all displaying the dominant trait, isn't there always a slight possibility that the parents aren't displaying the dominant trait? It can be very likely that they are dominant, but you never have 100% likelihood. This leads back to the question we were faced in TOK class earlier: How many experiments have to be made until a theory can be certainty?
In the Hartley movie we watched called "Trust", the main character said that affection and trust equals love. How can we define love in one word? Each persons love is subjective, but if we have to make a check list that someone has to complete in order to be in love with you... is that true love? The main woman used critical thinking to prove her point... she stated her initial point of view, defined her point, gave an example and proved her theory then arrived at the conclusion. She was willing to ignore the consequences for 'love' but the one thing she didn't do was consider the other points of view. What if he shows his love a different way? Is there more than one kind of love Does all love need to be proved?
If trust, admiration, and respect equal love, then why do some people that have love for each other, still separate or divorce? Can someone have trust, admiration, and respect for one person, but have more love for another person? How does a person decide on the person that they love the most? Can you love someone without trust, admiration, or respect? If trust, admiration, and respect are the only aspects that form love, then wouldn't it be too easy to find love? Are there other factors that influence love? If someone has love for someone, and that someone doesn't love them back, can that be a formula for disaster? Does everyone have one specific soul mate, or are there other possible soul mates out there for one person?
I would like to express my feelings about the trailer "The book of life". The narrator of the movie asked many questions about how the human species will develop in the next hundred years. The most interesting question he asked was the question, if the human species will be smarter in the future. Of course new things will be developed and the humans will extend their knowledge, but will they be smarter in the future? In my opinion smart humans can be divined as people who can survive in the middle-class with a minimized effort. How the human species can develop in their knowledge and become smarter, if earth does not exist anymore. The human species will not be able to become smarter after the earth will not exist anymore.
The theory of self has always interested me. We take all kinds of quizzes on sites such as facebook and others, wanting to find out, "what kind of person are you?" or "what is your personality type?" Apparently our self, our consciousness only comes gradually as we evolve as children. Babies apparently do not have a self; their mother's finger is as much part of them as their own arm. However, children start recognizing the boundaries to their self, because the self is (by human observation) limited to inside the own body. Adults know that children have discovered their self when they recognize themselves in the mirror. Many researchers say that our “self” leaves us when we fall asleep, and then suddenly reenters us when we wake up. Then again, we move in our sleep. So is the “self” contained outside of the brain, possibly in the heart, or the indefinable elusive thing called “soul”?
Hi hoping there's someone here to keep this line open. . on top of this page, there's a painting of three girls; then it hit me. Want is mankind doing!? Any thoughts. .
im a total nerd for movies that make us think about the possibilities of time and the human brain, conscious, and overall psyche. in LUCY , a bag of some new level drug is inserted into a woman's body around the diaphragm area, and her brain starts to unlock its parts. she goes from being able to use 10% of her brain to 20% to 30% and so on. along the way, she is able to detect the health of others' bodily functions, acquires all the knowledge of mankind and nature, control the minds of others, etc. at the end, she is able to convert her existence into some USB. somewhat similarly, in Chappie, these police robots are made to make the city a better place blah blah blah and one is set off the rail and basically becomes raised by these societal outcasts and whatnot but its original creator tries to help it develop better and more stuff happens but basically the original creator gets shot but they're able to transfer his consciousness into a USB and then put it into a robot and he is alive just in a robot body. lastly, in OtherLife, same technology stuff that was originally for like medical purposes i think at some point but it clashes the human conscious and brain w technology and it becomes dangerous bc the main character eventually can't distinguish btwn the two. so my question is:would it be possible? 1) would it be possible to unlock all parts of our brain? would we be able to use it? or would it be too overwhelming for us and we die? and if we die, would we be able to resurrect ourselves? on the other hand, if we don't die, would that mean we overrode the flood of emotions and thoughts and be able to control the new change?
Biology Class this week:
ReplyDeleteIn class we were talking about a video we had seen, about a scientist working on the genome project. He believed in the theory of evolution; however, Mr.Amato told us that he is also very religious. His belief is a theory in between the two: God created the original world and allowed the species to evolve, knowing that they would. This is a perspective on science and religion shared by quite a few people, and then of course there are the many that cannot think about the possibility of both theories being true and so stick to one and define the other as false. But how can we know that scientific proof of evolution is in fact proof at all? If what is observed in carrying out experiments on a subject is truth, do our eyes tell us the truth, or are perhaps only machines able to tell the truth?
