thequeerideology - Tumblr blog

[thequeerideology]

I love your insights on this!! It's very interesting to me that we've got some sort of a Schrodinger's free will situation going on. Definitely makes for a ton of interesting topics of conversation. I'm of the belief that free will exists because we have the power to believe that it doesn't. If we didn't have free will, I feel like we would be forced by some sort of external power to believe that we did and there would never be the possibility of realizing that it was all a ruse. But at the same time, that's a paradox as well. It's never-ending, and honestly if I think about it too much it might stress me out. But am I forced to think about it too much? Not really. It's a very interesting thing to think about, but I can't wrap my brain around it either. Guess we'll never know.

Free Will - We Got It?

What the hell is free will, and do we got it? Free will is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion”. However, this definition doesn’t exactly really clear anything up, in fact, it just opens up more questions. What is fate? What is necessity? How can these things be constrained? Is it possible to act at your own “discretion” if we don’t even know when or how our actions are being “constrained”? I certainly can’t answer these questions, so I suggest we look to what others have theorized and written before us. 

The “conventional” view of free will is that “we live in a deterministic universe and free will is an illusion”, this is perhaps a bit of a generalized (and a little pessimistic) way of looking at the dilemma of free will. 

Another theory was by a guy named Robert M. Sapolsky, a Stanford neurologist, suggesting that there is no such thing as moral responsibility. I personally disagree with this because I think it is cringe, Mr. Sapolsky is just running from moral accountability, and using a “lack of free will” as his excuse. Cringe.

Then, there is the compatibilist camp, those who disagree with Sapolsky’s theory (wait, literally me?), who believe we have casual determinism, the ability to make choices AND moral responsibility. This camp seems to appeal most to what feels right to many people, not too cold and heartless, but still somewhat rooted in logic, adhering to a degree of determinism. At the same time though, there is a bit of an implicit paradox in the compatibilist camp. For example, how is it possible for your life to be predetermined, yet you still have choice? Doesn’t it being determined mean automatically you technically don’t really have any choice? Many say that though it is predetermined, you still have to make the choices, even if technically they have already been made, but you still feel the moral responsibility of making them. Bit of a headtrip, but I think it is the most human approach to the free will question, and arguably the most helpful because at the end of the day, you still have to live life day to day and exist in a society in which the assumption of free will is necessary. 

You can also look at free will through the lens of quantum mechanics, you could talk about the fact that photons are both waves and particles at the same time, the ramifications of the observer effect, Schrodinger’s cat, etc etc. Frankly, though, it doesn’t really mean anything to me whether or not something can be two things at once. Perhaps, and I am willing to admit that maybe I just can’t comprehend the importance of these questions like some brilliant minds can, and by all means that's great if they want to explore that, but for the average person I don’t really see any worth in these questions other than as a passing curiosity. They don’t affect me, and I will never figure them out, so maybe some mysteries of the universe are just better off left alone. 

There are lots of different ways to approach the question of free will, and no one easy absolutely correct answer. So? Whatever makes most sense to you, don’t ask me.

[thequeerideology]

#8: which prediction assignment had the biggest impression on me?

the prediction assignments overall from this class were so good! i enjoyed the diversity in topics that were presented, and i feel like everyone was able to construct really engaging and interesting presentations. if i had to pick one that stuck out to me the most, it would be the cricket world cup prediction assignment from devan, ekam, and nik. when that presentation was just finishing, i found myself googling countries that have competed in the cricket world cup before, and i suddenly noticed cricket a little more in my real life. i noticed that cricket is the sport often played at osmow's on the TV above the counter where you get your food, and now that i know how the game works, i can watch and actually understand it if it's playing. i would have to say that that assignment left the biggest impression on me just coming from an objective standpoint because it made me learn something new and i was able to retain that knowledge.

the other project that really stood out to me and left an impression was cole's prediction of who would win the liberian presidential 2023 election. i thought this one was brilliant. it was very well-executed and the history to back up the prediction was very well-thought-out. as someone with an interest for geography and countries that aren't often talked about, to see someone do such extensive research on a country that is almost never talked about was really fascinating to me, because i don't feel like a lot of people would do that. i also found that presentation to be very humorous, and i'm pretty sure one of the candidates was quite hot.

