I think there is universal moral values on a very basic point of view. For example, we cannot steal things for no reason, we cannot kill people for no reason, and we cannot harm others’ interests for no reason. But the reason why people argue and differ greatly on what is good and what is bad is that when a person does some “bad things” for some special reason, this may not be a bad thing. For example, when two countries fight, soldiers will always suffer casualties. Killing is not necessarily a bad thing at this time. Because the soldiers on both sides are in have different opinions, they are fighting for their own interests. At this time,we can’t say that neither of them was wrong or right. However, some people think that killing is wrong, such as some Christians. They think that for whatever reason, killing is wrong. This is why people argue about what is good and what is bad. “Facts” are different opinions for everyone. But homicide and murder are completely different concepts. Although both of them are essentially taking the lives of others, some people kill for revenge and some kill for the country. There are other factors in them. Murder is a completely different concept. Murder means that a person actively kills someone who is related or unrelated to him, and the reason for the murder is outrageous or crazy, for example, some people murder others because he likes to kill. In this case, we can draw a conclusion that murder is not necessarily wrong, but murder are absolutely wrong.
After reading part 2, the topic for Meno and Socrates’s argument was changed and the questions were raised again between the characters and when Socrates posed too many questions for Meno but it did not satisfy what Meno is interested in. Later, another character appeared with the character name “Boy” and they continued the conversation. “Tell me, boy, do you know that a square figure is like this?” ( Plato’s ‘Meno’ pg.17 ) Socrates asked the “Boy” about geometry questions. He ( boy ) did not understand at first, but later he understood and it proves that you know more than you think.
The Golden Ratio is a staple of mathematics classes, art classes, and TOK textbooks. In this article by John Brownlee, however, he makes that case that the Golden Ratio is a load of rubbish.
. . . the idea that the golden ratio has any relationship to aesthetics at all comes primarily from two people, one of whom was misquoted, and the other of whom was just making s___ up.
Read the whole article here: http://www.fastcodesign.com/3044877/the-golden-ratio-designs-biggest-myth .
If you want more, YouTube has a lecture by a Stanford mathematics professor, Keith Devlin, about the Golden Ratio and Fibonacci numbers. Devlin is quoted by John Brownlee in his article. (The comments on the YouTube video’s page offer some interesting case studies in why people believe what they believe.)
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has crossed over from physics to become a sort of ‘common knowledge’ like Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ or Freud’s ideas about neurosis or the ‘Oedipal complex’. This article from ars technica, however—“Demolishing Heisenberg with clever math and experiments”—makes the Uncertainty Principle seem much less than certain.