Lynn H
In math class we talked about the golden ratio and the golden rectangle. The number is 1.618033. It is a specific ratio that can be applied to many things such as faces, ears and shells. Apparently humans perceive anything with a golden ratio as beautiful - subconsciously, of course. The Mona Lisa, for example, was painted to have a golden ratio (Leonardo da Vinci knew about the golden ratio). This theory was also tested on faces of celebrities, such as Brad Pitt. So if we are faced with the question: What is beauty? Maybe we should answer: When an object has a golden ratio.
ReplyDeleteNuria, interesting connection between two areas of knowledge - maths and art. Lynn, a good example of emotion and knowledge perhaps? Religion and Science.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletehere's a question; base on your concept of knowledge between the connection that Nuria and Lynn made, how can anyone say something can be defined as good or bad: isn't our concept between good and bad taught and therefore limited.?
DeleteIn history class we were reading sources that were talking about Stalin and his involvement with the USSR secret police and his participation in the assassination of Kirov. The totalitarian sources accused Stalin of being behind the assassination,yet at the same time, the revisionist sources claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to accuse him of his actions. So my TOK moment was: how do we know which sources to trust and how do we know if their knowledge has been proven?
ReplyDeleteMatilde
In my art class we are working on a project about time. We needed to build our project upon the idea of time. When I was researching time, and what it really was, I just could not make any sense of it. Apparently, time does not exist and we are not in the present right now. This was my TOK moment that almost made my head explode:
ReplyDeleteWe see our lives as a linear flow of events. The human mind somehow created the idea of 'time' so that everything doesn't seem like it is happening all at once. We believe that time consists of the past, present, and the future. We feel that we are being dragged through time as if through a flowing river. Therefore, we feel that time must exist. We live in the present which is the most real perception of time that we can experience, but almost everything that we perceive as the present, has already become the past. You are reading this sentence in the present, but as you read, it is already becoming the past. We can't measure the present as it is an extremely narrow point in time. The past and the future, however, we believe we can measure. But how can we really measure time? We use time to measure motion, such as miles per hour. This allows us to see that time is really just some form of motion. Our mind expects the future, which becomes the present, which the mind attends to, then becomes the past, and the mind remembers. So if we created something called 'time' for our own benefit in our everyday lives, then does time really exist at all?
The 'Block Universe' explains time as a landscape of the past, present, and future existing together in different dimensions. If you imagine that you are driving down a long road, the road that is behind you is the past, but it still exists. The road that is in front of you is the future, but also still exists. We believe that the past has disappeared, and the future does not yet exist. But it would be like saying that as you drive, the road behind you disappears and the road in front of you is not there yet. The 'Block Universe' explains that time is like a long road. This means that dinosaurs still exist and that multiple copies of you and different versions of the universe still exist at this very moment. So there really isn't a special moment as the present and there isn't any process that turns our future to the present and then to the past. Tim does not flow. Time does not exist and is not required in the natural world.
When I think about it, time feels to me like one of the only certain things in our universe because I experience 'time' everyday and I can see time passing by. But if time does not exist, then what do we know for certain about our lives here on earth? Anything that you perceive with your senses can be completely wrong. The present that you are feeling at the moment, might not even exist at all. You, at your birth, could still be existing now, and your death could also be happening right now. Your loved ones who have passed and people from history could all still exist at the moment. This also means that if the 'block universe' theory is correct, time travel will be possible one day. So are our lives completely laid out? Do our actions matter at all or will we experience the same outcome in life no matter what we do? The fact that time does not exist, makes no sense to me! I have no idea how it might be possible that the present is not really the present and that there is no past or future. If time does not exist, I don't know what does. In the end, all this leads me to one question though; is it possible that there are some things in life we just shouldn't question and simply leave alone?
Zsofi
My TOK moment, occured yesterday in Math. We got to know Pascals triangle, and how binominal expansions work. That's when I had a TOK moment, I was thinking about the presentations we made, where we got to know, that all the scientists or most of them, made their discovery by accident. Was this triangle made by accident like Roentgens discovery or did he intend to find this?
