everythingismadeupp

[everythingismadeupp]

The TOK Virus is E V E R Y W H E R E ! ! !

Everybody hide. Find your mask, and take cover. The TOK virus is spreading.

Who would have known that in only five short months I would go from having no idea what Theory of Knowledge even was, to applying it in my everyday life? Truthfully, I don't think there is a day that goes by where I don't make connections to this course. Whenever I'm in a situation where someone mentions anything along the lines of free will, certainty, or knowledge, my brain goes “Oh! TOK!!!” It really has just given me a completely different outlook on life. I think that the biggest TOK virus that I caught was the virus of overanalyzing. In many situations, where the average person wouldn't bat an eye, I find myself asking “how do we know this” or “how much of this really matters”. Half of the time, I say it as a joke because the answer to those questions doesn't really change my perspective on life, but it has definitely altered my interpretation. Similarly, another great thing that has come out of the TOK virus is the new set of comedy! After taking IB history last year, you can say that my friends and I (Roan, Jasmine, and Simone) caught the “IB history virus” because everything could become a joke. Someone talks about being hungry? Well, at least you weren't in Communist China under Mao Zedong during the Great Leap Forward! Stuff like that. Now, TOK has offered that same opportunity. And let me tell you, it's hilarious! One of our non-TOK friends will comment “Oh wow, I did really well on that chemistry quiz”... are yo sure? How do you know for certain? Or do you just think that you know for certain? I can't count the number of times that one of us four has finished off a text in the group chat with “#TOK”. I was actually able to find a few perfect examples, take a look at these texts:

Logical fallacies!!

Does anything matter????

A classic...and maybe a bit of a false dilemma?

(permission was received from members of this group chat)

Not just that, in the past few days since we learned about logical fallacies, I've been seeing them EVERYWHERE. It's like a whole new world. It got me thinking back on it, and I'm probably 85% certain that I used confirmation bias or the cherry-picking fallacy in my History IA. I don't necessarily think that it was on purpose, but it definitely happened. Essentially, this class and the TOK virus have just allowed me to learn a lot about myself. There were a lot of things that I probably would have never thought about or never been forced to develop an opinion on if it weren't for the TOK virus. In fact, I'm very fascinated by the power that one course can have on someone's thinking. I've even found myself using TOK to justify my actions in my everyday life. Don't worry, I'm not robbing banks or anything and saying “It wasn't my fault we don't have free will”...that would be, concerning, to say the least. I use it in a way to make me feel better, “Oh, I did bad on that test, it's okay because we don't have free will, so everything will turn out how it's supposed to turn out”. Whether I believe that or not is a different story, but hey! Makes life more interesting!!

[everythingismadeupp]

