All posts by Kevin

Differences in Good Design

In “Taste for Makers”, the author mentioned a number of different aspects that what he think a good design should be. In my opinion, some good design may contain some of them, but not all of them can be fit in a good design.

Good design is simple. Similarly, in painting, a still life of a few
carefully observed and solidly modelled objects will tend to be more interesting than a stretch of flashy but mindlessly repetitive painting of, say, a lace collar.

In this paragraph, the author think that a good design is simple, he gave the opinion of a still life tend to be more interesting than a stretch of flashy. I don’t agree to it. The reason why is in the most famous, and recognized art museum like Musee du Louvre in Paris, we don’t usually see a painting of an apple, what people like the most is always the painting like “Mona Lisa”. In this oil painting, Leonardo da Vinci used about four layers to represent the most beautiful smile that can be shown on a women’s face. More than that, other well-known painting are all complex, the background, the character… When I was watching them, I can’t find the word simple in them.

Good design is hard. If you look at the people who’ve done great work, one thing
they all seem to have in common is that they worked very hard. If you’re not
working hard, you’re probably wasting your time.

This paragraph support my idea. The author says that people always work hard for a good design. Then how could a hard work be simple? How could a simple art be known for thousand of years? If a good art is simple, then this means everyone can easily do it. If so, the name of the artist that people know, will be two times or even three times more. We will need a much bigger place to exhibit their works.

Although this is a point that I don’t agree in this passage, there are still some good point. For example good design solves the right problem. A good art solves people’s desire for imagination, a good invention solves people’s problems in life. Good art in different eyes are different, all above in just my comment.


After reading the document, in my perspective, the government in Texas change the descriptions of slavery in order to show the kids in school that slavery isn’t that bad, it’s a good way to grow the economy. The government do this may because they don’t want the kids understand the dark of slavery, which might leads them feel bad or don’t even trust their country anymore. They focus on telling how good the slaveholders treat their slave and use some ambiguous word when they arrive the pain that slaves have suffered.

“Families were often broken apart when a family member was sold to another owner.” instead of “Slave owners often broke slave families apart by selling a family member to another owner.”

I don’t think this is a good way of telling history. Even if people learned the upside of slavery when they were a child, if they meet another people which is in another culture, and in that culture his teacher tells the fact of slavery to him. A conflict might occur. Also, if a person were told the world is great, nothing bad will happened, the world is an “Utopia”, What do you want them to think if they see a person was killed in front of him? Or what if they read the fact of slavery in a book which is written by other people objectively? They might feel they have been told a lie and they treat this lie as fact in the past decades years. In my opinion, students should be told the fact of history, even if the villain in the history is their own country. They have the right to know the truth, they have the right to think this questions independently, without any leading. Because the world is never fear, it’s always a cruel world. People should know this even if they are a child.


At beginning, when I saw the topic “Should we consider storytelling as the most important way of knowing”, my first thought was no, I don’t even think storytelling is a way of knowing. But after I read the document “Storytelling: Our Most Important Way of Knowing”, I changed my idea. As the beginning of the article says, I thought stories were just things we use to pacify our children, way to kill time. After I read the next sentence, I found out I was totally wrong. According to the article:

The stories we are told, the stories we believe, and the stories we tell—both to ourselves and to each other—shape our view of reality; our ideas of good and bad, right and wrong, normal and strange; our most basic beliefs about what is true, and what is false.

This sentence inspired me, how can we tell a story if we don’t agree to it? When parents are telling bedtime stories to their children, of course they are not going to say the bad guy kills everyone and nobody can caught him. Why? Because they don’t agree to it! In their mind they think or they believe killing is wrong, they don’t want their kid become a murderer in the future. If they want him to be a pilot, they will say things about planes; if they want him to be an astronomer, they will tell him about stories about stars… Parents tell stories that they hope their child can become a men like the character in the story.

Another point that I think storytelling is the most important way of knowing is because people often tell the story that they think is write. In your daily lives, when you heard a story from your best friend, there’s a big chance you will agree to him/her, because you are friends, you have the similar way of knowing. But when you heard a story from a stranger or in the news, you might be thinking is that right? Should I believe him? You don’t know who is that guy and you don’t know what he have been through, the things they tell might be changed by their own. In the news, you don’t know who write the draft for announcer, you can’t tell if they are telling the truth or not. After that, when you are trying to tell a story that you learned from news to someone else, if you don’t like it, you may do some changes on it. This changes are affected by who you are, your culture, your believes, what you have been told when you are young, and even the people around you. There’s a big chance you will change the story to the way that you like.

In conclusion, people tell the story according to their own value, they won’t believe the good stories about the people or things that they hate. They are more likely to trust the good stories about the people or things they like. This is deeply affected by their ways of knowing and will deeply affect their ways of knowing.