ReplyDeleteIn chemistry we just recently finished the unit on bonding. We learn all about single bonds double bonds etc. I started wondering how people even found out about atoms and molecules and ions
ReplyDeleteand of course the neutrons and electrons and protons. So my TOK moment was: how can we really know what atoms look like (and how they bond) if we can only generate images on the computer based on measurements.
While I was working on my extended essay on Monday, I got an e-mail from Mr. Welker, who is my advisor for my extended essay. In the e-mail he told me, that my topic is too ageless and to general. I needed to set a timeframe for my essay, to make it more specific. What is the definition of a timeframe? Time plays a big role in economic, as you can divine between short- and long-run. Time is very important for a firm, because of the different options a firm faces as the amount of time varies. I decided to include the economic crisis of 2008/2009 into my topic. This timeframe included the years 2008-2009 and had a huge impact on the economy in the whole world.
ReplyDeleteAfter I changed my topic I thought about if the world could work without ‘time’ as ‘time’ is one of major factors which keep the life circle running. I could not find an answer.
Tim B.
My TOK moment occurred in History while we were talking about the implications of the Congress of Vienna. It is interesting that from the exact same facts, multiple conclusions can be drawn from a single event. Some of us defended the Congress, calling it an enlightened attempt to find a balance of power in Europe. Others called it cynical, citing the suppression as remnants of outdated values. This led me to an interesting question: is the impact of an event quantifiable? Can we judge a war for instance based on the number killed in it? Also interesting was the almost childish way the nations behaved, making treaties and disregarding them the very next year, unwilling to compromise, and going to war for the most trivial reasons. Most of the delegates held, or represented, absolute power in their respective countries, and most of them were chosen by divine birthright. Is it inherent that a king will be more predisposed to an uncompromising, stubborn will due to the way he has been brought up, or is he just as stubborn as any other person?
ReplyDeleteMy TOK moment happened not to long ago. I was in History (in your class) and you showed us a map. You then told us it was a map of Europe under Napoleon's rule. I then said that was in correct. Later I then said it was a visual representation of a picture of a painting of a map of Europe. The map therefore is not Europe. A map a real map of Europe needs to be the same size as Europe the same color, etc.
ReplyDeleteMy TOK moment was in Philosophy class. We watched a movie called "Inside John Malchovich" were he was a 'puppet' controlled by different minds. We discussed theories of the self and came to the conclusion:can we define the self as one single entity?
ReplyDeleteThe TOK moment that I had this week, actually happened about TOK. There was a misconception about the TOK blog, as I perceived the blog to be under a different address than the one it was. I wrote the address of the blog down, so interpreted it to be correct; the fact of the matter was that it was actually wrong, but I took my own word to be fact. It was only after a friend pointed my mistake out, that I realized his knowledge in this area was far superior to mine.
ReplyDeleteMy TOK moment took place in biology not even a week ago. We were having a look at a DNA strand and the teach told us it was a DNA strand, however in reality a DNA stand is far too small to be seen. When I mentioned that to one of my class mates they looked at me shook their head and grumbled something about TOK and how they forgot to do their homework (just like me)but that was the best TOK moment I have had all year outside of the TOK classroom.
ReplyDeleteMy Tok moment was in Chemistry when thinking about atoms and molecules. The problem is that we have never been able to see the protons and electrons that we assume act in certain ways and react in certain ways. How can we assume that they do exactly what we assume they do?
ReplyDeleteMy ToK moment was during German class this week when a group of people had to form a sculpture, representing the characters, in a certain situation in the book that we are reading. Every person had a different idea of how to represent the same situation. So what i thought was interesting that there was no "wrong" way of displaying the sculpture, because everyone represented his/her own opinion.
ReplyDeleteMy TOK moment for these two weeks, to place during my extra-curricular trip for Model United Nations Paris. I was chair of the UNESCO committee, and like every year, our committee was presented with a crisis situation "Sexual Tourism and the Prostitution of Minors". This is where the TOK question arrived. Countries, such as Thailand, rely heavily on sex-tourism as a large part of their touristic income. Therefore, the UN cannot legally demand that sex-tourism be abolished as this could be economically disadvantageous for countries. Never the less, this is a grave moral issue that needs to be addressed. So here is our TOK problem, do we let countries develop economically, or do we do what is morally right, even if this can harm a whole country.
