The Arts are very different from other studies such as Maths and Science. Where Math and Science are based off of facts and whether they are correct or not, Art is purely based on personal opinion and experiences. As the viewer grows older, and experiences more, their thoughts and opinions change about the art. Maybe they see a different meaning behind it or have different thoughts about it.
On the other hand, there are parts of art that is more similar to other concepts is the technique. Its a firm answer whether it turned out how it was supposed to look or not. For example if you are drawing a realistic face and it turns out the way that it was intended, then you have the right techniques. In that sense it is very similar to math as in it is a set answer.
The last comparison I am going to make is Beauty is simplistic, in math they look for the easiest solution. To them that is the beautiful solution. In art, sometimes it is the same. Simply designs can be seen as appealing However that is not always the case, a lot of art that is busy, and chaotic is also considered quite beautiful.
History is a very biased AOK, we believe what we hear and usually depending on where we are, what we hear is edited to make us the winner.
History is written by the winners.—George Orwell
In history a lot of the information we receive is one sided, and we usually are taught to believe that it’s the only side. A good example of this is the Texas textbooks, the current text books said that they brought “millions of workers” to America. This event was The Atlantic slave trade, but they made it seem as if they employed workers, less than enslaved them. Therefor making if seem like America was still the good side of the event. (How Texas Teaches History by Ellen Bresler Rockmore) This makes me think about the quite by Oscar Wilde.
Anybody can make history. Only a great man can write it. —Oscar Wilde
Reading about almost any historical event, you will find that the side writing about it is the “good side.” for example if a citizen taking part of the American revolution was writing about it, they would be the good side, and the government is the bad side. Where as if it were the government talking about it, the government is the good side and the citizens are the bad. I think it is because we don’t we don’t want to admit that we are the bad people and most of the time we truly believe that are reasons are good enough to justify our actions. Although a lot of the time they aren’t. I find we do this personally on a smaller scale. for example if you get in a fight with your parents, a lot of the time we will say “they are mad for no reason” because we think that they are, but from their point of view they have a valid reason. That is how a lot of the information in history is spread around and why it is so biased.
History, a distillation of rumour. —Thomas Carlyle
I knew story telling was a way of passing on knowledge because in B.C. part of the curriculum in elementary school is learning about First Nations and their culture. The elders usually tell stories to the children to pass down information from their lifetime and stories that they’ve been told by their elders. I had never questioned it beyond that though, such as what what classifies it as a story, who tells stories or anything of that matter. For example teachers. I have never seen a teacher as a story teller unless they are telling us a story about their lives, however, everything they are telling us is technically a story.
Thought flows in terms of stories – stories about
events, stories about people, and stories about
intentions and achievements. The best teachers are
the best story tellers. We learn in the form of stories.
—Frank Smith, Canadian psycholinguist
I’m specifically interested in the third sentence, “the best teachers are the best story tellers.” Frank Smith is absolutely right, if the information isn’t presented in an interesting way, most of it goes right over students heads, while if the information is presented in an interesting way, it is easy to follow along and you tend to remember it more. There was a study done on this in 2012 by Ayra and Maul (Narrative Science by Daniel Willingham).
Another part of this that I found interesting was the “Electricity Explained” picture. A popular saying is that a picture is worth 1000 words. However looking at this picture I couldn’t think of any. I knew the terms “Ohm, Volt and Amp” but I wasn’t able to make anything out of the picture without calling a physics student to explain it to me.
The last document that I found interesting was “until Lions Learn to Write” because it was a good way to understand that with storytelling you will often only get one side to the story and sometimes that isn’t the whole story. In the case of the lions being hunted, the hunter is always the good person because he brought down a beast and brought home meat, fur and bones. While from the lions point of view the hunter is the villain, taking away a lions life.
Geography studies a lot about human movement, reasons for migrations and population densities. In general, unless you have full control over all evidence, It would be hard to make up results. For example, if a scientist wanted to claim that humans migrated from Canada to Mexico because they didn’t have enough water, they would have to have evidence to prove that. Considering Canada has more fresh water than any other country, that would be hard to prove. If you then provided false data, other researchers could easily do their own study to prove the study is false, which is what Nick Bunk did when he though the 3:1 ratio of positive thoughts was incorrect. The only way to really do this is to have full ownership of what you were studying and you could deny access to what you were studying. Hypothetically in this scenario the government might be able to accomplish that. In regards to population density, I think these results could be manipulated more easily because it is hard to keep track of people as they move around. A lot of population counts are done by legal count but also the occasional survey, and it would be very hard to be accurate. However the results could be published however they want depending what they want people to think and not many people will conduct that research to prove if it is correct or false.
I think human science geography is a science. I believe this because you could do experiments on humans to record results however in some cases (where it could harm humans) is frowned upon, it is still going on world wide. With the right amount of power you could also add variables to assist or harm the population, for example with the Covid-19 outbreak the governments are putting in place resources to assist the population because they have recorded data from past outbreaks around the world and figured out what they needed to do to have least resistance from the public. Research is always happening whether we are aware of it or not and we don’t know what they might use it for but it is happening and it is a scientific study.
Primary Emotions are the emotions we can immediately distinguish by facial expressions, everyone can tell these emotions and it is a second nature to do them when you feel those emotions. Whats really cool is even people that are born blind can feel these emotions so it is thought that we learn these before birth instead of learnt by seeing. I don’t agree with the concept of smoking and rationalizations. If you accept that smoking is bad, you can’t always just stop because you accept that it is bad. You can start trying to but a lot of smokers know its bad they just are un able to quit.
