Indigenous Knowledge Systems: sticks and stones may break my bones...

Beyond the raw fish, yellow skin and small eyes lies a country comprised of intricate traditions and often incomprehensible customs. The Japanese culture is generated by ancient beliefs and gestures, and some of these indigenous knowledge systems include; always removing footwear before entering a house, sleeping on the floor, bowing (can't stress this enough), giving money to relatives on New Years day, and so on. So the expression, "in a nutshell" cannot, or rather, should not be used to describe the Japanese lifestyle- for the sole reason of the "nutshell" being incapacitated to incorporate an immensely versatile and diverse culture.

Arguably the most prominent attribute about the Japanese culture would be the utilization of chopsticks. Before I go in depth though, I would like to annihilate the common misconception way-too-many peoples have- Japanese women don't insert chopsticks in their hair. Ever. Needless to say, chopsticks are mere tools used for eating, and in the same way that Westerners would not stab themselves with a spoon or fork in their head, Japanese people try to keep their cutlery as hygienic as possible. The "stick" that traditional Japanese women use as a hair accessory is called a kanzashi. A kanzashi is not, and will never be used for eating. 

Now, let me move on to explain the "chopstick rules" which must be followed when in Japan. Chopsticks were originally introduced to Japan from China, however, the Japanese have completely revolutionized chopsticks; from the manufacturing stage to the actual usage of it.
Firstly, at the table, mismatched chopsticks, whether in length, shape, color etc., should not be used. This is only because placing mismatched chopsticks as one is aesthetically unpleasant, which is quite simple right? The next rule which must be followed is that, chopsticks should always be placed parallel to the edge of the table where one is seated (horizontally in front of a person), and the thinner extreme of the chopsticks facing the left. Quite often chopsticks are accompanied by a "hashi-oki", which translates to chopstick rest. The chopsticks are placed in this way on the hashi-oki because one must firstly grab the thinner extreme of the chopsticks with the dominant hand, slide the hand across to the other side, lift the chopsticks up, hold the thin end of the chopsticks with the other hand, and with its support, hold the chopsticks in its righteous way.

And all of that happens prior to the actual meal. Once the meal starts, that's a different story. Countless chopstick laws must be followed, like never ever passing food from chopstick A to chopstick B. Yes, a pair of chopsticks belonging to a person should never touch another pair belonging to another person. This is because Japanese people handle corpses with a different kind of chopsticks, so when two pairs of chopsticks touch, that alludes to the act of handling a cremated body. Moreover, a person should never stab a food item with chopsticks either because they are meant to just pick foods up, and stabbing a pair of chopsticks also alludes to death. (Japanese people often mourn by inserting short and thin sticks into a bowl full of sand, and the sticks are ignited at one end, and when all the sticks burn out like a candle, that signifies the end of somebody's life.) ...Who knew chopsticks could actually signify death?
Unsurprisingly, there are many many more taboos when it comes to chopsticks, like never licking them, never drawing a plate towards you using them, never stuffing too much food using them etc.
And that's how the Japanese people feel about chopsticks. In a country where change is the norm, the laws of chopsticks seem to have made a pretty big impact. After all, Japanese people have been using chopsticks for over 1000 years. I guess some things never change. 

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

Is history a science?

History is the retelling of past stories, and science is the composition of theories supported by factual and relevant evidence- or is it? 

Science, in my opinion, is our wicked manner of explaining creativity, be it natural or anthropological. It is nothing but an idealistic belief in which we can rely on, yet much more than a simple imagination which explains what the universe is comprised of. Science is cultivated, and has been evolving over a long period of time, the first practice of science having been thousands of years ago.

The key point here is the fact that science is generated. We may find the evidence to support our hypothesis in nature, but science itself is a man made invention. We create science. We break science. We mend science. And I am saying this because over the years "science" itself has changed. People tend to connote the diction science with the truth, however, that is not always the case. The earth was said to be flat at one point in history- this is a divine example of the evolution of science, or rather, the evolution of us and our conceptions and perceptions as human beings. 