ReplyDeleteFrom Paris, France.
ReplyDeleteDedication to Mrs. Lanford, Art History Teacher.
My TOK moment occurred during my extra-curricular trip to Paris for the 10th annual Paris Model United Nations Conference. I was given the opportunity to visit the fantastic Monet Exhibition in the Grand Palais.
It was quite interesting to look at this exhibition from an 'art' perspective, based on what we previously discussed in TOK class. I was thinking about the artist's objective in painting certain canvases. I was also reflecting upon Picasso's statement "Art is a lie that brings us nearer to the truth", and realized that art is not necessarily a lie as it represents the artist's truth.
This exhibition broadened up my view on Monet's works. It was totally unique in as far as we could see in the exhibition several paintings of the same landscape or portrait. This is the reason why the exhibition is fully booked - generally, in a Monet exhibition, one can only see one of his Houses of Parliament paintings. However, in this exhibition in the Grand Palais, we can see approximately five. We can then see how Monet was interested in playing around with the different view points, the time of the day, and other various factors.
Speaking of the Golden Ratio.. in math lately we've been studying trigonometry and most specifically how a unit circle (a circle with radius 1 unit long) can have degrees put into radians. TOK moment: how can we transform something that normally is 360 degrees into 2pi, when pi is an infinite number and will never equal 360 degrees?
ReplyDeleteMatilde
Reply to Nuria:
ReplyDeleteWhy are some things beautiful to humans? Why are some things less beautiful? Why are some things ugly? In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary beauty is defined as 'the qualities in a person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses, mind, or spirit.' What is it about beautiful people or things that give us this pleasure? Maybe it's the Golden Ratio, but maybe its something on the inside of a beautiful person that cannot be explained by math or science. Do we always need an explanation to the mysteries of life? Will we ever find the true answers to what exactly creates beauty? If we did, would it be a positive thing? If every human being on the planet looked perfect and had the exact same "perfect" features, would we finally be satisfied?
Who decided that a rose is beautiful and a cockroach is ugly, anyways? What is it about a rose that appeals to us and a cockroach that doesn't? Are we born to see beauty in a certain way or are we taught to see beauty that way by society? Throughout history have people always seen beauty in the same way? Does the view of flawless beauty change from time to time? Why are people so obsessed with beauty? Is the search for beauty potentially dangerous for our souls and our society?
Zsofi
Zofi - you are like a question generating machine. And great questions, by the way. Knowledge comes through generating interesting questions.
ReplyDeleteGraet comments all ye folks - now how about some more comments on comments - I only see Mathilde's and Zofi's.
Reply to golden ratio:
ReplyDeleteHow can people say an object or a person is beautiful due to the golden ratio, if we can't even see it? I due believe, that there is some truth about the golden ratio. Objects and humans seem attractive if their head, shape, eye, ear, etc. is in the shape of the golden ratio. However, with truth, the thought of a false fact will always come along. If everything had a golden ratio, then why would not all people consider one person, who is so perfect because everything on that person is "golden" as not pretty or not beautiful? Then why is there taste? Is that an exception? Does the golden ratio not work fro everyone?
Reply to Lynn:
ReplyDeleteIn Philosophy class we are currently studying religion. We discussed that there is no proof for either religion or scientific evolution. But as nothing can come from nothing, most people choose a theory to believe in. Is it possible to believe in something that has no proof of even existing? How do we know anything is 'the truth'? Science is always evolving and improving, so how do we know what we know now is the truth? Is religion an imagination of our minds? Religion answers the questions: What are we doing here? And questions about the human condition. Does that mean that we should believe in religion? But science has 'evidence' of how we got here and why things happen the way they do. Is believing in religion or science just a way of assuring our existence and giving us a reason to answer all the questions: why?
Penelope.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNathan, you have brought up an interesting point here. I was also confronted with the same crisis situation and I found your link to TOK very interesting. Many of the issues faced by the UN bring up interesting TOK points. Decisions made by governments are tricky to make and regard important moral issues. The case of sex tourism is quite problematic since it is 'morally wrong' but it is also an important part of a country's economy, such as Thailand in this case.
