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

Language

I think there wasn´t a structured guideline for this post, so I´m just going to give my point of view on the importance of language. 

My trip to denmark, taught me the importance of good communication skills... After experiencing so many translation mistakes and feeling so ashamed by them, I think I was traumatized to the point where communication became one of my biggest concerns (if not the biggest). Everytime I have a conversation now, I tend to first clarify the concepts used withing every key-word in order to get rid of the usual misunderstandings between people. These problems are caused by the egocentric belief that we all have the same connotation for every word, which is of course not true, due to tha many socio-cultural backgrounds that determine a person´s understanding of a word. 

Language is the only tool we have, as animals, to communicate ideas to eachother consciously or not. Without the use of codes and symbols, is there any communication left? I don´t think so. We have been designed to codify and categorize absolutely everything that we see, It´s a tedious and dull process of absorbing and understanding what surrounds us, but we can´t deny it... We have made instictive actions codes for moods, colors codes for directions and random objects codes for the unconciouss mind, aren´t we just obsessed with symbols? Language has turned into a pathetic attempt of anthropogenic complexity, and we all feel the consequences of this ego-controlled behaviour in the vagueness of our words. The day when someone will describe and paint an apple just the same way as another person does, that´s when I´ll personally clap for humanity. Anyone can argue that individual perseption of language is a positive thing because it allows humans to be unique, but what purpose does the attempt to be "unique" fulfills if it is the direct cause of our social problems... ALL do to language. You can love it or hate it, commit suicide if you have been so affected by it, but you will ALWAYS depend entirely on codes and symbols. We are social animals (hermits have also been driven to isolation due to society), and without the ability to communicate our needs and superficial desires, we are doomed to a slow and painfull death. 

So beware, language is both you best friend and your dreadful enemy.