We often hear the saying: it has been proven by science... But what does that mean exactly? How can we prove something with science when science itself can't be proven sometimes?  The number of species on earth for example is unknown and uncertain in the field of science. Thus science is a contradiction of its own, and cannot be associated with factuality as often as we tend to do so. 

Consequently that brings me to the following segment of my discussion: what is history and can it be classified as a science? Firstly I would like to say that the retelling of ancient stories and occurrences is history. My birthday is the starting point of my own history. The French Revolution and the execution of king Louis is history. The pasta I had for dinner last night is also history. Every single one of these events, whether they left a significant impact on the human race or not, is an event that has occurred righteously, thus cannot be reversed or changed. They can, however, be simply concealed by the lack of evidence or equivocation. The most fundamental way in which this can be observed is through the game, 'Chinese whisperers'. Original words are altered, new phrases are incorporated, false information is passed on, and a total misunderstanding is generated. This concept can be observed in social sciences, in the phenomenon known as gossiping. So history and science both have their similarities in terms of accuracy and precision. Having said that, stating that history is a science would be a fallacy. Rather, I'd say that science is a subset of history. The story of the evolution of science is made up of a series of historical events, and the development of this history entails the generation and cultivation of the human mind. Therefore, open-mindedness is the key to success in terms of science, history, and the advancement of us as human beings. 

Moral dilemma

China and climate change- 

Beijing has consistently rejected long term goals to reduce emissions. This is because they see it as a threat to its economic growth. The controversy is whether china should be given the autonomy to pursue its route to economic growth, or their process of industrialisation should be halted in order to "go green". 

This situation can obviously be regarded from various perspectives. As a TOK student, I believe that a sense of morality cannot be applied to this situation as it will ultimately be a biased opinion. 

China is a powerhouse and their economy is clearly not ready to be stopped in order to reduce emissions, and many countries depend on them as well. 

Greg Craven's argument

Craven's argument outlines the possible outcomes of global warming and looks at the correlation between preventative measures taken, not, and the probability of global warming being a real phenomenon or not. 

He discusses his theory of "the worst thing which could happen" in what in biology class would be called a punnet grid, which illustrates all the possible outsomes when considering 4 aspects such as in this example.

I think his argument is a valid one as he regards each and every consequence that could happen, making his theory unbiased. 

Consequently, he comes to a realisation that if nothing is done about a grave problem such as global warming then "the worst" could actually happen. His video is emotional and an eye-opener for many, even though I had been exposed to the theory of global warming before. The reality and the urgency of the situation was highlighted and I felt like something must be done in order to restore faith in the global population. 

Is seeing believing?

Let us firstly define the diction, "believe".
To believe is to "feel certain", "think possible", or "have opinion", according to the Oxford dictionary.
Now, let us define the diction, "see"
To see is "to become aware of something using your eyes", "to have or use the power of sight", "to experience", or "to witness".
Beliefs and sight clearly have no defined and superficial correlation between them... or do they?
I believe that seeing is believing up to a certain extent, however, there are some conspicuous counterarguments which will and must be discussed regarding the topic of this post.
First of all, when we see something repetitively, and through experience we feel certain what the outcome is going to be, that becomes our empirical knowledge. In this case, seeing is believing, but it is possible that other senses may be involved in the process. 
For example, a simple act like playing an instrument can be called empirical knowledge. By pressing a certain piano key, somebody who has been playing the piano for a while will know what that key is going to sound like, which could potentially explain how professional piano players can play the piano with their eyes closed; their sense of touch and hearing have developed to such an extent that they no longer have the necessity of using their sense of sight. But of course when somebody is just beginning to learn how to play the piano, more often than not, they tend to observe their fingers as they play and rely on their eyes to aid them. 
Also, when something grand happens, people tend to say, "you have to believe me, I saw it with my own eyes!", thus implying that seeing is believing as well. 

On the contrary, there are times when people see things differently from one another, which was the case in the 1978, when Muybridge's photographs of a galloping horse were used to justify whether all four feet of a galloping horse are ever off the ground at the same time. 