ReplyDeleteReply to Stephen:
ReplyDelete"My ToK moment was during German class this week when a group of people had to form a sculpture, representing the characters, in a certain situation in the book that we are reading. Every person had a different idea of how to represent the same situation. So what i thought was interesting that there was no "wrong" way of displaying the sculpture, because everyone represented his/her own opinion."
I'm not sure how much of a TOK moment this is, it seems trivial that different people have different opinions. It does however raise the question if one should be allowed to reinterpret a work in general. For instance, to put on many theater productions, one has to rent (not purchase) the script, and it is a breach of copyright law if anything is altered. Surely if you are putting on a stage production, the limitations or advantages of your surroundings could play a role in how you direct the play? I was particularly puzzled that the scripts are rented, and cannot be kept. It would be as though you buy a DVD for one viewing, and then are legally obliged to return it. The reinterpretation of works has some strange legal aspects that in my opinion detract from the experience of the actual work.
The last few minutes of the book of life, got me to think about all the questions that were asked. One question was "Are they going to be smarter? And will this make them happier?", I have never thought about this before. The question that one hears is "Does money make you happier?" but not will it make you happier if your smarter. This got me to think, and I believe, that you won't be happy if you have a lot of one thing, "money, cleverness", maybe "love" is an exeption. However, your mostly only truly happy when youve got a little bit of everything.
ReplyDeleteWhile watching " The Book Of Desire" I had a TOK moment. The main character in the movie was talking about what the future would be like. He was askign question like 'What will they look like?" or "How smart will they get?" These are also question I ask myself sometimes, What will the future be like? In a hundred year how will the world have changed. Many things are allready changing so fast. For example technology is progressing at a very quick pase. If you compare a TV from the 1990's to the TV's that are being produced now you can spot an immense difference. Tv's are now becoming three dimensional and the size of a piece of paper. Many people are not aware of these changes because they have grown so acostum to these rapid changes. I also ask my self about the problem of global warming. Will cars be runnign on the same feul in a hundred years? Will the worl;d have ended?
ReplyDeleteReply to Nathan R.
ReplyDeleteI think what you wrote was very interesting. Thailand is only one of many countries which make great income with prostitution. I personally had to think of the Netherlands who have the world famous Redlight district and even smoking marijuana is allowed, which to me is also moraly incorrect. Now lots of people go to Holland to legaly smoke a joint so what would happen if you forbid the legal consumption of weed would that kill the tourism? It's a good question which would be worth further discussion.
I can completely identify with what Nathan wrote about perception of our own knowledge. Many a time has a similar event occurred to me when I too thought that a piece of homework was either not assigned altogether or that it was simply due another day. However if we cannot take our own word to be fact to some extent we will never be truly happy for we will forever question what we are doing or if what we are saying makes any sense. In my opinion it is of grave importance to trust our own word but that does not mean we should become arrogant or ignorant.
ReplyDeleteReply to Pascal's Triangle:
ReplyDeleteI think that you, Sarah, have described a scientific phenomenon that many discoveries were made by accident. My question is how can we relate a scientific phenomenon to a mathematical discovery? I think that Pascal's triangle came about when working with binomial expansion and Pascal noticed the patterns that occurred while expanding binomial terms to different powers. I think that this was not necessarily an accident just a pattern that was noticed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Hal Hartley's movie "trust", it becomes clear that the man's apparent respect, admiration, trust and "love" for her have on just been founded, as they have only just met. Yet already he asks her to marry him, and she falls off a dangerous height because she trust he will catch him. Is this kind of trust and care natural, or even real?
ReplyDeleteReply to Orpa Alam:
ReplyDeleteI've thought about this before too. We interpret the results from an experiment to form some sort of meaning. A few units back in chemistry we talked about the mass spectrometer, which is used to separate particles according to their mass. From this we can learn about masses of different ions. But is that really what the mass spectrometer is doing? Maybe there is some unknown force which we don't know about that is also contributing to results. Since we can't see atoms, should scientists be allowed to determine facts based on experiments only? In particular, if things are too small to be seen, how can we ever be 100% sure about the results of an experiment? In Biology class, we are learning about genetics. If two parents produce offspring which are all displaying a dominant trait, can we be 100% sure that the parents only carry the dominant trait as well? Even if two parents produce one hundred offspring, all displaying the dominant trait, isn't there always a slight possibility that the parents aren't displaying the dominant trait? It can be very likely that they are dominant, but you never have 100% likelihood. This leads back to the question we were faced in TOK class earlier: How many experiments have to be made until a theory can be certainty?