I want to look in detail about two parts that go hand and hand. We use emotion to know things but Emotion its also an obstacle to knowledge. We use emotions to tell if we are hurting someone or if we are making them happy. The primary emotions are the easiest to tell whether we are doing something good or bad. If our actions cause them to be sad or mad we know that that isn’t something we should do in the future and we should apologize. If we know it makes them happy or excited we know that this is a good thing we can do and we don’t have to apologize. If we can use emotions as a way of knowledge then how come it’s also an obstacle. If we look at the previous example that is observing other peoples emotions and deciding if we have done something good or bad, but that has nothing to do with our emotions. If we are mad and we get mad at someone else we might say oh its not my fault. for example maybe I am having a bad day and my friend cancels plans for the next day, I might get mad at him because I am already mad but I dot know why he is cancelling and it might be something important. He may now get mad at me and this stared a fight. In this case we let our emotions take over and we didn’t ask the other person why or see how they are feeling. Sometimes it is very hard to control emotions and we end up letting that happen even though we don’t mean to. In this case, our emotions are preventing us from learning or knowing something.
Do I think there are universal moral values? Yes I do. Everyone around the world has some concept of the same moral values but some have different takes on it and some choose not to follow it. For example ‘don’t murder people’ is a big one, however some cultures think it is ok if they don’t have the same beliefs and values because the makes them less human. There are also the few people who kill because they choose to, these people however usually get penalized for doing so. Another wildly known one is ‘respect your parents’ unfortunately this one gets broken a lot because it has become “cool” not to. eventually most people do grow out of that phase and go back to following it.
In regards to wether it is a fact or not, I think it is, but not like a mathematical fact. There are a lot more factors that play a role in psychology.
The golden rule is definitely one of the rules I use every day. It isn’t a great rule because maybe you don’t care how people treat you or about being respected so you don’t feel that going by this rule you have to be nice. Personally, I like when people smile and say hi and respect me and my decisions. However, after I get to know people, the reverse of this rule comes into play, if they do not respect me then that’s the energy I radiate back. If they decide to glare at me then I will glare back. Its definitely a downside to the rule because other people probably don’t use the rule and think you are just a rude person not that you are mirroring their behaviour.
I know right from wrong because of what I was taught growing up. I learned from other people around me and other parents. Growing up I liked paying attention to everything going on around me, I was interested in the news and I would listen to my parents watching 60 minutes or 40/40 (crime shows). Seeing the the consequences for everyone else actions really encouraged me to stay away from doing those things or if nothing happened maybe drew me towards those. I also would pay attention to how my friends got in trouble with parents teachers and other friends and would stay clear of those behaviours. I don’t think you are born with good ethics or bad ethics, I think it is based off of your surroundings growing up and continuously.
I like deductive reasoning because it is simple and can be used in a variety of ways. I also like it because you can deduce that something is true because something similar is also true. This example stood out to me the most.
if you know the general principle that the sum of the angles in any triangle is always 180 degrees, and you have a particular triangle in mind, you can then conclude that the sum of the angles in your triangle is 180 degrees.
This quotation stood out to me the most because it made the most sense to me. Another example could be that is a particular square has four sides, then a square that is in your mind must also have four sides. This made the most sense to me.
In pt 3 Socrates makes a universal rule that “in men, all other things rely on the soul, while the things of the soul itself rely on wisdom” pg,32 and the conclusion they agree to is “either wholly or partly wisdom” pg 32 so if its still wisdom then how is it learnes. It still needs to be taught somehow.
In pt. 5, Socrates and Meno have agreed that virtue cannot be taught because there is no discipline. however they are now stuck trying to figure out how people come to be good people or if they are good people at all. Meno questions Socrates with this “by what possible sort of process good people can come to exist.” (pg 42) The conversation continues and Socrates says people have guidance “they will be useful if they give us right guidance” (pg 42) This makes sense but at the beginning of the text, teaching was just helping the students remember or in other words guiding them so they know how to do it again. Does that not just leave us right where we started?
How can you know if you’re right if you don’t know something? Meno is trying to figure this out in this part. Socrates claims that we aren’t learning anything at all, instead we are being reminded how to do something we were taught in a previous life, which kind of makes sense if you think about it. Your brain can make subconscious connections between topics and how to do things. Going deeper into that, studies show that children learn better than adults, the results scientist came to is that their brains are still developing. Could it be because we still remember our past life vaguely and we are trying to make sense of it before it disappears? Like Socrates says, “research and learning are wholly recollection” (p.17) we aren’t really learning anything we are just remembering things. This raises a lot of questions about being reborn after death and all the myths that come along with that, such as the light at the end of the tunnel is actually the light in the hospital and you cry because you are remembering your old life.
I didn’t completely understand all of the conversation but I understand the concept of Meno talking to Socrates trying to figure out how to find ‘Virtue.’ In the text Meno is saying Virtue but in the context sound more like he wants success. The most powerful response from Socrates was “for in seeking one virtue I have discovered a whole swarm of virtues there in your keeping’ (pg. 2)
What I get from this sentence is by working towards something, you gain other skills that you need to accomplish what you are trying to, but they can also be used in other cases. For example if you were trying to become a really good communicator you might also develop more patience. Another example if we are talking about success instead of virtues would be you want to retire, along the way you would have multiple success’ in work and relationships.