In TOK, emotion are usually treated as one of the four ways of knowing, with language, reason and perception. Emotion can be defined as good emotion or bad emotion. According to the text, psychologist believe there are six primary emotion: happiness, surprise, sadness, fear, anger and disgust. Most of them are bad emotions. Emotion can provide a big amount of energy in our daily life. And most of the time, the energy that provided by bad emotion are way bigger than the energy provided by good emotion. Many people have done many horrible things under the control of the bad emotion. But sometimes, emotion also play a more positive role in our mental lives, so it also been defined as a way of knowing. It can be an obstacle to knowledge, a source of knowledge and intuition. According to the passage, Aristotle suggest that emotion can be more rational or less rational. So emotion are no longer being in the opposite place of reason.

universal moral values

I don’t think there is a universal moral values. A moral value, according to the dictionary, is the instrumental value of responsibility reveals itself as the significance of existence of responsibility. There may be a moral value for someone in some places, but there are no universal moral values. Different people on different country lived under different culture has there own moral values. Maybe something for you is right but it might be totally wrong for another.

Plato’s Meno part 3 and 4

In this parts, Meno try to figure out is virtue can be taught or it comes with our life. In Socrates’ point, he thinks they need to find out what is virtue before they discuss can it be taught or not. Then they defined virtue is a good of the soul, the people that are good must know what is virtue and must have virtue, because they think virtue is a good thing, good people must have it. After that, Socrates used the  way of how to educate his child of a  gentlemen in their country as example to ask Anytus about can goods, virtue be taught, but this make him angry about it.


Socrates, I consider you are too apt to speak ill of people. I, for one, if you will take my advice, would warn you to be careful: in most cities it is probably easier to do people harm than good, and particularly in this one; I think you know that yourself.



In document Stephen’s Guide to the Logical Fallacies, he introduced Inductive Fallacies and Changing the Subject. In part one Inductive Fallacies. He defined it means inferring from the properties of a sample to the properties of a population as a whole. It contains “Hasty Generalization”, the size of the sample is too small to support the conclusion; “Unrepresentative Sample”, the sample used in an inductive inference is relevantly different from the population as a whole; “False Analogy”, two objects A and B are similar, then if A has property P, B must have property P; “Slothful Induction”, the proper conclusion of an inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary; and “Fallacy of Exclusion”, important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.

The Inductive fallacies happens all around us. We may defined the whole group by just meet a few of them; defined the quality of one dozen of apple by just try one of them.

Plato’s Meno part 5

In part 5 of Plato’s Meno, i think the general meaning of it is — true and false divided by different people, the true, justice thing for one group of people might be false and injustice for another group, and  right opinion is a thing that can help you to reach the answer off your question.


I will tell you. If a man knew the way to Larisa, or any other place you please, and walked there and led others, would he not give right and good guidance?




Well, and a person who had a right opinion as to which was the way, but had never been there and did not really know, might give right guidance, might he not?




And so long, I presume, as he has right opinion about that which the other man really knows, he will be just as good a guide—if he thinks the truth instead of knowing it—as the man who has the knowledge.


Just as good. Socrates Hence true opinion is as good a guide to rightness of action as knowledge; and this is a point we omitted just now in our consideration of the nature of virtue, when we stated that knowledge is the only guide of right action; whereas we find there is also true opinion.

This is what i understand about this part, there are lot more things that confuse me in this part, i think what i know about this part is only 25%.

Plato’s Meno part 2

In this part of the story, Meno and Socrates are still trying to find out what is virtue. Meno think Socrates is like a torpedo sea-fish, he always confuse others, but Socrates don’t think like that, he believes that knowledge doesn’t comes from teaching, it’s from asking. He ask Meno’s slave boy a question  about a square to prove that he is right.


And so it does to me, Meno. Most of the points I have made in support of my argument are not such as I can confidently assert; but that the belief in the duty of inquiring after what we do not know will make us better and braver and less helpless than the notion that there is not even a possibility of discovering what we do not know, nor any duty of inquiring after it—this is a point for which I am determined to do battle, so far as I am able, both in word and deed.

i think this is the most important paragraph in this part of the story, but i don’t think i understand what it means, what i think is that we need to discover the things that we don’t know bravely, i’m not sure if i’m right or not.

Plato’s ‘Meno’

In the first part of Plato’s ‘Meno’, Meno was asking his friend Socrates about what is virtue. But all the answers that Meno gave to Socrates are what is part of virtue instead of what is virtue, even after Socrates begged him and gave him a example of what is figure.


And here you are, Meno, making fun of me?


How so, Socrates?


Because after my begging you not to break up virtue into small change, and giving you a pattern on which you should answer, you have ignored all this, and now tell me that virtue is the ability to procure good things with justice; and this, you tell me, is a part of virtue?


I do.


Then it follows from your own admission that doing whatever one does with a part of virtue is itself virtue; for you say that justice is a part of virtue, and so is each of such qualities. You ask the meaning of my remark. It is that after my requesting you to speak of virtue as a whole, you say not a word as to what it is in itself, but tell me that every action is virtue provided that it is done with a part of virtue; as though you had told me what virtue is in the whole, and I must understand it forthwith—when you are really splitting it up into fragments! I think therefore that you must face the same question all over again, my dear Meno—What is virtue?—if we are to be told that every action accompanied by a part of virtue is virtue; for that is the meaning of the statement that every action accompanied by justice is virtue. Or do you not agree that you have to meet the same question afresh? Do you suppose that anyone can know a part of virtue when he does not know virtue itself?

From this part of the story, the most important thing that i learned is when someone is asking you about something, especially when they begged you and gave you an example about the proper answer, answer him properly. And for me, virtue is behavior or attitudes that show high moral standards.