The Paradox of Certainty

 Certainty is a weird thing. We all like to believe that we know something for certain, but in reality, it’s just us finding ways to convince ourselves of that fact. Certainty is this weird paradox where we really have no idea what’s going on in the world. For all we know, everything that we have ever thought or talked about could be false. Or does the fact that we all think it’s true mean that it is true? Or better yet, is that the real definition of something being true, or certain. And that’s where the paradox is applied, you could just sit there, and go in circles and circles over whether certainty is a thing, or whether you are certain about something. Let me put this into perspective. A prime example of a paradox that I always like to think about is the lying paradox. Essentially this paradox says that there’s no way to know if someone is lying, because if they say “I’m lying”, are they lying about lying or are they telling the truth about lying. And the certainty paradox works similarly: is something certain or do we just think it’s certain, but if we think it’s certain, does that mean that it is certain? And until you start to actually think about this paradox, you don’t realize how little you know. Because at least for me personally, one way that I used to judge myself and others, as human beings, is based on their knowledge. A professor is of higher status than me, because they are more certain about things in this universe. Where I, an 17-year-old student, is not as certain about as much, therefore of lower status. However, if certainty isn’t a thing, then does that completely flaw that system. And although that may just be a personal way of ranking people, or of seeing people, in a way, it’s also the way that society works. In a democracy, education is a far more important thing. If you have a good education, then you are paid more money, and you can have more high ranking jobs, your opinion matters more. That’s why people who are in parliament are in parliament. But if nothing is for certain, then, what even is education? Because think about an example where you were certain about something. What kind of evidence do you have to support that, probably something you read or something you saw on TV or something you heard someone else say. Well, how are you certain that their information is accurate? They probably also heard it from someone else or saw it on TV or read it in a book. And with that trend it gets to a point where you don’t even know where the knowledge originally came from, so how can we prove that it’s certain or true? This kind of merges into the talk of do we have free will, because is the reason why we’re not certain about anything due to the fact that we don’t need to be certain about anything. If we live in a society where there is no free will, and you follow a more determinist perspective where everything that happens for a reason, then there’s no reason to have certainty other than to just justify our own actions, so maybe certainty isn’t even a thing at all aside from an excuse. In the way I see it, this could even be a good thing, because if you were certain of everything that was true, there would be no development. The only reason why we are where we are today is because people took that lack of certainty, and used it to make innovation and to come up with ideas, which were then challenged by other scientists, or other innovators to prove that their ideas weren’t certain but rather their own were. The paradox of certainty fuels competition and fuels social development. And I feel like that’s the conclusion that I’m satisfied with coming to. Because the more I talk about it, the more I just begin to wonder how much of what we know it’s really true or if everything just made up.

[everythingismadeupp]

Are We All Secretly Murderers? Ft. The Trolley Problem

to kill or to not kill

The classic trolley problem. An ethical dilemma that has been around for years. I remember being little and playing games like this with my siblings. And yet still to this day, it is not one that I can answer with 100% certainty. In fact, I don’t think it’s one that can ever be answered with 100% certainty because there is in fact no right solution. For those of you who don’t know, the trolley problem is the simple question of if there was a train coming, and there were three workers on one train track where the train was heading, but only one worker on another train track, would you flip the lever. Now, the first thing that people generally assume is yeah, for sure! Why wouldn't you flip the lever? You’re saving three lives instead of one? But in terms of ethics, I don’t believe it is as simple as that. Yes, you wouldn’t be wrong in saying that you’re saving more people, but by not flipping the lever, you’re not necessarily killing those three people, you're just letting them die. On the contrary, if you’re flipping that lever, you’re the one who’s letting that train run over that one person. So in some perspectives, that’s highly unethical because you’re purposely letting someone die to stop three people who would die anyway. With that being said, there are definitely some people who wouldn’t flip that lever and who wouldn’t be able to bring themselves to change the tracks of that train for that exact reason. Now, personally, I like to say that I would flip it. Generally,  I'm a very realistic person, and realistically, that is the best decision out of two terrible choices. Obviously, no one (unless your serial killer) wants any of these people to die, but sometimes you have to make these tough decisions.