In the Hartley movie we watched called "Trust", the main character said that affection and trust equals love. How can we define love in one word? Each persons love is subjective, but if we have to make a check list that someone has to complete in order to be in love with you... is that true love? The main woman used critical thinking to prove her point... she stated her initial point of view, defined her point, gave an example and proved her theory then arrived at the conclusion. She was willing to ignore the consequences for 'love' but the one thing she didn't do was consider the other points of view. What if he shows his love a different way? Is there more than one kind of love Does all love need to be proved?
ReplyDeletePenelope
If trust, admiration, and respect equal love, then why do some people that have love for each other, still separate or divorce? Can someone have trust, admiration, and respect for one person, but have more love for another person? How does a person decide on the person that they love the most? Can you love someone without trust, admiration, or respect? If trust, admiration, and respect are the only aspects that form love, then wouldn't it be too easy to find love? Are there other factors that influence love? If someone has love for someone, and that someone doesn't love them back, can that be a formula for disaster? Does everyone have one specific soul mate, or are there other possible soul mates out there for one person?
ReplyDeleteI would like to express my feelings about the trailer "The book of life". The narrator of the movie asked many questions about how the human species will develop in the next hundred years. The most interesting question he asked was the question, if the human species will be smarter in the future. Of course new things will be developed and the humans will extend their knowledge, but will they be smarter in the future? In my opinion smart humans can be divined as people who can survive in the middle-class with a minimized effort. How the human species can develop in their knowledge and become smarter, if earth does not exist anymore. The human species will not be able to become smarter after the earth will not exist anymore.
ReplyDeleteReply to Penelope:
ReplyDeleteThe theory of self has always interested me. We take all kinds of quizzes on sites such as facebook and others, wanting to find out, "what kind of person are you?" or "what is your personality type?" Apparently our self, our consciousness only comes gradually as we evolve as children. Babies apparently do not have a self; their mother's finger is as much part of them as their own arm. However, children start recognizing the boundaries to their self, because the self is (by human observation) limited to inside the own body. Adults know that children have discovered their self when they recognize themselves in the mirror.
Many researchers say that our “self” leaves us when we fall asleep, and then suddenly reenters us when we wake up. Then again, we move in our sleep. So is the “self” contained outside of the brain, possibly in the heart, or the indefinable elusive thing called “soul”?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi hoping there's someone here to keep this line open. . on top of this page, there's a painting of three girls; then it hit me. Want is mankind doing!? Any thoughts. .
ReplyDeleteim a total nerd for movies that make us think about the possibilities of time and the human brain, conscious, and overall psyche. in LUCY , a bag of some new level drug is inserted into a woman's body around the diaphragm area, and her brain starts to unlock its parts. she goes from being able to use 10% of her brain to 20% to 30% and so on. along the way, she is able to detect the health of others' bodily functions, acquires all the knowledge of mankind and nature, control the minds of others, etc. at the end, she is able to convert her existence into some USB. somewhat similarly, in Chappie, these police robots are made to make the city a better place blah blah blah and one is set off the rail and basically becomes raised by these societal outcasts and whatnot but its original creator tries to help it develop better and more stuff happens but basically the original creator gets shot but they're able to transfer his consciousness into a USB and then put it into a robot and he is alive just in a robot body. lastly, in OtherLife, same technology stuff that was originally for like medical purposes i think at some point but it clashes the human conscious and brain w technology and it becomes dangerous bc the main character eventually can't distinguish btwn the two. so my question is:would it be possible? 1) would it be possible to unlock all parts of our brain? would we be able to use it? or would it be too overwhelming for us and we die? and if we die, would we be able to resurrect ourselves? on the other hand, if we don't die, would that mean we overrode the flood of emotions and thoughts and be able to control the new change?
ReplyDelete