Ethics

I can't possible say what the source of morality is. I believe it comes from several factors that equivally influence its outcome. These elements can be separted into two categories: social and environmental. Social factors, such as religion, human interaction, politics and economy, can easily mold our malleable minds into a fix moral pattern that can either be in benefit or in detriment of the society present at the time. Criminal law serves as an example of how blurry the lines of ethics are, when it comes to a pre-established, metaphisic concept of morals. Throughout the history of humanity, every society has come up with their own way of dealing with social control. In order to do so, norms stating what is viewed as right or wrong are established. These are generally affected by time and history in terms of what society consideres harmful to the individual or collective. Nowadays, criminology tends to focus on discovering the reasons behind a "criminal" act, emphazising how unclear a nation's position on morals is; since it isnt the act itself that is being sactionized.

Mathematics- Discovered or Invented?

I am a firm believer on math being a discovered science. I say science because the process used in order to reach a mathematical axiom or theory, is derived through reasoning skills that are also triguered by the observation of the natural world. Many cases have to be taken into consideration, before presenting a mathematical premise that fits all of them in the same way. That said, I see no possible example of how math could be invented. It would be like saying that cells do now exist just because we cant see them with a naked eye. In a world where things dont ever come by themselves, we have developed a universal system that can make quantitative observations and reasoning much simpler, by only using symbols that code for a specific quantity of measurements/objetcs. Matematicians have taken advantage of this abstract world, and organized it by developing the simplest forms of relationships that are possible between them. Yes, math is based on an invented set of symbols, but these code for perceivable objects that interact in ways that are only understandable to the average human mind through simpler abstract justification.

d. According to a well-known adage, 'history is written by the victors'.  How different do you think it would be if it were written by the losers instead?


  I´ve never really understood why would people criticise history by saying "history is written by the victors". Yes, it is a subject were you are confronted by the stories of people who made an impact on the world, but it is hard, if not impossible,  to make an impact on a continent/country/group of poeple if you do not suceed on your purpose. If history were to be written by the losers, it would have no cultural, economical, political nor geographical relevance,  therefore creating a subject that can only be studied (with productive purposes) through the eyes of a sociologist or a psychologist trying to decipher the reasons behind why wasnt it succesful. 

History- Knowledge Issues

1. To what extent has history been modified in order ro evoke nationalism?
2. To what extent is cultural knowledge relevant in determining a person´s self-identity?
3. To what extent can an artwork be judged by solely its historical value?

Creepy "animals"

I dont honestly know what to say. I think the dutch man that invented them is fairly giifted with creativity. The external and internal designs of the "animal" as spectacular. What shocks me the most is that all the concepts and technoloogy used is so simple, but the combination is what makes it so special.

If the point of this commentary was to discuss if these machines can be called "animals" then I´ll give you my reasons why not:

1. It is not composed by cells.
2. It does not reproduce.
3. It does not grow or develop.

Yes, it can survive on its own, know where to go and feed itself. but in order to gain the priviledge of being called an "animal" it needs all of the above.

TOK essay brainstorm

Topic: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of reason as a way of knowing?

KI: Is it possible to reach complex comprehension without the use of analogies?

Main Points:

1. The human brain is unable to access another structural pattern for reasoning, besides the one previously established by past experience.
Example: An uneducated middle age person is unable to do IB mathematics, with complete understanding of the process, without having gone through the build up of the concepts present in the equations.

2. Our understanding of the world relies majorly on dualism.

Counterclaim: The human brain is able to extract knowledge without the use of analogies in cases in which the knowledge is intrinsec in the object, such as in mathematical equations.

Knowledge Issues

I forgot to add the other column, so here it goes:

Good: To what extent can reason alone lead us to the recognition of an effective communicative structure?

Intermediate: To what extent can TOK improve ones communication skills?

Poor: How useful can TOK be to a high school student?

 Not a knowledge Issue: What do we mean by TOK?

Real life situation:  A TOK lesson