The trolley problem can go even beyond that and can become more developed; there’s another version of it where one person is actually someone who has the cure for cancer. So in that case, would you not flip the lever and kill three people instead. Again, this is a very unethical situation where you have to choose the least immoral decision, which to me would be to keep that one person alive. It seems harsh to kill three people, but when you look at it on a societal scale, that’s the most beneficial. This race is another question of what we consider an important person. At what point does an individual become important enough that their lives are worth more than multiple others? That in itself is an ethical dilemma, because as human beings, or as just an average person, do any of us have a right to judge the status of someone else? In many ways, whether that person has the cure for cancer or not, they’re on the same scale as us. We are both human beings, so why do they really deserve to live over someone else even if they have a cure for cancer? The trolley problem is so simple, yet so complex. There are so many different variations and ways that you can look at it completely change the way that the average person would react in that situation. A final scenario of this problem, that I would like to talk about a bit, is if there was a family member.  Would you flip the lever to save one family member and kill five innocent people? This one, at least in my opinion, seems a little bit more obvious. I don’t think there’s a situation where I would ever not save the family member, but it’s also a little bit more unethical. If you really think about it, that family member to you may be important but isn’t important to anyone else. Not to mention those five other people are other people's family members, so at that point now you’re not doing what's best for society, and you’re just doing what’s best for yourself. But is this justifiable? Does the fact that it’s someone that you love, make this all OK. Does that completely disregard any other unethical problems with the situation? Again, this is one of those questions that I’m just asking to get out there, there’s no real answer because as a matter of fact, this is all hypothetical. We could sit here and talk about when we push the lever, and when we wouldn’t all day. The reality is, that this is never a situation that’s actually going to happen, so we never actually know what we would do in real life. Just because you think that you would make a certain decision in your head, doesn’t mean that if you were facing that situation in real life, you would make that same choice. It just all really makes you wonder how the brain works and why we do the things that we do.

[everythingismadeupp]

A Glimpse Into the Future - Planning my TOK Essay

aka, the impossible task...

I struggled with deciding which essay prompt to use for a while.  My issue with the prompts wasn’t that I didn't like any of them, but rather the opposite. I found that they were all so deep that I could think of things to write for each and every one. Let me tell you, I was driving myself MAD trying to figure out which one is best for me! But then, I realized something... if you have read my other blogs, you have probably come to the conclusion that whenever I can, I will try to talk about history. The topic that I chose allowed me that same opportunity because I knew that I could use real historical events to back up my investigation. And with that, I ended up choosing (drum roll, please!!)...PROMPT NUMBER ONE.

Prompt number one is asking the question of whether subjectivity is overly celebrated in the arts but unfairly condemned in history? So, what exactly does this mean? I found that the best way to delve into this essay was to make sure that I thoroughly understand what the question is asking me. The way I see it, essentially, this question is asking me if subjectivity is overly celebrated and praised or expected in the arts, whereas when it comes to history, it is criticized when used. I find this a very interesting topic because there are so many ways that you could go about looking at it as there is no real “right” answer to this question. My plan was to look at a very balanced approach and consider both sides. Because of taking IB history last year, we focused on a lot of different command terms, and so I was taught that the term “discuss” is to give a well-rounded view on everything that there is to acknowledge before answering the question.

My next step in planning out this essay was to break it down by body paragraph and figure out what I wanted to put in each one. So for starters, I was thinking that my introduction would start with an interesting hook. Although it's sometimes considered basic, I am the kind of person who stands by starting an essay with quotes. Something about it, to me, is just so satisfying and really helps guide the essay. So the quote that I found was, “One cannot conceive of objectivity without subjectivity.” This quote will allow me to really dive into how objectivity and subjectivity relate. This is why, after introducing the topic, I want to also briefly give a definition of the two terms. I have no doubt that whoever is reading my essay knows what subjectivity and objectivity mean, but it's still helpful just as a bit of a filler for further clarification. Then the intro will be finished off with my thesis statement – which hasn't been fully determined yet, but I think I'm going to come to the conclusion that neither should be condemned nor overpraised, but a balance should be found.

The first body paragraph will then focus specifically on art and talk about how art uses subjectivity to its advantage and how subjectivity is an important part of art in bringing out emotion and a story behind the piece. To further this, I'll give an example of a famous piece and the subjectivity in them. Following this, in the next paragraph, I will move the centre stage to history and talk about how in contrast to art, history is often presented with objectivity only. I'll talk about how historians are expected to show objectivity and no biases. Similarly to the first body paragraph, I will give some examples of objectivity in history. These two first paragraphs will be very similar.

Then, in the next paragraph, I'll turn the attention to the other side of the argument and explore where there is subjectivity in history and how that can even be beneficial. This will allow a good ending point to my essay, that will allow me to write a detailed conclusion about how a balance between objectivity and subjectivity in both history and art is the best approach. I think that if I follow this general format for the essay, it will make it very clear to the readers and allow for an essay train of thought to follow.