overall, those were my two favorite prediction assignments for sure. i think the entire class did extremely well on those projects - every single one stood out to me in some capacity and i retained something from all of them. the snow day count prediction and the napoleon movie rotten tomatoes prediction were two other assignments that popped into mind. i was also very proud of my group's prediction assignment - i felt like the lottery ticket motif was fun, unique, and engaging. this was a very fun assignment and i'm glad we did it!

[thequeerideology]

#7: what is the difference between liking art and appreciating it?

if you have ever spoken with someone without knowledge of art theory about an art piece, you have probably heard them say "i like this piece... i'm not sure why, but i just do." when looking at an art piece without the knowledge of its technical creation, people don't know how to verbalize the reasons they like it. however, if someone does happen to know more about art theory, they may be able to piece together specific techniques, principles, or elements that bring the piece to life and make it worth appreciating.

ever learned about something new and then suddenly you see it everywhere? this is known as the baader-meinhof phenomenon, also known as the frequency of illusion. this cognitive bias makes you think that something is a lot more present than it actually is, and this phenomenon can be tied to art, and more specifically, bridge the gap between liking a piece and appreciating it. as an IB art student myself, i have quite an extensive knowledge of different art movements and techniques. whenever i see decorative pieces out in public, i always stop to look at them further to pick apart the technical precisions behind its production. this has allowed me to have a deeper understanding of pieces that used to just be a nice addition to backdrops or furniture to me. i always liked having art around, but i wasn't aware about the intricacies behind it until recently.

another cognitive bias that ties into this is the IKEA effect, where you feel like a piece has more value because it's something you made. while this isn't quite the case with simply observing art out and about, if you have the knowledge of the effect required to make it and can imagine yourself making it (or if you can imagine what it would be like to make it and don't see yourself as able to do it yourself even as an artist), you may appreciate a piece further. someone who isn't an artist wouldn't make bridge this mental gap at all, and the sense of appreciation is missing - the art piece is reduced to just its visual appeal.

to like a piece is to enjoy it, but to appreciate a piece is to understand it.

[thequeerideology]

#6: the paradox of certainty

"nothing is certain in life except that nothing is for certain."

this is called the paradox of certainty, and i believe that this paradox can have profound applications to personal life. this paradox allows us to live in the philosophy that by acknowledging the certainty of death, we can embrace the certainty of life. i personally find this to be a great philosophy, because it's true - your only guarantee in life is its end. as someone who has previously not taken a ton of risks in my life, i do find a little motivation in this philosophy, because it inspires me to shake things up in my life a little.

can this philosophy hold merit beyond the scope of my life? absolutely! i think we could all use to have more risk-taking in our lives. many of the greatest accomplishments in history come from the ability to take risks and succeed. olympic athletes, for example, took the risk of becoming a master of their sport, knowing that they could risk a serious injury that could even become life-altering. music artists have to take risks and release songs they aren't sure will work out for the general audience every time they produce music in order to keep the trajectory of their career alive. these sorts of risks would never get taken if these professionals felt certain that it wouldn't work out for them. in that sense, uncertainty is a needed factor for success and accomplishment, and is important to each and every individual life and the decisions that are made by us on a day-to-day basis.

[thequeerideology]

#5: what are the biggest ethical issues facing young people in the world today?

in a modern-day society with a level of access to social media deemed impossible just a couple of decades ago, ethics and morality have consumed the general population in ways the world has never before seen. with teenagers and even children being able to form strong political and moral opinions well before adulthood and then spread those opinions through social media, it's safe to say that ethical issues throughout youth are much more prominent and impactful than they were in the past. but which of these issues are the most prominent?

