Blog 26: DUE November 2 by Midnight
I have to say, the items that you all chose to go in the time capsule (which would have to be the size of a warehouse!) were really thoughtful and creative! Although, I can't imagine opening a capsule in which Matt, two polar bears, an otter, a car, a few barrels of oil and helium, and a cell from every animal greet me at the door! I also loved the personal twist a lot of you put on your items and the ways in which you saw your items impacting the future, helping them understand the past. Well done, everyone!
For this week's blog, I want you to think about how history has been impacted by other ways of knowing--how this area, more so than the others in many cases--simply demands contributions from each area of knowledge.
As a reminder, the Areas of Knowledge are: Natural Sciences, Mathematics, Human Sciences, Ethics, History, Arts, Religion/Spirituality.
Prompt: First, think of a specific event/person that has had an impact on the course of history in one of these areas. What contribution or detraction did this person/event make in this area? What was forever changed as a result of this event/person in this area? What evidence do we have in present day of this event/person? Was/is there holes in the certainty of this person's/event's contribution? Is there any controversy surrounding it? Does that controversy add or detract from our historical knowledge in that area?
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Blog 25: History and Knowledge...is there anything new?
Blog 25: Due Oct. 26th by Midnight
When considering how one gains knowledge or seeks for "truth" in history, many things must be taken into consideration. We will be looking at all of these questions throughout the upcoming weeks--
When considering how one gains knowledge or seeks for "truth" in history, many things must be taken into consideration. We will be looking at all of these questions throughout the upcoming weeks--
- Does the part of the world you live in determine which histories are important for you to know?
- Do the ideals of a society or culture determine which histories are considered valid or invalid?
- How does one determine what "truth" means in historical studies if, indeed, relativism so often impacts the version of history portrayed?
- Is it possible to really have a "global history" that everyone agrees on?
- Do you think that the history you have learned in school thus far has prepared you for life in the greater world, or is history a subject of continues study and exposure?
- Why should we care about what has already happened? Shouldn't we be concerned with the future, with progress, and with moving forward? Are the two intertwined?
For this blog, we are going to build a TOK time capsule. Your task is to choose 3-5 items (you cannot post an item that someone before you has posted!) that you would put in a time-capsule, to be opened in 200 years from now. Not only must you choose which items to include, you must include an explanation as to why each of these items should go into the capsule. What do the items tell a future generation about the history we are creating today?
You are welcome, as always, to respond to the TedTalk or to a question above as well, but everyone needs to respond to the Time Capsule question as well. Good luck!
You are welcome, as always, to respond to the TedTalk or to a question above as well, but everyone needs to respond to the Time Capsule question as well. Good luck!
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Blog 24: Ethics in a shrinking world
DUE: Saturday, Oct. 20, 2013
This week we will spend some time talking about ethics on a global scale. The question we will ask is, "Is there an ethical code or ethical 'rules' we can apply to every person in every situation and location?" Part of the idea of global ethics is how we create and how we communicate in our world--and this has been altered significantly and quickly over the last 20 years. Our world is small and getting smaller--In 1985, to talk to someone in China, I could either write a letter and mail it, or I could make a rather expensive long distance call. This morning, I read my best friend's daughter a bedtime story as she drifted off to sleep in a suburb of Hong Kong, using an iPad and FaceTime, I got to see her smile as the hungry caterpillar ate his way through all those strawberries. Imagine what will come of our lifetimes!
We are entering an era in which young people on the cusp of college and career need to think quickly, with their heads and their hearts, and one in which global ethics may rise to an importance that we have yet to experience. Unfortunately, we are also submerged in an era where money and power are often the two primary driving forces behind change, progress (if we can call it that), and divisiveness.
A Ring of Gyges would be quite nice, I think! (And you all thought that JRR Tolkien came up with that concept!) And in many ways, technology does allow us to be invisible; during last year's "Hellgate Confessions" Facebook rampage, many people found freedom in the supposed anonymity of their posts--we saw both positive and negative sides of that. As you watch this TedTalk and ponder the questions below, really consider how ethics and the changing world need to interact in order to turn our world into one you want to be part of.
--As we discussed with Natural Sciences and Human Sciences, create a list of Ethical Rules that should apply to the use of technology. If it helps, you can narrow your list down to something like "media" or "social media" or "software creation", etc. Also, explain why these rules are important and what impact they would have on our world.
