International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge - Coursework Example

Your full full January 30, International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge “How many legs doesa dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesnt make it a leg” (Abraham Lincoln). Introduction Knowing something comes partly from what we have been told in the past and what we experience personally. We need actual truth and facts to support our knowledge about everything. Something that is evident is true whereas something that we have not seen with our eyes is believed to be true. This involves faith. We see rain pouring down from clouds, so we know the truth that clouds contain water vapors that come down as rain. We have not seen God but we believe there is one. This is a believed truth. The whole universe is full of evidences that God is there but we have not seen him. This is our faith which makes us believe that there is a creator. Here truth coincides with what is believed to be true. There are different ways of knowing that must be used in order to distinguish between what is true and what is merely believed to be true. Use of only one way of knowing will not do the job. These different ways are a person’s “own perception, language, reason and emotion” (Peterson). Let’s describe all of these ways in detail. Perception Perception is another name for believed truth. It is one’s personal point of view about a fact that one thinks is true but others might not believe the same way. The reason is that believed truth and actual truth are not the same. Perception makes use of all the five senses that a man possesses. Each sense plays its role in telling which part of the story is true and which is being believed to be true. Suppose that a husband, George, and his wife, Kelli, have started a gruesome quarrel. Kelli says that she had been calling George on his cell phone but the phone was powered off and comes to the conclusion that George does not want to talk to her and is always avoiding her. George says that his cell phone’s battery had gone out and argues that Kelli does not want to live with him that is why she is always starting quarrels. Kelli says that it is not her who starts quarrels and George thinks the other way round. Now, the words says, thinks, argues, comes to the conclusion, all belong to the category of perception because these refer to the statements which are not actually true but are believed to be true. This vagueness or not knowing of the actual truth of facts brings trouble between the relationships and it becomes hard to resolve the whole issue. Truth is defined as a fact which is “public, eternal, and independent” (Peterson). The quarrel between George and Kelli was not public as nobody saw it. Thus, the first part of the definition is not fulfilled. Eternal part of the definition goes fine as till that point in time, there was a quarrel between George and Kelli. The incident did not depend upon any outside sources and therefore is independent. So, the main trouble with the incident is that how to distinguish between what is true and what is believed to be true. The listeners know the perspectives of both the parties but do not know the truth. Both parties believe that they are right. Even if the listeners give their judgment, still that judgment will also be what listeners believe in because they combine their senses of hearing and feeling, and make their own perspective. Language Language helps in transferring our knowledge of something to other people. People come to know about truth and facts by knowledge that is transferred on to them by others. The question still remains the same. How can we know whatever one is telling is truth? Statements tend to change a lot when they pass from one tongue to the other. The whole fact changes when it is told a number of times. So, language alone cannot be used to determine truth from belief. George is telling one thing while Kelli is telling the other based on their respective perspectives, but the listeners cannot know the truth by their telling. Kelli said that she phoned George which he had not answered. We do not know that she actually phoned. We believe that she phoned. The truth here is that she said to us that she phoned which is the statement we listened. George said that his phone’s battery went down but we do not know if it actually went down. We believe so. The truth that we are sure of is that we heard George saying that his battery went down. Kelli said that George was ignoring her. We have not seen him ignoring. George said that Kelli started all quarrels. We have never seen her doing so. So, we see that language in combination with perspective can play a part in identifying the truth but is not the perfect solution. The process has to involve other ways of knowing too. Reasoning According to Buddha: Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true. Reasoning is the most difficult part of the process of distinguishing truth from belief. A rationalist mind knows that solid knowledge comes from reasoning. Rationalism or reason contains in it the idea that truth shows itself without human intervention (Allan and Evans 157). No matter the situations change, the facts remain the same. Let’s take an example. A mother of a young kid would feed her when he cries in the public. A rational mind knows that she will also feed her when she is alone and the baby cries. The situations have changed but the fact that the mother would feed her has not changed. Similarly, if Kelly someday quarreled with George in front of Fred out of no reason at all, then