ToK Journal 2016-2018

   Lately because (of course) my ToK classes I've been thinking a lot about personal knowledge. But specifically about peer pressure.      However, what interested me more was how we tend to adjust not only your knowledge as opinions and thoughts, but also your knowledge about ourselves. About who we are, what we are like, what we want to do and what we hate to do. Because it is easier to agree on one thing rather than argue and discuss about it, we prefer to quickly change our minds and do not dive into the topic that is, maybe uncomfortable or tabu for us. Of course, there are lots of great people who are stubborn (but in a good way) and have strong, convincing arguments.   As I was thinking about it more and more I suddenly recalled the video that I watched maybe a year ago. It was about introversion (video below). Maybe at first look it doesn't seem to do much with knowledge and gaining it, but as I thought about this topic deeper, I understood tha...

   Imagine you are at the party with your friends. It's great, you all are having a great time, but a couple days after, you and your friends want to describe what happened there to a friends of yours who didn't have the opportunity to go there. As the friends are recalling the event you realize that those descriptions differ from each other and maybe especially from yours? Is that situation sounds familiar to you?    It happened to me countless numbers of times! For example, yesterday when I was talking casually about our last family trip to Italy with my brother. We were chatting how great and exciting it was, when suddenly I cought myself thinking from time to time it wasn't like that or this person said something else ect. Our memories distinguished sometimes so much that it made me think about it. Are my memories diffrient because I forgot some details or maybe my experiences fade with time? Maybe overshadowing my memories occured?  Are overshadowe...

This week I have been thinking a lot about determining whether the knowlege claim is raeasonable and how we examine those claims. From the ToK classes I now know that here are two criteria: evidence and coherence.  The second one for me is the most interesting. I've become more interested in how scientists made some breakthroughs. Where their evidence coherent with what they already knew? Maybe some new knowledge claims are true and break our false perception of things but are not coherent with our current knowledge? Is it possible to examine that? Is it possible to knowledge claim not be coherent or having an evidence that humans cannot understand? I'm wondering if people can go beyond their confirmation bias and see world in a whole new way. I belive that by leaving some cultural biases and maybe even current reasonable knowlege can help us see things that are not in our access right now because of how we think things are. Of course in this case we cannot accept all t...

This week (12-18.09) I started my ToK classes. We've studied problems of knowlege and the example of the maps and how our culture influence our perception of the world. Europeans see Europe in the center of Earth when at the same time an American can be use to maps that show America in the centre. The Earth is a spheare so we cannot really say what is truerly ''in the center''. This idea really hit me. I started thinking how much our culture influence on our knowledge? Is a culture sometimes a part o knowledge? Map used before discovering America. Another thing that intriceted me was an idea or maybe a statement, that knowledge is simplified. Bringing back the maps example: of course it is not possible for us to create real 1:1 map of the world- firstly, that kind of map it is simply not possible to make and secondly, it would be completly useless for us. So for the usefulness of the maps they are simplified. And the same is with many other areas of...