--Often, people fear that the influx of technology in our world will have two very negative affects:
(1) People will spend less time with one another; we will become/are becoming isolationists and antisocial. (Read Ray Bradbury's very short story "The Pedestrian" by clicking here--Bradbury could see the future!) and
(2) The demographic chasm between those who can afford the technology and those who can't will widen greatly creating an entirely new "Third World". This will leave those with money driving change and those without dragging behind.
To what extent to you agree or disagree with these claims? What do you suggest as possible counterclaims or solutions to these two concerns?
*In both of these cases, try to link your answers to real life situations.
Also, Hailey suggested this youtube video as a connection to ethics and money--possibly appropriate to draw on for some ideas!
http://youtu.be/3MxRIn-C4zU
This week we will spend some time talking about ethics on a global scale. The question we will ask is, "Is there an ethical code or ethical 'rules' we can apply to every person in every situation and location?" Part of the idea of global ethics is how we create and how we communicate in our world--and this has been altered significantly and quickly over the last 20 years. Our world is small and getting smaller--In 1985, to talk to someone in China, I could either write a letter and mail it, or I could make a rather expensive long distance call. This morning, I read my best friend's daughter a bedtime story as she drifted off to sleep in a suburb of Hong Kong, using an iPad and FaceTime, I got to see her smile as the hungry caterpillar ate his way through all those strawberries. Imagine what will come of our lifetimes!
We are entering an era in which young people on the cusp of college and career need to think quickly, with their heads and their hearts, and one in which global ethics may rise to an importance that we have yet to experience. Unfortunately, we are also submerged in an era where money and power are often the two primary driving forces behind change, progress (if we can call it that), and divisiveness.
A Ring of Gyges would be quite nice, I think! (And you all thought that JRR Tolkien came up with that concept!) And in many ways, technology does allow us to be invisible; during last year's "Hellgate Confessions" Facebook rampage, many people found freedom in the supposed anonymity of their posts--we saw both positive and negative sides of that. As you watch this TedTalk and ponder the questions below, really consider how ethics and the changing world need to interact in order to turn our world into one you want to be part of.
--As we discussed with Natural Sciences and Human Sciences, create a list of Ethical Rules that should apply to the use of technology. If it helps, you can narrow your list down to something like "media" or "social media" or "software creation", etc. Also, explain why these rules are important and what impact they would have on our world.
--Often, people fear that the influx of technology in our world will have two very negative affects:
(1) People will spend less time with one another; we will become/are becoming isolationists and antisocial. (Read Ray Bradbury's very short story "The Pedestrian" by clicking here--Bradbury could see the future!) and
(2) The demographic chasm between those who can afford the technology and those who can't will widen greatly creating an entirely new "Third World". This will leave those with money driving change and those without dragging behind.
To what extent to you agree or disagree with these claims? What do you suggest as possible counterclaims or solutions to these two concerns?
*In both of these cases, try to link your answers to real life situations.
Also, Hailey suggested this youtube video as a connection to ethics and money--possibly appropriate to draw on for some ideas!
http://youtu.be/3MxRIn-C4zU
Monday, October 7, 2013
Blog 23: The Ring of Gyges
Due: Saturday Oct. 12 by Midnight
The Ring of Gyges
from Plato, Republic 359d-360c
- Glaucon disagrees with Socrates and insists that justice and virtue are not in fact desirable in and of themselves. In support of his claim, Glaucon offers the following story which suggests that the only reason people act morally is that they lack the power to behave otherwise. Take away the fear of punishment, and the "just" and the "unjust" person will both behave in the same way: unjustly, immorally.
Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that they might send their monthly report about the flocks to the king; into their assembly he came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outwards and reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result-when he turned the collet inwards he became invisible, when outwards he reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court; where as soon as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom.
Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right.
If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice.
- Imagine for a moment that you were in possession of such a ring. How would you use it? If you had a perfect guarantee that you would never be caught or punished, what would you do?
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Blog 22 Ethics: Hypothetical vs. Real Life
Blog 22: Hypothetical and Real Life Ethics
DUE: Oct. 5 by midnight
"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have the right to do and what is right to do." Potter Stewart
Behaving ethically is one thing; putting a stop to unethical behavior in others is entirely another. In fact, it is the stuff of timeless literature, film, autobiography, and school curriculum! (Think Rosa Parks, Forrest Gump, etc). Doing what is right by putting a stop to something that is wrong creates heroes.
I think to some level we would all like to believe that in the face of grave unethical behavior, we would all be able to put a stop for it. Start a Revolution! Be the Hero! Hypothetically speaking...
Easier said than done.
It's one thing to talk about it, it's another thing to actually do it.