Fred, if he uses his reasoning power, knows that Kelli must have quarreled with George once again though he was not there when the incident happened. But this method of finding the truth is again not correct if used solely. We have seen people touching fire inadvertently and screaming out of pain. This makes us believe that fire is hot though we have not ever touched it. We know so because we have always been told that fire is hot and we have seen people feeling pain. This method may mislead many rationalist minds because people may tell facts which are far from truth and make others believe them. This is also referred to as deductive reasoning which means that if the hypothesis is true, then the conclusion is also true. This would mean that if Kelli started quarreled one day, this means that she starts quarrel every day. The other and more proper type of reasoning is one which reasons situations based on experiences. This is referred to as inductive reasoning which infers to the idea that if the hypothesis is true, then the conclusion might not also be true because we have not had any experience yet. Now, this would mean that if a neighbor says that Kelli is quarrelsome, this does not mean that she started quarrel that specific day. This is how a rationalist mind would think. Emotion The last part of the chain of types of knowing is emotion. Our knowledge is many times deeply affected by our emotions. Emotion is defined as “a moving of the mind or soul; excitement of the feelings, whether pleasing or painful; disturbance or agitation of mind caused by a specific exciting cause and manifested by some sensible effect on the body” (Zimmerman). Emotions have nothing to do with logic or reasoning and are most of the times regarded as a hindrance in actual knowing. But they actually are very important for a healthy mind as they enable us to see and believe what makes us happy. If emotions get too strong, they can deform the reasoning, perception and language. If we start perceiving something with strong emotions, then the perception alters from possible to impossible like in statement ‘love is blind’, emotions have induced sacrifice only and no reception to the meaning of love. Emotions also limit the process of reasoning. Holding a belief too very emotionally restricts a person from giving other people’s points of view. The ability of arguing with the other person logically is restricted. Instead of reason, the matter may be handled by personal liking or disliking for the other person involved. Similarly, emotions control language in that when a person who is in the grip of strong emotions may use words which he might not speak otherwise. “Many times in life, emotions can undermine our ability to think clearly. When our emotions are aroused, it is all too easy to stop listening to the person we are arguing with and to start trading insults rather than reasons” (Lagemaat). This means that emotion significantly controls the other three ways of knowing. Emotions also force us to make decisions which we would not have made in a normal situation. They make us forget the long-term consequences of the way the matter is being tackled with. This is because emotions limits us from thinking properly and tends to force us to believe what is not true as true. Or even if we know that what we believe is not true, emotions retain us from accepting this fact. Kelli’s mother, who loves her a lot, will never admit that Kelli is at fault even if she knows that Kelly is. This is because her emotional attachment to her daughter is not letting her accept the truth by making her believe the fact that her daughter can never be at fault. On the other hand, research has shown that emotions are a very important and integral part of a happy, healthy brain and without emotions life would have been a total jeopardy. It is very natural for a healthy brain to continuously switch between rationality and emotionalism. A person may act very rational in one part of the day while he may behave emotionally in another part. This is all natural and necessary in the process of knowing the truth. Conclusion The above mentioned ways of knowing help us determine what is true and what is believed to be true. All the ways relate with each other and may not give proper results if used separately. Believing something to be true does not actually support our knowledge until we find evidences and proofs. We see things from our personal perspectives and this does not mean that what we are seeing is actually true. We hear what others tell us from their perspective. Thus, we must use our own common sense, perspective, reasoning, language and emotions all together so as to reach the truth underlying the situation. Works Cited Allan, George, and Evans, Malcolm. “What is Reason?” A Different Three Rs for Education: Reason, Relationality, Rhythm. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2006. Buddha. Wisdom Quotes. Jone Johnson Lewis, 2009. Web. 30 Jan. 2010. < http://www.wisdomquotes.com/001399.html >. Lagemaat, Richard. “Emotions as Ways of Knowing.” Theory of Knowledge. Karla Sánchez Ibarra, 2010. Web. 30 Jan. 2010. < http://karlaprepcourse.blogspot.com/2010/01/emotions-as-ways-of-knowing.html>. Lincoln, Abraham. Truth Quotes. Jone Johnson Lewis, 2009. Web. 30 Jan. 2010. . Peterson, Jason. “How can the different ways of knowing help us to distinguish between something that is true and something that is believed to be true? TOK2. TOK2, 2009. Web. 30 Jan. 2010. . Zimmerman, Mark. “Emotion.” Dictionary of the Self. N.p., 2001. Web. 30 Jan. 2010. < http://www.selfknowledge.com/31107.htm >. Read More