[everythingismadeupp]

Power, The Ultimate Weapon - Whoever has it, holds the world in their hands.

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” - George Orwell.

I think it goes without saying that power plays a fundamental role in how history unfolds and is narrated. History is a compilation of all the most important moments in history, and to be in a position where it's considered "important," there is always some sort of power involved. This could be political power, economic power, military power, cultural and ideological power, social power, or a mix of all of them.

But what does this all mean? Anyone can just casually throw around those terms, so let's define them first.

Political Power - Political power is power that is established through authority in leaders and governments. A person with political power has the ability to make policies, form alliances, sign treaties, and start wars. Just those things alone make up at least 60% of history. Don't believe me? Close your eyes and think about history; I guarantee the first thing that comes to mind is the two World Wars.

This graph below was just something interesting that I found on Google. It doesn't really have a direct connection to what I'm talking about, but in reference to political power I think it's just interesting to look at.

moving on...

Economic Power - Similar to political power, economic power is often granted to individuals by their authority. It encompasses not just in the government but also the big business and corporations. Economic power guides and influences the trade market, the state of the global economy, affects the wealth gap, and fuels innovation, both militarily and technologically. I believe this one doesn't get the recognition it deserves, but everything related to the Great Depression, the Golden Age, and the difference between first-world and third-world countries is thanks to economic power. Even today, economic power is making history. Twenty years from now, your children will certainly be talking about how inflation and high living costs significantly impacted their lives.

Military Power - Although political power often initiates conflicts, military power is what allows wars to be fought. Military power is always in the background to political power. Leaders and rulers establish political power by having strong military capabilities. Military power allows a nation to defend itself against aggression and to project itself as strong (or weak) on the global stage. While political power starts wars, military power determines how the history of those wars unfolds. It is responsible for the rise and fall of nations, the redistribution of land, and the drawing of new borders.

Cultural and Ideological Power - Cultural and ideological power is more about the people than the nations. Every impactful movement or protest in history, whether positive or negative, is because of cultural and ideological power. People had so much power that their actions were able to reach others and change ideas, values, and beliefs. Women gaining the right to vote? Cultural and ideological power. Abolition of slavery? Cultural and ideological power...the list goes on. To say that power was the defining factor that brought upon thee changes is simply objective. I don't see any room for disagreement in the topic.

Social Power - Social power essentially falls under the same description as cultural and ideological power, but has its own section because it encompasses everything above and extends beyond that. Social power refers to social standings and how they have developed over time or, better yet, remained the same. Since the beginning of societies, there has always been a social divide between the rich and the poor. In the 16th century, there were different estates. Today, it is referred to as different classes, but it's essentially the same thing. Those with more social power will always have a "higher ranking."

In summary, as I mentioned above, power is what rules the world. The fact that everything that has happened to our world is supported and justified by the use of power, clearly demonstrates this. They always say that anyone can make change, but that's not entirely true; anyone with power can make change.

I'd suggest reading the paper attached below; it touches upon the impact of power and is fascinating. Link to paper

With that, since I have a habit of ending each of my blog posts with something to ponder, ask yourselves, "Sure, we know what power can do, but where does power come from? And who decides who has it?"

(Or do we live in a simulation, and it's already predetermined. Made up)

[everythingismadeupp]

I think about this tweet often

[everythingismadeupp]

The Importance of History - Israel vs Palestine

(is it even real? - kidding lol)

I've noticed over time that history gets a lot of hate. A large portion of people out there look at it as a useless study because "what has happened has already happened". Personally, I think that it is really silly and naive to look at things. History is more than just a story of the past; it also helps us better understand the future. Don't believe me? Let's look at the Israel vs. Palestine conflict that erupted not too long ago.