#1: the israel-palestine war - a vice article headlined "tiktok says it's not the algorithm, teens are just pro-palestine" says it all. the ongoing genocide inflicted by israel in gaza has taken social media by storm, and teenagers are truly fighting for the greater good unlike i've personally ever seen before. this is the most i've seen a worldwide conflict be discussed on social media since i've started actively using it, and for good reason. at the same time, there is also a large push in support of israel, with many pro-israel teenagers popping up with israeli flags in their display names on tiktok or vehemently supporting any celebrity that is revealed to be standing on the side of israel in the conflict. this war has brought to light the importance of media literacy, as well as the impact that media can have on shaping entire worldviews. the algorithm you are given on a social media platform and the people you surround yourself with online are both major factors in how you perceive a situation and what side you choose to take, and teenagers tend to form very strong opinions on a specific side when it comes to these sorts of conversations. i personally stand with palestine, for example, and i feel strongly about this because i have looked at the numbers and the data and the history that lead up to this conflict and i cannot in good conscience believe that the treatment of palestinian civilians at large is justified.

#2: transgender issues - as of recently, there has been a surge in relevance of all topics regarding transgender individuals. there has been a massive outburst of rage from conservatives surrounding the topics of "protecting their children" and "stopping sexual mutilation," which has been met with an equally-massive outburst of defense from the left, with the intent of protecting queer and transgender youth as well as providing transgender individuals with access to gender-affirming care and protecting them from discrimination. there seems to be very few people nowadays who feel completely neutral or nuanced in regards to this topic. the reason this affects today's youth in particular is because there has been an upward incline of youth coming out as queer or transgender recently that there has not been in the past. this is due in part to the increased and widened acceptance of the community, which has allowed more people to feel safe coming out and living as their true selves. however, there are also many youth who believe that this incline is actually due to government or parental indoctrination. i personally don't think it would make sense for a government actively passing anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ+ bills to simultaneously be indoctrinating children into becoming members of those communities, but there are many people who unfortunately do feel that way.

these two issues are the most prominent across social media and the real world in general, but they are far from the only two. the ongoing genocide in congo, the war in ukraine, the homelessness dilemma, and indigenous reconciliation are a few more examples of ethical situations that have taken the world by storm. as a general rule, gen. z is incredibly driven by a passion to change the world, in whatever way that may be, and it has paved the way for many changes in the social landscape of the world. will this path continue as generations go on? only time will tell.

[thequeerideology]

#4: algorithms - do they predict or determine?

algorithms are everything on social media. an algorithm is a set of rules followed by a computer to produce a specific outcome, and every single input we make digitally contributes to our own personal algorithm. every post we make, every video we watch, every comment we add - it all contributes to one growing algorithm, which outputs more content to us for us to react to.

algorithms rely on the past to predict the future. they rely on past inputs, past data, and past interactions. if we concede to the idea that algorithms determine our future, we concede to the idea that our past defines our future. this is not a philosophy i believe, personally. i believe that we as humans are constantly changing and evolving. as our brains mature and as we age, we will develop new interests and habits, and the algorithms around us will simply conform to our evolution. algorithms are artificial intelligence, which means that, no matter what intelligence they possibly bear, they lack one primary feature that any human has - a soul. algorithms can predict our brains and what we will take a liking to based off of things we have shown digital proof of liking before, but it is impossible to predict the soul.

algorithms can predict what we might like, but they cannot predict our actual response. an algorithmic response can be determined via its own inner workings in response to past inputs of our own, but it cannot control our future inputs. it may perhaps influence future digital inputs of ours, but the human mind is simply too complex to be completely won over by technology in my opinion.

