October

 Journal 1

I some what agree with post modernist approach to history. I think that is really easy to write history in a way that suits you, for example in my kindergarten class we learned the nice version of the first thanksgiving where the pilgrims and Indians shared a pleasant meal and became friends and I believed that for quite awhile. It is really impossible to reach absolute truth and any analysis whilst it makes facts interesting and meaningful, it immediately makes it biased. But with out analysis the facts have little meaning to us. It could be argued that emotions evoked by nationalism makes us biased but emotion also creates understanding, which can bring us, closer to the truth. Emotion was part of reality in the past and in the present so if we understand bias we can find empathy to that time and get closer understanding to their truth. We can try to use reason to test fact, saying if this preceded then it would make sense for this to happen, or that in a primary source document there is no reasonable doubt that it is telling the truth. There are multiple interpretations for things and some cant is trusted but if we consider the emotions and reasons that would cause a war we can to some extent verify facts. I think post modernism encourages shallow thought. It is intellectually convienent to doubt everything and think nothing, it gives us an excuse to stop considering possible truths and dismiss them as all to bias to be considered. I think doubt is necessary in life and in history and we should question everything. But questioning has to transcend beyond ‘its too biased to be true at all” we have to use bias as a way of understanding, at least what different people think. I’m not sure but I think post modernism intends for us to be aware of bias and not be constrained by the accepted version of history in our way of thinking. I think by saying that there’s bias in all sources and that history can be influenced by diction of who ever writes history, we can consider more possibilities and then decide for ourselves what we want to believe. I think a lot truth or discovery of lies in history comes from countercultural or rebellion movements, especially those at a grass roots level. When people who aren’t in power realize that something is wrong and that the norm is a lie, or useless to them, and something makes them mad enough to do something about it, you can see that not all “prescribed realities” can just be accepted by the masses and there is some possibility for powerless people to decide what is truth and what is a lie. But there can also be social movements that do the opposite, that enforce believing in lies.

 Journal 2

What does history really mean to us? How much do we really depend on our roots to create who we are? What happens when our original history is then revisited and then disproved, the foundation that we build ourselves on crumbles but do we really change? If the cause is suddenly changed but the effect that we live today still exists does the cause really matter at all? Or is it just our perception of the truth that influence that we are today is history all about reassuring the present. For example, when you are a kid Santa clause is real. He is responsible for the presents under the tree every that is if your family celebrates Christmas. When you’re a kid that becomes part of your personal history as well as your societal history. We learn that Jesus was born on this day and to celebrate this we give presents. We find out eventually that he’s not real and our understanding of this tradition is drastically altered, history is rewritten. Its hard to see how this epiphany effected me as a child, it possibly made me more cynical about my parents than I was prior to that, but it didn’t drastically change the path of my life, because the transformation of the story is part of the societal story of Santa clause, parents get their kids to believe kids stop believing then they become parents and get their kids to believe and the cycle continues. It’s a social norm to stop believing in Santa eventually, it’s almost socially predestined to not so it doesn’t really alter your path in life as much. But what if you still believed in Santa past the accepted age? That would really alter your life because it’s not an accepted norm.  But even if a whole society “wakes up” it still can affect them. Post WWI, lost generation was created because the history/fairytale of romantic warfare was completely shattered in WWI. But was that discovery of a hidden truth or was that a change.  Does the fact that trench warfare shattered old ideals of war mean that at one time romantic ideals of war weren’t ever true, or does it mean that image of heroism and warfare was once true but its no longer relevant? So then couldn’t all history be irrelevant when a society out grows it? I think we can build our self upon history but anticipate and encourage change, if the future contradicts the past that doesn’t matter history is about the process.

Journal 3

How does math relate to our understanding of ourselves? I don’t really have a good relationship with math but how does my knowledge of it or lack there of influence my view on life and society and myself philosophically. Numbers usually have made me feel like one of the masses, when I’m labeled by a number or look at my SAT score compared to other people as a percentage. When numbers are used as identifiers their used primarily to organize individuals into a system, which off course encourages me to recognize that I'm just like everyone else being part of whatever organization or being put through whatever program. But its interesting that numbers can inspire feelings of uniqueness as well which I don’t always recognize. For example many people can have your first name but no one can have the same phone number or social security number, ironically numbers which sometimes make you feel like part of the system are more unique than your name which in my mind sets me apart from others. But in general I associate math with a system pure rationality and absolutes, which I tend to dislike in real life and that could partially be because I don’t like math. But what annoys me is that using numbers anyone can categorize you and rationalize you through statistics with out having met you. Math and science provide for the rationalization of life whilst other areas of knowledge like art and literature provide for the more emotional aspects of humanity. But can we rationalize our emotions with math and science? The origins for our emotions is The brain, which is an organ, a mysterious organ, but still a part of the human anatomy that can be understood through numbers and mathematical and scientific study. Is our art and our literature, our feelings, a product of certain amounts of chemicals and neurons in our brain, which we can figure out with math and science? I don’t think we want to believe that, I certainly don’t want to believe that. There’s mixed feelings today about this physical versus emotional, with mental illness fighting drugs like Prozac. Some view it as just treating a sick organ, like taking insulin for a diabetic. But some view the brain mind and personality as something sacred different than the other organs. I can agree with aspects of both, your brain is an organ and can be treated medically for it and I certainly think any one should have the right take medication if they have a mental condition. But it still makes you ask to what extent is a person’s personality medically treatable? And our brain is not just another organ, it is somewhat sacred. When some one goes brain-dead but all their other organs are still alive there is that option to pull the plug, because many people think that the brain is what makes life worth living and not having a functioning brain would give the organs no other reason to function. If some ones heart doesn’t work they ussually don’t just pull the plug doctors try to get a transplant for the heart so the person can still live, because that person has a functioning brain they have a life that counts.

