Art surrounds us everywhere in the world. In the whole history of humanity, every generation had a standard of beauty and they keep changing till today. In my opinion, there is no way to judge art. Humans made standarts of beauty and we try to follow them in everyday life. The way we look, talk, what and who we think is pretty.
As a great example, in the 21st century, Van Gogh is an important figure in art history and most people appreciate his work. During those times, he was suffering from poverty because no one though his artworks were good and didn’t deserve the attention. We can just imagine what made people change the way they see the artworks. We can say that it’s just our taste, but the taste is a changeable phenomenon and there is no right answer to the question of “what is the beauty of art”.
Our taste is built by the society we are born in and by our environment. What we think is our taste, is actually just a combination of everything we collect from other people. Taste also depends on age and field of activity. The person who never was interested in art would look at an artwork made by an artist completely different from the person who dedicated life to art. The second person will notice at the first sing the technic of the artwork (proportions, the use of light and etc). And based on the knowledge he gained, he can judge the artwork. The person who doesn’t know or not interested in all details will lean on the emotion the artwork provides.
In the previous topic, we were discussing the importance of storytelling. In this case history is humanity past, we see our failures and our enemies, our victories, and our defeats. As we learn history in schools and universities, it helps give some idea of the domain over which managers actually do have power and influence. Id we consider history as another Way of Knowledge, It helps you see where you can have an effect. Our history is repeating over centuries, as humankind is developing and growing. In my opinion, we can trust history as it provides us with facts and proofs. It is a Reliable knowledge. It is the knowledge that has a high probability of being true as its veracity has been justified by a reliable method. The historian is competent but unfortunately, does not have access to reliable sources of information. This exactly what is discussed in “How Texas Teaches History”. Humanity today, do not know what has happened, as we haven’t witnessed events in the past.
In the TOK course, we have studied several ways of knowing, such as Language, Emotions and Logic, Reasoning. We all know that there is no right answer for the TOK questions, and finding out what is the most important way of knowing is not an exception. As an example, following your emotions are right, as this is how morality is built in our society, but on the other hand its not always the right decision to make in situations where Logic takes place. Reason allows us to form knowledge without relying on our senses. Reason makes us deduce what we can not immediately experience for ourselves. Language is a very ancient way of knowledge. The main function of language is to communicate knowledge, but as times pass, the meaning of it gets lost.
After studying articles about Storytelling, I have my doubts about if it should be a part of WOK. It is a really strong way to know something. As a kid you are listening to the fairytale, when you are in school, teachers are sharing their life experience with you. Storytelling doesn’t leave us though our life. But, and this is a big point, storytelling includes all the WOK. Anf this is why I don’t think its a reliable source. All the stories we know, we either heard them from someone or experience them. It is only a one-way perspective. Some stories were translated from other languages, and it lost its first meaning. As an example, the Bible. Bible was rewritten so many times by the government, and the story we have in our hand at this moment is close, but not the same as it was when the holy book was created. When a person tells you a story he experienced, it won’t be the same as you will tell the same story, as you cant experience it. I do think Story Telling is important in our lives, but it is not the best Way of Knowing.
The James-Langue Theory suggests that our emotions are closely connected to our bodies. I found this interesting, as in my understanding it means if we remove physical symptoms the corresponding emotion disappears, and the author provides an example of being nervous. Your mouth is dry, you have sweaty palms and you have a stomachache. As you remove all the physical symptoms, nothing is left. When you remove all physical symptoms of nervousness, nervousness disappears. I found it interesting, as there is no right answer if you can apply this theory to different situations.
We all have moral values but saying some values can apply to the whole universe would be wrong. Moral values are always changing during the time, as an example a century ago it was alright to kill a person who committed a crime as he is counted as a brutal person with no right to live, nowadays it would consider as inhumane and that everything and everyone deserves a chance to live. Everyone would agree that murder is bad, (first of all, because you can end up in jail), but in another case, we think that soldiers who participate in war and were killing people are heroes. There is no particular answer to this question (as always in TOK), but my opinion would be that there are moral values that the majority of people follow ( don’t steal, don’t kill, etc. ), but we can’t call them universal as it doesn’t apply to everyone on this planet. Moral values always change and it only up to people if they follow it, or create their values.
In the last class discussion, we were talking about what people don’t like to think about. I agree with that, and I would say its human nature to make things easier for us, and less complicated. As an example, some people would say “teenagers don’t like going to school, because they have to train their brain and think, and people don’t like thinking”. Personally, I think it’s not true, and it also depends on a person and his abilities. TOK is that type og class, where people have to disagree or agree with statements or make their own.
The point of the whole Plato’s Meno dialogue is to make the reader ask a question. Most of the topics were about personal opinion, and how people reflect on it. I start asking myself lots of questions. I had disagreements and agreements in some parts, but in my opinion, the general idea is to questioning and making yourself thinking deeply.
What is good and bad? This is the topic of part three as same as part four of dialogue. As we read through, we questioning ourselves ” Is it true that we were born knowing what is good, or we taught it”. An idea of part three and four are focusing on the idea of what is good or what is bad. It is a personal question, and its a question of morality. As an example, we can take Russia in 17th c. Famous writer Pushkin was killed in a duel, because of the woman he wanted to marry. At this time it was normal, which means it was good, but today we will consider it as something bad.
in part two of Meno’s and Socrates’ dialogue, they are disguising ways of learning and educating people. Socrates is questioning a young slave about geometrical figures and equations, by one simple question ” Tell me, bo, do you know that a square figure is like this?”. A teacher never tells the boy a piece of new information, the boy is learning by questioning himself. Slave boy was facing complicated tasks, but, by the end, he reached the conclusion and Socrates’ method about questioning students, so they can learn is working. The reader might have some questions about this method as we can’t be sure if it is efficient.
Plato’s ‘Meno’ part one is telling the reader about the dialogue between Meno and Socrates. Meno is a student of Socrates, and he is asking the mentor about virtue and if it can be taught. The first part of dialogue makes the reader ask questions without an answer, with a hope the straight answer will be giving right away. As Meno and Socrates reached the point of conclusions, Meno defined virtue as the role in society