Tree Philosophy/Origin of Knowledge

A certain philosopher inquired," If a tree falls in a forest, nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" Academically speaking, the answer could be either yes and no, it is just a matter of interpretation. According to dictionary.com, there is a multifold of definitions for sound; there are two definitions that directly satiates the query, of which are," 1. The sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium; 5.any auditory effect; any audible vibrational disturbance." The first one would support the answer, yes, because if a tree falls in a forest, a vibration is exerted. However the fifth one can consolidate for the answer, no, because it states that sound is something that is heard. Emotionally, when I hear this question, I automatically say YES. I was thinking of the idea of definition 1 but I did not know how to express in words because I didn't understand the scientific reasoning of it and the determined meaning of sound. The questions we ask ourselves are shaped by language, which was just created over time by a human being. The knowledge that we stir up by ourselves is not considered reliable, people only believe us if there is an actual definition or theory. Because humans are social creatures, our way of expression is reshaped by society and education.

There is an unquestionable, perpetual breadth of knowledge that is derived from within which justifies originality and pristine creativity. If people did not own innate, predisposed knowledge there would never be new inventions. People utilize their education to assist their primary knowledge. Knowledge is synthetically formed from both the inside and the outside. However every form of education was created by an instinctive knowledge.

Three things I would like to re-question the truth of...

There are many aspects in my life that I have been told to question in my life. Sometimes I tend to question things myself, without any prior warning. I believe that people naturally inherit discernment, but we are also easily influenced, and can be raised to believe things that are too hard to discern from right and wrong. As I got older, I naturally began to question more things, which made life much more complicated and more depressing for me. In reality, the many “truths” we were fostered to respect and adulate are not as pristine as we once saw. With age, we start to see the less obvious truths as they really are. Quickly I was able to dismiss the ideology of Santa Claus, because I decided for myself that he is not real, when he brought me only Korean things. These situations may be the reason why people created the word, “obvious”.

In my life, one of my greatest struggles was being a faithful Christian. By the time I was in middle school and really started reading the Bible for myself, I felt really guilty because I thought the Bible was made up of fictional stories. Even from Genesis. Despite my many struggles, my belief for God has been fortified. I do try hard to believe the Bible, but at many times its hard, so I just force myself to accept it. Now I think it is time for me to stop forcing myself to believe Christianity, but to actually read the Bible (not just one verse every month) and discern if I can accept it as the truth. Bible is a collection of people’s perspectives of God’s words, and it has been around for a long time, and also has been translated many times. In this long period of time, it is highly likely that it has been touched and rewritten by the wrong hands. Maybe if I read the Bible, I can come to understand that it may be the truth. I also didn’t read The DaVinci Code because I was told that it was blasphemous, but maybe if I read it I can see the truth of the Bible from another perspective.

Another thing I would like to question is the news. I am guilty of being gullible at many times. I also gained the ideology, since I was a child, that the news offers the information on events. It is never taught to children that it is not just the information station, but many corporations exploit for power. I would like to watch the news more, and question what is being said by an anchor who just reads off the teleprompter.

There is one thing that is my true enigma. I try the hardest to understand it but I still don’t even know the half of my mind. It is really ironic that I don’t even know my true thoughts. The problem with me is that my conscious mind constantly lies to my subconscious mind. I want to be able to decipher which of my thoughts are lies and which are the truth, and what I really think.

I would like to go deeper and uncover the truth of these three things.

In the conclusion of 12 Angry Men, all of the men agree that the boy is not guilty. There is a total shift of emotion among all 12 of the jurors, since the start of the movie and the end of the movie. Each one of them took a different passage towards the decision they believed was the truth. The old man who supported the boy from the start was able to change the fate of the boy, because he thought beyond the surface information, and owned his facts.

The jurors who were unstable with their choice, such as the salesman, did not think out the case for themselves. Each time a person stated their reasonable opinions, the salesman would quickly take the side of the person who gave good, smart information. This makes me wonder if I am like that too. I realized I am not like that all the time but there are many incidents where I would blankly follow another’s opinion, because I didn’t feel like thinking too deeply.

Another problem I saw with the men in the courtroom, was the last man to vote, “not guilty’. His emotions, experiences, and obstinacies hindered him from voting on what seemed the most true. He gripped on to his first vote because he was engulfed with anger and bitter scorn. It is evident that the man is very bitter, but it is hard to see what had made him to become so negative. His bitterness was deeply rooted in his subconscious mind that even he didn’t know he was inclining for the worst for the boy. It wasn’t until he was under pressure that he was able to let out the adversities that were haunting his emotions. This is a quality that I can relate with, because I sometimes refuse to believe the truth, just because the lies seem easier to cope with.

It is really hard to accept something we cannot see, but there is way too much we haven’t seen, aren't seeing, or won't see in the future. It is up to our innate intelligence, perception, and reasoning to decipher the wrongs and rights. The first man to vote the boy not guilty symbolized reason. He created his own opinions after hearing the witnesses testify against the boy. Perhaps the boy did not kill his father, thanks to the old man, he would not face injustice. My life, as well as other individuals, must obtain a keen sense of reasoning because it can offer us reality.

TOK: 12 Angry Men Reflection 2

9/17/09

The second half of the movie exposed each person’s personality and motives a lot more. It was evident that the majority of the jury makes a decision based on what they hear. They must be fed with the logical reasoning made by other people, to decide on their decision. They dare not to think the situation through for themselves. The group is fickle and easily influenced, so when the old man gives several examples that the boy might not be guilty, half of the jury change their minds. Yet at first they are reluctant to accept the old man’s reasoning, because they stubbornly hold on to their original, emotional disposition.

TOK: 12 Angry Men Reflection 1

TOK Reflection: 12 Angry Men 9/16/09

The movie was basically about twelve men trying to decide on one decision for a court case. The majority of the people jumped to conclusions that the boy was guilty. It was a life or death situation and the people were being ignorant and quick to blame the boy and their only “truth” was their own emotional inclination and the voice of the witnesses. By the body language and facial expressions, it seemed like some of the people said the boy was guilty because everyone else thought that, and some other people just wanted to resolve the trial quickly. Most of the older men were the ones willing to discuss the trial. The rest of the trial, which was made up of younger male adults, seemed to lack the patience or wisdom of the older men in the group.