September

Journal 1

I thought the ted talk with the math teacher was very interesting and looked at math as a vehicle to attain knowledge. Personally I feel that math isn’t a very useful area of knowledge. I find I learn little about life in math and I don’t find it useful to explain things that matter to me or help create things. But maybe that’s because the math that i've learned so far is solving problems in a text book with the only incentive is to practice for a test. And I feel in math class in particular that’s the only incentive that the teacher discusses as well, in my math class we discuss why we need to show which steps because of the IB mark scheme and how to get the most points. How could any one get the words “delicious” from that view of math? But the math teacher on ted talks pointed out how the conversation should never serve math the math should serve the conversation, and I think that’s true. In my experience in math, I always tend to hate word problems less because they give some sort of reason to solve the problem, even if it is a foolish textbook reason. I find that more relatable you find material the more you tend to care about and the more you understand it. It’s interesting this topic is the area of knowledge that provoked the most thought in education. Other topics I didn’t really consider how its taught and which was would be the best to teach it. imp curious as to why that is. Perhaps its because I feel I cant apply it outside of school and i'm only interested in ways to make it more tolerable to learn. The thing I find interesting about the way we talk about math is we don’t really say we learn about math we learn math. The same way we talk about a language, we can say were learning Spanish and that has a far different connotation than were learning about Spanish. When learning a language, you learn grammar and vocabulary, which is similar in math, you learn numbers and you learn what to do with them. When you’re learning about math, like what were doing right now in TOK were learning more about its context and uses, rather than how to solve problems. Perhaps that’s why I dislike learning math in school, because we essentially have to gradually learn rules and systematic steps and that’s it. There doesn’t seem to be a cause for the rules besides a the answer to a problem, but the answer is benign as its at the back of the text book, and is only there to check that we’ve followed the rules correctly. The purpose of the rules is not emphasized so it doesn’t seem ridiculous that many people are reluctant to learn them.

Journal 2

Is it possible to have creativity in math? Math generally has the perception of being strictly rational and free of creativity but there is possibility for creativity. In art you are often confronted with a challenge of making a good piece you have overcome challenges, you have to turn a blank canvas and paint into something interesting. In math you can have to use limited information and despite that you have to use what knowledge you have to solve the problem. For example you might have to combine the knowledge of geometry and calculus to solve a problem. And that’s part of what creativity is to have limitations and use what little you have to overcome a challenge or reach your goal. It’s the same concept with a math problem as making a piece of art. And I think in this way it is possible to see a math problem as a triumph, but still when you get the answer wrong you the teacher puts up the proper method on the board. You can use some creativity in finding ways to use the rules of math to solve a problem, but the method was already discovered and written down by your teacher. There might be more than one method but still the methods have all been done before. The solutions are predestined and you just have to uncover them correctly. In math its much harder to have original thought, there are people who continue to uncover more mysteries of math but that doesn’t happen in your standard high school math class, it takes years of training before you even have the possibility to do that. In other classes such as English we often have obvious unoriginal spark notes derived interpretations of work and were not saying anything ground breaking, but we have the opportunity to debate and change our interpretation and form our own opinions on work no matter how uninsightful they are. Plus when we work out what we think the author was trying to say we can usually relate it too our lives if we want. Once you solve a math problem and you find out the answers is 2, there’s mot much you can think or feel about the number, you just move on to the next problem.

Journal 3

In class we brainstormed the number of times where we used math or were labeled by a number. And I think math is under appreciated. It’s an essential tool in our daily lives, which we often don’t appreciate and ignore, and for me at least when every other weekday I have to hear about it for an hour and a half I detest it. That’s because its serves a purely functional purpose in our lives. But when we have a class on it where it feels like the math doesn’t serve us we serve the math it feels a bit backwards. But is math something that wave created or just a greater a thing that the world is governed by. It’s omnipresent in the economy, in music, in biology, etc. some as a sort of higher power that governs the universe could see it. The British mathematician who sought to prove an ancient theorem shows how a person dedicates their life their mind to math as one might for a religion. And still there was so much struggle to prove math and solve it even the minds most fit for math still struggle comprehend it in its entirety, its clearly much bigger and much more complex than the human mind.  So those who have the interest and intelligence to pursue it and try to understand it do, and then they print their findings in books which are distributed and people read it and learn its rules. Its like a universal religion backed up by reason.  And like religion it evolves, people have mathematical and scientific theory’s that are widely accepted, then some one finds flaw in their argument and comes up with a new theory and people choose to accept it or not. Mathematics and science are based on absolute ideas and proof but because of this ideas in mathematics and science can change quickly and soon go out of date. The same thing doesn’t happen in other areas of knowledge. Socrates works and is still read by English students today but we don’t teach the same science or math that was taught at this time. It’s true that there is always a right and wrong answer in math but there is still so much of math that we don’t understand that these absolute truths can very easily be crushed and replaced with new ideas.