For context, in October, a full-blown war between Israel and Palestine started overnight, basically. Hamas (Palestine) launched a massive, unprecedented surprise attack on Israel, and now Israel is about to wipe the Gaza Strip off the map in the coming days, by the sounds of it. It's crazy. But beyond craziness, it's also a bit scary because Hamas's biggest allies are Iran and Syria. And Israel is one of the USA's biggest allies. Iran and Russia are major allies... see where I'm going with this? And it gets deeper. Israel has the world's fourth strongest and largest army, behind the US, Russia, and China. Their ground troops are known to be the most skilled in the world. If anything, it's almost suspicious. Israel is known for its intelligence and its impenetrable Iron Dome air defense system. Yet, Hamas just surprised Israel by launching like 5000 missiles out of nowhere, and everyone can't understand how... like, asking if the Iron Dome is down or didn't work, or what went wrong? Or... they knew and let it happen so they could wipe them off the map once and for all.

This is where history can be used to better understand it. If a completely uneducated person looked at this conflict, everything I've just mentioned above wouldn't make sense or wouldn't even be thought of. To them, it would simply be that Palestine was angry, and they invaded. But I believe that it goes so much deeper than that. We can use history to understand that for years, Israel and Palestine have had conflicts. From territorial disputes to the status of Jerusalem (both consider it their capital), the two nations have never gotten along.

By looking at history, it allows us to better understand both sides and why the events that took place happened. However, not to contradict my point because, as mentioned above, I do still believe that history is very essential to understand this and any other current-day conflict, we also can never know for certain.

Yes, history can be used to better understand, but not to ever understand completely. History is helpful in the way that it shows us the patterns. We, as a society, are known to repeat our mistakes, hold grudges, and always turn towards violence. All things that are shown and explained by looking at history and then applying that to this conflict. But at the same time, history has also shown that countries and those in charge often have ulterior motives that we don't and probably will never know about. We can speculate, but that's about it. For all we know, the Israel-Palestine conflict could involve aliens and the CIA. Sure, it's unrealistic, but who are we to know for certain?

History only tells us a piece of the puzzle because, despite our pattern to repeat history, people are also impulsive and irrational. In this vast, wild world, it's impossible, even with history on our side, to know for sure.

Not to bring it back to this... but what if we are in a simulation, and everything with Israel-Palestine was already preplanned, which is why history is so helpful in understanding it? Think about it.

[everythingismadeupp]

Dogs and Humans - Are we basically the same thing?

(spoiler alert: no)

If you took grade three biology, everyone reading this should know that both dogs and humans fall under the category of “mammals��� in terms of identification as living beings. This is no surprise; it's common knowledge (I would hope). But what may not be common knowledge is that both humans and dogs share more than just a title; they also share similar brain structure and function.

The main similarity between the two is that they both share the evolutionary trait of having a frontal cortex. One would assume this is what led to people saying the statement that “humans are just dogs with a frontal cortex.” Everything else about humans and dogs is identical; it's just our more developed frontal cortex that makes the distinction - allegedly. You can probably sense my skepticism in this idea because when I look at my tiny wiener dog who is scared to go outside in the middle of summer, I see a big difference in myself or those around me.

The statement is true in technicality, but it's a huge oversimplification of what is really going on. In dogs, it only takes up 10% instead of 33% of their brain liek humans. The frontal cortex is one of the most complex parts of the brain; it's responsible for:

Complex problem-solving.

Abstract thinking.

Planning and decision-making.

Self-awareness.

Emotion regulation.

Language processing and production.

Now, don't be silly. Obviously, a dog doesn't do those things...because they don't need to. The ability to do those tasks is what sets humans apart from other species and the reason why we have created a progressive civilization that can function in this developed and advanced world. Dogs don't live in a society that requires them to make creative and unique decisions. Their frontal cortex has developed differently so that it better fits the roles that they must perform.