These are things that we could say about hypothetical ethics. If an person was stealing and you saw them, would you do something about it? If you witnessed the mistreatment of a pet by its owner, would you be able to put a stop to it? If a Hellgate under-classman was being bullied by a senior, would you be willing to say something to the senior? Hypothetically, I hope you would all say yes, but when the rubber meets the road, many of us are paralyzed or turn a blind eye.
Why? What are we intimidated by? Or rather, are we okay with the status quo? Do we not want to meddle in someone else's affairs? Is it none of our business? Can the pendulum of, "Not my problem" swing too far in our society so that people simply get away with unethical behavior? What stops the people in the clip from What Would You Do? What motivates those who speak up to speak up? Are some of us simply wired to do one or the other?
A few of you pointed out in your last blog responses that the reason you believe we do the 'right' thing is because of two reasons: (1) What we get out of it (be it a pat on the back or a cash reward) and (2) That we do not receive punishment. So then, I would ask, do we not put a stop to unethical behavior because we get neither of these things? Are ethics so very relative that we don't want to impress what we believe to be ethical onto someone else?
What do you think? What would you do? Be honest!
DUE: Oct. 5 by midnight
"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have the right to do and what is right to do." Potter Stewart
Behaving ethically is one thing; putting a stop to unethical behavior in others is entirely another. In fact, it is the stuff of timeless literature, film, autobiography, and school curriculum! (Think Rosa Parks, Forrest Gump, etc). Doing what is right by putting a stop to something that is wrong creates heroes.
I think to some level we would all like to believe that in the face of grave unethical behavior, we would all be able to put a stop for it. Start a Revolution! Be the Hero! Hypothetically speaking...
Easier said than done.
It's one thing to talk about it, it's another thing to actually do it.
These are things that we could say about hypothetical ethics. If an person was stealing and you saw them, would you do something about it? If you witnessed the mistreatment of a pet by its owner, would you be able to put a stop to it? If a Hellgate under-classman was being bullied by a senior, would you be willing to say something to the senior? Hypothetically, I hope you would all say yes, but when the rubber meets the road, many of us are paralyzed or turn a blind eye.
Why? What are we intimidated by? Or rather, are we okay with the status quo? Do we not want to meddle in someone else's affairs? Is it none of our business? Can the pendulum of, "Not my problem" swing too far in our society so that people simply get away with unethical behavior? What stops the people in the clip from What Would You Do? What motivates those who speak up to speak up? Are some of us simply wired to do one or the other?
A few of you pointed out in your last blog responses that the reason you believe we do the 'right' thing is because of two reasons: (1) What we get out of it (be it a pat on the back or a cash reward) and (2) That we do not receive punishment. So then, I would ask, do we not put a stop to unethical behavior because we get neither of these things? Are ethics so very relative that we don't want to impress what we believe to be ethical onto someone else?
What do you think? What would you do? Be honest!
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Blog 21: Wading the murky waters of ethics
Blog 21: Due Saturday, Sept. 28 by Midnight
The TedTalk above is really very interesting; alongside the example of politics, Haidt takes the audience into the world of ethical "teams", moral relativism, and several other concepts in a way that is applicable to class this week.
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant."--Louis Brandeis
"In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others; in ethics, he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so." Immanuel Kant
"That's a central part of philosophy, of ethics. What do I owe to strangers? What do I owe to my family? What is it to live a good life? Those are questions which we face as individuals." Peter Singer
The TedTalk above is really very interesting; alongside the example of politics, Haidt takes the audience into the world of ethical "teams", moral relativism, and several other concepts in a way that is applicable to class this week.
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant."--Louis Brandeis
"In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others; in ethics, he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so." Immanuel Kant
"That's a central part of philosophy, of ethics. What do I owe to strangers? What do I owe to my family? What is it to live a good life? Those are questions which we face as individuals." Peter Singer
As we begin sifting through ethics as an area (or rather, philosophy) of knowledge, think about all of the varied sources we have for our ethical values and our moral actions (or rather, immoral actions!). What is our goal in behaving ethically? What motivates ethical behavior? We don't necessarily receive a material benefit for doing the right thing--treat someone kindly, get a token? It doesn't work that way. However, as we will learn this week...it might be closer than you think.
We've talked about the ethical standards that we believe should apply to the Natural Sciences and the Human Sciences. You were all able to come up with some definite ideas of what should and should not be allowed when researching, experimenting, and reporting out in these fields. You felt strongly about ideas of right and wrong when it came to these two fields. But where did you begin in order to arrive there? What elements go into your judgment of what is right and what is wrong?