[thequeerideology]

#3: why is it important to get history right?

before we delve into why it is important to get history right, we must ask ourselves what history is, and what defines "right" history. history, by definition, is the study of past events, and we use history on a day-to-day basis for storytelling. to be able to tell the stories of history is to use real-world situations as a basis of what to do and what not to do in the current day. the telling of a story features two key roles: the speaker and the listener, and there must be a harmonious relationship between these two roles in order for the distribution of historical tales to be productive and effective.

so what is "right" history? if we were to again go by strict definition, history that is correct leaves out bias completely and provides complete facts, free of distortion, modification, or concealment. but are there more layers to that? should history be completely devoid of perspective? i personally think not. to get history right is not only to provide the truth (which does involve providing the facts in their rawest form, of course), but also to make sure that the stances i take on the topics being presented are informed, ethical, and rational. it's important to get history correct because we need to have the information about what society was truly like over time.

a specific real-world example of this is the story of the osage native americans. they were exiled from their own land after white americans found valuable resources in the area, and they were also brutally beaten and killed in the process. this information was then later hidden for many years, and then distorted to fit a narrative in favor of the white americans after that. then, the project "killers of the flower moon" broke through that barrier and provided a proper perspective of what really happened - the right history. and this was vital to the reparations that were very much needed for the osage; finally, their story was being told in the way it should have been. stories like that of the osage native americans and the brutality they faced are why i believe it is important to get history right. because when you get history wrong, those who suffer will never face the justice they deserve. history that is told wrong will be listened to wrong, and the real-world applications that will come from it will come from a false foundation. it is simply much more productive and ethical to avoid this outcome entirely.

[thequeerideology]

#2: cognitive biases helped us survive as a series. are they now holding us back?

millions of years ago, humans in their most primitive form were required to rely on cognitive biases in order to navigate the world and survive from day to day. these immediate instincts allow for humans to make decisions quickly and efficiently based on a mere glimpse of their surroundings, which could be the difference between life and death at times. in an undeveloped point in our human history largely absent of critical thinking or nuance, cognitive biases were indeed important for our survival as a species.

however, as all things do in society over time, the impact of cognitive biases on the way we function as a collective species has shifted. what was initially a vital component of human survival has changed to such an extent that, in the most extreme of cases, can cause harm or even death. basic survival against the elements is still very important, but with the rapid progression of technology we have witnessed over the last several hundred years, there is less importance placed on surviving nature and more importance placed on surviving humanity.

as great as humanity can be, humanity can also be terrible. i know from my own personal experience as a member of the lgbtq+ community that cognitive biases can often have a very real and very negative impact on how we are treated.

[thequeerideology]

"if i wait for someone else to validate my existence, it will mean that i am short-changing myself."

quote said by zanele muholi, a south african, black, non-binary, and queer visual artist and photographer

[thequeerideology]

#1: knowledge vs. belief

i believe that the main difference between knowledge and belief is that knowledge is based in logic and facts, whereas belief is based in emotion and state of mind. i do think that both concepts are intertwined with each other. you can believe a certain thing based on something you know, and you can know something based on what you believe to be true.

belief isn't necessarily subjective, nor is knowledge objective, but the way those two concepts are perceived can lead one to believe that they are that way. i've always found it to be interesting, the way that belief and knowledge are so similar yet so different. it's so difficult to find a true way to separate these two concepts, because - as is the case with many other aspects of epistemology - every answer you think you find brings up a new question.

looking at it on an objective level, the definition of knowledge is "facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject," and the definition of belief is "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists." to me, the word choices of "acquired" vs. "acceptance" affirms my personal belief that knowledge is primarily objective and belief is primarily subjective. you can believe something without knowing if you feel strongly enough about a topic, and you can know something without believing it if you're stubborn enough.

overall, i do believe there is a difference between knowledge and belief that can be important when it comes to making decisions and thinking critically.

[thequeerideology]

introductory post

hello!! my name is john, i'm 17 years old, and this is my personalized blog for IB theory of knowledge. as a philosopher, the way i approach life and philosophy is very largely shaped by my identity and my own personal experiences that have come along with it. the purpose of this blog is to add nuance to each philosophical talking point that comes from a perspective that not many other people in this class have, thus opening the gates to a more productive discussion with more diversity in standpoints.

the purpose of this blog is NOT to "shove my identity down people's throats," but rather to add identity into the ever-changing scope of perspectives in this class. my opinions will not always be shaped by my identity, but there will most likely be room for me to at least be able to use it as a tool to shape some of my philosophies, and hopefully educate others on how my personal experience shapes my opinions!