Ahmad Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 I really have a big problems at proving any thing ,, even with using what Ive learned from TOK I can easily convince people ,,,, although my TOK teacher is the only one who i cant convince ,, especially when he say to me: "give me an example of a true"even after using the 4 ways of knowledge to give an evidence of a true, he come out with something extremely vague that i cant prove, so whatever i say , its not truth.i think there is some thing wrong with his teaching,,, i can show you how does he do that, just state a truth. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBSQUARED Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Hmm, okay. My truth is that I am a male. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindieeluieee Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Truth is I am the only one who exists in the whole world. Everything else is an illusion of my own mind. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneyfaery Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 (edited) I really have a big problems at proving any thing ,, even with using what Ive learned from TOK I can easily convince people ,,,, although my TOK teacher is the only one who i cant convince ,, especially when he say to me: "give me an example of a true"even after using the 4 ways of knowledge to give an evidence of a true, he come out with something extremely vague that i cant prove, so whatever i say , its not truth.i think there is some thing wrong with his teaching,,, i can show you how does he do that, just state a truth.The problem with saying that 'nothing is true' and 'you don't know anything' is that it's not applicable to the real world. Sure, theoretically, you could say people don't exist or they are just a figment of your imagination... but at the end of the day, you still have to deal with them, whether you like it or not.It's the same with other matters. So in the end, saying that 'nothing is true' is quite false. Edit: if 'nothing' is assumed to be an idea or an entity, or something assumed to be nothing, then something must be true if nothing is true? Edited January 19, 2009 by Irene Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindieeluieee Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Yeah, for argument's sake there's no way he can prove me wrong Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Shiver Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 (edited) I once wrote this for a 1984 English assignment in grade 10:The past…it exists in the effects of its presence. For everything we see around us, an event occurred that brought it there. Changing the past through systematic written alteration does not change its impact on the present. The inquisitor argues that reality is in the mind, and that if the mind is controlled, so too is reality. But if reality truly is just in my mind, how can I be sure that I do not alone exist? Nay, but it is not possible. If I am being controlled, something else exists that is controlling me, proving that existence is not limited to me alone. With this knowledge of existence outside my mind, it becomes evident that such a control on my mind is externally apparent. Reality is indeed outside of my own mind, no matter what it is we are being tricked into believing.Ah, those were the days. Back when I thought everything was supposed to make sense. Edited January 20, 2009 by Mr. Shiver Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Lc~ Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 Hmm, okay. My truth is that I am a male.that will depend on the definition of the word male, perhaps it translates in a different way in some other language which will make that statement untrue.OP: from what I've figured out pondering TOK, is that truth is relative to time and situation, so it can exist, but only for a certain time. damn I could write an essay about this, but ya you understand what I'm saying right? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneyfaery Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 I once wrote this for a 1984 English assignment in grade 10:The past…it exists in the effects of its presence. For everything we see around us, an event occurred that brought it there. Changing the past through systematic written alteration does not change its impact on the present. The inquisitor argues that reality is in the mind, and that if the mind is controlled, so too is reality. But if reality truly is just in my mind, how can I be sure that I do not alone exist? Nay, but it is not possible. If I am being controlled, something else exists that is controlling me, proving that existence is not limited to me alone. With this knowledge of existence outside my mind, it becomes evident that such a control on my mind is externally apparent. Reality is indeed outside of my own mind, no matter what it is we are being tricked into believing.Ah, those were the days. Back when I thought everything was supposed to make sense.Wtf, you wrote that in grade 10. I'd hate to know what your writing level is at now. And fyi, it took me three readings to make sense of all that. OP: from what I've figured out pondering TOK, is that truth is relative to time and situation, so it can exist, but only for a certain time. damn I could write an essay about this, but ya you understand what I'm saying right?That reminds me of the TOK exemplar "Is truth what the community settles on" or something. So yes, could totally be an essay. To save effort, OP could even read the essay then post his/her conclusions. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Shiver Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 And fyi, it took me three readings to make sense of all that. Does it make sense, though? It was a bit out of context. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneyfaery Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 Does it make sense, though? It was a bit out of context. Yes, don't worry about it. There's cause and effect: if there's an effect, there must be a cause. In this case, both are (or seem to be) external. 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.