August journals

journal 1

Tolstoy’s definition of art essentially said that it has to be something that has clarity and sincerity, meaning that it can’t be given restriction or be done for my money and that its creates an emotion in its viewers. I agree to some extent with the sincerity piece, but I don’t think it’s necessarily clear what restriction s is on painting and if someone was ordered to do something. I think there is more of a spectrum of external influence on a work. There is a lot of in between things from artist can be given absolute freedom to create what he wants or he can be told exactly what to do and must follow precise instructions. An artist may be asked to produce a piece on the topic of war, which is broad enough that the artist can still put his own creativity and emotions on war into it, that could be considered art. An artist could be asked to produce something about a specific war as Picasso did for the Guernica, the artist can still be sincere, and it has the possibility to be art. I think giving an artist a topic is like just asking a person to answer a question, a question might be asked by someone else but the authors is completely sincere in his response. I think only when an artist is asked to create a designated emotion through the piece that sincerity is lost. I don’t think clarity is totally possible in art either. I believe art is partly based on our innate desire to create and when making art in this manner the artist sometimes doesn’t know any sense of meaning and message but also in this manner art is sincere. There’s often discussion on how outside forces interfere with the sincerity with the piece but think the artists thoughts and being over deliberate in creating a meaning, detract from the sincerity. Because thoughts mold and dilute initial creative urges which are the most sincere art. I think clarity isn’t important at all in art because usefully people don’t understand art. Often times in the attempt to be clear artists are obvious the art work has lost its entire mystique which is part of the beauty of this.

 Journal 2

Meaning in art is a very obscure topic. Because much of the time the artist doesn’t know the precise meaning or the meaning evolves with in the span of creating a piece. Not to say there is never any meaning, there usually is some but it is more and unconscious meaning often times and is only worked out by the artist if they are able to understand themselves well. The creative process doesn’t often work in a logical manner which would yield a clear meaning in most cases. Making a song or writing a poem on drawing a picture doesn’t begin with what precise message, it begins with a creative impulse that an artist may or may not eventually understand. Sometimes ideas just inexplicably come to the artist. Meaning I think is a mark of social obligation sometimes. An audience’s pressure on an artist to turn a sincere obscure notion into something clear that might not be honest or accurate. Art I believe is an innate escape from order societal functions and our civilized way communicating  and adding a clear meaning so that the society can understand just simply doesn’t work most of the time. I think the audience art entitled to make their own meaning, this also gives them some freedom to react as they please, which gives them the same sense of liberation as the artist would have for creating it. The meaning might not be what the artist felt themselves, but I believe the best art provokes thought in the viewer and as the artist would react to some event in their life or in their mind the audience deserves to react to the art.

journal 3

If art is the greatest form of self fulfillment why is it that so many artists who spend their days supposedly becoming self fulfilled are mentally unstable?  It could be that mentally unstable people have creative capabilities as think in a unique way or have had mental obstacles to overcome and creativity was created by them essentially finding a way to deal with their own minds and the world around them. Or they just have a lot of emotions to express. In this case it would suggest that artistic talent is some positive outcome from mental instability and in that case mentally unstable people would pursue art so a lot of artists would be mentally unstable. But could this suffering artist ideal come from culture. In ancient Rome I think it was apparently artists and creators would have “geniuses.” A genius was a spirit that told them what to do. And their artist weren’t depressed. In ancient Rome Ideas came from an “external” source, and the artist wouldn’t have to take full responsibility for the work or get the full credit. Contrastingly in our society, we take full responsibility for our “bad ideas” and accept full credit for our “brilliant ideas.” in this manner the artist’s ego can be inflated excessively and then be crushed instantly. In the subjective nature of art when some times you have no idea why a critic will call work bad a good, this is an increasingly unstable environment isn’t good for the artists mental well being. And when the artist has such a high responsibility for their work and ideas, their work literally becomes their character in the eyes of the audience, and there is an increase in pressure to make something. And say if a writer has a writers block they blame themselves entirely when they cannot breach their limits they feel internal failure. The creative process it self is often irrational and sometimes you cant force yourself to make something original like the way you could force your self to work harder. It’s difficult to explain this to an audience and accept it yourself. It could also just be caused by poverty for some, but many artist get rich and are still depressed which suggests its not poverty.