Asha Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) Hi! I woke up this morning to find that my teacher had sent my class two essay titles due in for next monday and I've been writing in circles since 9am. It is now 3.30pm and my head is close to exploding. The titles are: 1. Is it reasonable to argue for the preservation of established forms of language, for example as concerns grammar, spelling, syntax, meaning or use? Is one language common to the whole world a defensible project? 2. To what extent may the subjective nature of perception be regarded as an advantage for artists but an obstacle to be overcome for scientists? We've got a tight word limit of 850 which makes this even more difficult; I am a fan of waffling and BSing my way through ToK essays. Any help/prompts/ideas are much appreciated. Thanks! Edited January 2, 2009 by Asha Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
avrila Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 I guess you might have pass up your essay by now. About the question, it is very interesting. Have you got it back? Well, You can argue on a lot of things. Just imagine, having only one language in the world. How is this possible and what will happen to the variety of culture that we have. How can we diminish all this. Eventhough it is possible, it will take years to complete the mission. As for the second question, you can talk about the role of artist and scientist themselves. Both studied different thing as artist is more free while scientist has to follow the rule in natural science. Perception will of course be a good thing for an artist as he/she do not need reason in conveying the message. Scientist need evidence. Therefore, perception is just nothing but a mere words that need to be prove. Just a short thought on this. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertomx Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 I think both of your titles talk about subjectivity-objectivity. For the first one you can talk about cultural diversity and identity, and how each language has forms of reflecting the culture to which it belongs. On the other hand you have the fact that just one language would put an end to all possible ambiguities (if that's a word) in communication. Look at the advantages and disadvantages of it, and reach a conclusion from there. For the second one you could talk basically about the differences between arts and natural sciences. Look at the aspects of each area that involve perception: eventhough it's more evident in the arts, remember that nat.sciences are just our way to interpret and explain reality. Identify the main differences between the art-producing process and the science-investigation process: then you should be able to distinguish where perception may be an advantage for artists and an obstacle for scientists. Remember that artists are free to be subjective and do whatever they want, whereas scientists aren't. [quote name='avrila' post='32813' date='Jan 8 2009, 10:28 AM']Perception will of course be a good thing for an artist as he/she do not need reason in conveying the message.[/quote] Artists do need reason; a piece of art is always cleverly planned. Oh!! an idea; the difference between the artist and the scientist: the artist is producing, the scientist is discovering. I'd say that's why perception in the artist is an advantage, because s/he can use it as a tool to produce something. The scientist must avoid subjectivity to explain 'reality' as objectively as possible. Hopefully that helped a little, good luck Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.