The painting above illustrates how Jean Louis Theodore Gericault pictured the galloping horses. However, Muybridge's photographs (below) showed that the legs actually faced inwards and gathered together as they were off the ground, proving Gericault's belief wrong. 

This calls our sight into question. 

Furthermore, when scientists are carrying out an experiment for the very first time, their hypothesis may be proven wrong after conducting the laboratory practice.

This calls our beliefs into question. 

As redundant and illogical I may sound, what we believe in does not necessarily have to be logical or real. Every person is entitled to their own opinion and therefore even if a person thinks that a piano is supposed to sound a certain way, and finds a piano with a different tune to what they thought they knew, that does not imply that they are wrong. 
Belief is something which is not constant and can be influenced by its surroundings, and sight is just as vulnerable and prone to change as belief is. So you may see a flower and believe it's a daisy, but somebody else might look at it and  believe it's a dandelion. Unless scientific experiments are conducted to find out the species of the particular flower, it will be unknown to both of them, although they might stick to their respective speculations about the flower type. 
What I am trying to say is that neither belief or sight should be trusted as neither of those elements are uninfluenced by our surroundings. This idea can be seen in the following quote:

If you put a Cheeto on a big white plate in a formal restaurant and serve it with chopsticks and say something like “It is a cornmeal quenelle, extruded at a high speed, and so the extrusion heats the cornmeal ‘polenta’ and flash-cooks it, trapping air and giving it a crispy texture with a striking lightness. It is then dusted with an ‘umami powder’ glutamate and evaporated-dairy-solids blend.” People would go just nuts for that.

— Jeb Boniakowksi

It can therefore be said that "seeing is believing" is a superficial and vague saying- or at least, that's how I see it. I don't know about what your belief is though, because clearly, there are different ways to look at it... 

Language and thought

Benjamin Lee Whorf claimed that our mother tongue restricts what we are able to think, and I personally feel compelled to declare that our language and thought are simply two portions of communication, and even if there is a correlation between the two aspects, one is not the determining factor for the other.  

Firstly, we must keep in mind that our mother tongue does not defy who we are as people, however, it may give us insights to a particular culture where the language originates from. Therefore unlike Worf's theory I believe that our mother tongue will only expand, intensify and broaden our thoughts and imagination, but in no way will it restrict or disrupt the way the way we think.  Furthermore, taking into account that I have been subjected to various languages over the course of my life, I must say that knowing more than one language strengthens you as a person and prepares you to face the brisk and radically globalised world. 

For example, the Japanese language is spoken throughout Japan but the Northern dialect (the Japanese spoken in Hokkaido or Akita) will differ incredibly to the southern dialect of Okinawa. Also, the Japanese which is used when speaking to an elder person, a person who is respected, or somebody you do not know very well (teachers, guests, even cashiers at supermarkets), known as "keigo" or "teineigo" (which literally would translate to polite language), would not even be possible to compare to "kenjougo", or colloquial language. 

In contrast, the native Paraguayan language, Guarani, has only one form in which it is spoken. Whether you are speaking to the president or a peasant, the language remains consistent. Now, this does not imply that politeness is nonexistent in the Paraguayan culture, which brings us to the next question- can a concept exist without words to describe it? As seen in the following links, evidently not. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13452711

http://www.economist.com/node/3104346

Language, therefore, is nothing but a medium of transmission of information from one another. It does not control our minds, nor does it construct a barrier to the depth in our ability to imagine. 

1984- George Orwell

Why is the ruthless totalitarian regime, described in Orwell’s novel purging Oldspeak and imposing Newspeak? What assumptions are being made about the relationship between language and thought?

The extract from the novel depicts two men, one of whom is a "philologist, a specialist in Newspeak." The entire concept of Newspeak is to simplify and "destroy" words, that is, discard the diction which are thought to be unnecessary. It's aim is to ultimately narrow down the range of vocabulary as well as the depth of knowledge, because according to their beliefs, as long as there are no words to describe one's state or mind, situation etc, the inexplicable situation would be nonexistent and surreal.