Finally, I would like you to think about the human race as a kind of metaphorical 'family.' In this family, are there core values that you believe to be inherent in human beings? If possible, try to list a few that you think exist, even in the slightest or varied form. If you can't think of any, make a short list of core values that you believe should exist in this human family, exactly as you did for the sciences.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Blog 20: Psychology and the Human Sciences
Blog 20: DUE Saturday, Sept. 21 by Midnight.
In your last blog responses, most of you referred in some way to the idea of human beings being isolated within the walls of their own, often limited, frameworks of understanding the world. This idea is applicable to people all over the world, as the speaker of the TedTalk made clear. We base our understanding of other places and people on very limited (often controlled) exposure--snippets of news or other media, snapshots that capture seconds instead of entire lifetimes. Is there a way out of this isolation?
I would argue that, yes, there is and it involves something that all of you actively pursue in your daily lives, and will continue to pursue for the next few years: your education. Trite and cliche as it may sound, taking your education by the proverbial horns, instead of just letting it be something you have to do or are expected to do, will open so many doors and knock down so many walls that leave many as blind as Plato's puppets for their entire lives. Embracing the possibilities that exposure, learning, questioning, and inquiring can provide, however uncomfortable will make you one of the few who base your conclusions (however brief they might actually be conclusive) on more than just what you are fed.
This is the last of the Human Sciences blogs before we launch into Ethics. As a student of the world, we've talked about the importance of also being a student of yourself. When I asked you about your human sciences profile, many of you had a hard time saying who you were psychologically--perhaps because the breadth and depth of your own psychological make-up is more expansive than we often realize. After the Myers Briggs test, we know part of our preferences, but how far does that take us?
In this blog, you can either respond to the TedTalk, or some/all of the questions below:
In our country, psychology is a lucrative profession and many people visit a psychologist, psychiatrist, therapist, etc, on a regular basis. Is this a symptom of our affluence--that we are able to spend money on learning about ourselves? Does it signify how advanced and enlightened we are? Do other countries consider "knowing thyself" as a pathway to happiness?
There are some times in our lives that we can actually sense our psychology shifting or changing. Often, this is in the wake of something significant happening in our lives. Sometimes you know beforehand that you will never again be the same; sometimes it's only in hindsight that you realize such a change has occurred. Write about (either in general or in specific reference to something you've experienced) this psychological growth (or regression). Use examples. How do changes like this contribute to the collective knowledge and wisdom? Or...is this purely gains in personal knowledge?
In your last blog responses, most of you referred in some way to the idea of human beings being isolated within the walls of their own, often limited, frameworks of understanding the world. This idea is applicable to people all over the world, as the speaker of the TedTalk made clear. We base our understanding of other places and people on very limited (often controlled) exposure--snippets of news or other media, snapshots that capture seconds instead of entire lifetimes. Is there a way out of this isolation?
I would argue that, yes, there is and it involves something that all of you actively pursue in your daily lives, and will continue to pursue for the next few years: your education. Trite and cliche as it may sound, taking your education by the proverbial horns, instead of just letting it be something you have to do or are expected to do, will open so many doors and knock down so many walls that leave many as blind as Plato's puppets for their entire lives. Embracing the possibilities that exposure, learning, questioning, and inquiring can provide, however uncomfortable will make you one of the few who base your conclusions (however brief they might actually be conclusive) on more than just what you are fed.
This is the last of the Human Sciences blogs before we launch into Ethics. As a student of the world, we've talked about the importance of also being a student of yourself. When I asked you about your human sciences profile, many of you had a hard time saying who you were psychologically--perhaps because the breadth and depth of your own psychological make-up is more expansive than we often realize. After the Myers Briggs test, we know part of our preferences, but how far does that take us?
In this blog, you can either respond to the TedTalk, or some/all of the questions below:
In our country, psychology is a lucrative profession and many people visit a psychologist, psychiatrist, therapist, etc, on a regular basis. Is this a symptom of our affluence--that we are able to spend money on learning about ourselves? Does it signify how advanced and enlightened we are? Do other countries consider "knowing thyself" as a pathway to happiness?
There are some times in our lives that we can actually sense our psychology shifting or changing. Often, this is in the wake of something significant happening in our lives. Sometimes you know beforehand that you will never again be the same; sometimes it's only in hindsight that you realize such a change has occurred. Write about (either in general or in specific reference to something you've experienced) this psychological growth (or regression). Use examples. How do changes like this contribute to the collective knowledge and wisdom? Or...is this purely gains in personal knowledge?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)