So essentially, what I'm trying to say is that they aren't similar. If you could make the comparison between humans and dogs, then what is to say that the same comparison can be made between millions of species out there? Did you know that dolphins have similar brains? Or that ravens can solve impressive complex problems? So do elephants, and octopuses, and parrots. Dogs aren't the only animals that are similar to humans. I don't think it's valid to say that they are basically the same thing because it's not a special case. If dogs were the only animals that could be an exception, but they aren't.

I think we can all agree that there isn't quite anything like the human brain. Our level of intellect is incomparable to any animals in the animal kingdom. There is a reason why we are the dominant species on this planet. In fact, in a general situation, we actually own dogs as our property, so it seems foolish to compare the two.

Big takeaways: Thinking about all of this really makes you wonder why things worked out the way that they did. Out of every species that could have evolved into the complex creatures that we are, why was it us? And why did or do we have any control over it? Or, once again, do we live in a simulation?

[everythingismadeupp]

I was looking for a new book to read and came across this. I don't know how many of you know about the MH370, but it's crazy! So summarized, back in 2014 when a flight going from Malaysia to Beijing it completely disappeared with no trace, including all 239 passengers and the staff. Nine years later, still nothing as been discovered to explain what happened.

A glitch in the matrix? There are so many TOK concepts that could be applied to this, because certainty on this issue is unattainable. Perspective is required and knowledge is necessary

[everythingismadeupp]

Can you Know Something That is False? - Or better yet can we know anything at all?

The big question everyone is wondering...I think?

So here's my thinking (feel free to disagree when you feel is best):

According to the dictionary, the definition of the word “knowledge” is a fact or idea acquired by a study, investigation and experience. But how do we even know that that definition is true? We don't. Just like we don't know if something else false. Think about it for a second. That's the tricky thing with knowledge is that we can’t confidently say where it came from, so a human society we have only convinced ourselves to believe that what we possess as knowledge is actually knowledge. It's a way to bring a sense of comfort in our lives from the fear of the unknown. And essentially if we don't know something we can't determine if it's false or not. 

For years, scientists will come up with a theory, and then later that theory will be debunked or disproven. But so that raised the question if they ever actually knew the information to begin with, or if they just thought it.

Personally, I believe that you can’t know if something is false. The phrase itself is a walking contraction is it not? If the information isn’t true, then there is no way to know it. For me, it's comparable to the same idea of saying “I'm lying” because it causes a paradox. Are you lying about lying or are you telling the truth about lying? Similarly, are we wrong about being wrong or are we right about being wrong?

That’s the thing with the word “know”, it implies that there is the existence of certainty when there isn't. And this is where the difference between knowledge and a belief come in. 99.99% of the time when people think that they know something, they actually just believe it because no one is every 100% certain and there will always be that 0.001% of doubt. The closest we can get to knowing something for certain is believing that we know it for certain. Though we are certain that we believe it, that does not mean it is certain that it is true.

Sound confusing enough? Well let me try to explain my thinking with an example presented by an American philosopher, Rodrick Chisholm. It's common knowledge that the sky is blue, but technically we don't know for certain that the sky is blue. So when someone asks you “how do you know that the sky is blue”, the right response would be “I don't know that the sky is blue, but I know that I think the sky is blue”.  He raised this idea of foundationism and how you can never know something is for certain to begin with, meaning that you can't know something that is false but only believe something that is false because at the end of the day it is impossible to know something to begin with.

But then again, there's also the fact to consider that if we allow ourselves to believe that we don't know anything is false will that negatively impact our society? Being wrong keeps us grounded and humble, it allows room for others to grow and expand so without that, and if we all went around thinking that we are all right or all wrong, than thing may look very differently. Again, I could be wrong, but it's definitely something to ponder.

[everythingismadeupp]

This is interesting...who do we believe?

[everythingismadeupp]

"The only true wisdom is to know that you know nothing." - Socrates