MUMBAI MIRROR, dated April 29th, Page: 50- Mind Chow
" Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking."
K@W:
The source of the above phrase is the Mumbai Mirror newspaper, dated April 29th. The character an individual portrays is governed by reason. What does 'he' think of me? How do 'I' look? However, when no one is looking the character brought out by an individual is purely based on emotion. Reason is shunned away as the individual when alone is free and not being looked at or judged. Therefore, emotions burst out and generally individuals do rather strange things when alone. For example: In the past the Moghul emperor Shah Jahan in front of his subjects portrayed himself as a ruthless demon, who everyone should fear. However, when alo ne, he would spend time with his wife and duaghters and portray himself as a family man. It is ethical to some extent, to use reason to portray one's character in public as emotions can drive people to express unparliamentary behavior. It is difficult, rather unfair for emotions to be dominated 24x7 by reason. Therefore, when alone emotions are expressed to the fullest, without any restrictions. The clichéd saying 'Never judge a book by its cover' is apt in this context. What an individual portrays his/her character to be, may not be his/her true self. And, because of what he/she portrays, the opposite person eventually frames a character of him/her which may or may not be true. Thus, they are judged. For example: If a student sees a long mathematics problem, he will at first sight think that the sum will be difficult, even thought the sum may be easy, and he will not solve the sum. Similarly, individuals are generally not what theyu show. Aperson who appears to be very finicky about things, may actually be very relaxed.
The biased in this situation is towards people's characters when no one is looking. I am for the phrase. Nobody likes to be judged therefore, people express their emotions only when no one is looking. Many boys, like to appear as macho men, but at home they will br the ones who stick to their mother's skirts. The boys who hate to kiss their mothers in public may actually appear to be mama's boys. Characters are only images of individuals, they change during different situations, therefore, no one can tell if an individual is expressing his/her true character or not.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
TOK-Reflection
Emotions are feelings that are expressed by different physical actions. However, they can also be felt without being expressed. Emtions can lead a person to become astray, therefore they must be kept under control. They are influenced by many external and internal factors, such as hormones (internally) and circumstances (externally). For example: a vine snake when angry tyrns its green scales to black. Because, the snake feels angry, a certain hormone is released, which inturn makes the snakes body black, thus, the prey/victim can recognise that the snake is angry (or has changed its emotion). Another example as to how hormones affect emotions and lead to physical symptoms: when an individual is embarrased his face turns red. Emotions are inborn and can also be cultivated. Even if an individual is not happy, if he/she mechanically smiles and makes a conscious effort to retain the smile then due to habbit the person will start smiling naturally and sooner or later will start feeling happy. Even though the James Lange Theory is absurd the two main apects prove to be true.
The first being, to remove the physical symtoms to make emotions dissapear. For example: After failing in an exam if an individual is sad- the physical symtoms will be:
i) He/She will want to cry
ii)He/She will worry about the consequences
iii) He/She will loose hope of doing well
So, if we remove all these physical symptoms then there will be no element of sadness.
The second being, if one can mimic the physical symptoms, one can generate the corresponding emotions. For example, if a person will continuosly have a scowl on his/her face, then after a while, at the drop of a hat, he/she will get irritated and angry, even if they do not feel angry.
The first being, to remove the physical symtoms to make emotions dissapear. For example: After failing in an exam if an individual is sad- the physical symtoms will be:
i) He/She will want to cry
ii)He/She will worry about the consequences
iii) He/She will loose hope of doing well
So, if we remove all these physical symptoms then there will be no element of sadness.
The second being, if one can mimic the physical symptoms, one can generate the corresponding emotions. For example, if a person will continuosly have a scowl on his/her face, then after a while, at the drop of a hat, he/she will get irritated and angry, even if they do not feel angry.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
K@W 4
The Media source chosen by me is an article which has been sent to me in an e-mail format.
To: CRN.WRO.NotesUsers@areva-td.com
Subject: Story of the Day - Wednesday (22nd April, 2009)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:56:05 +0530
The e-mail was as follows:
And this is true! The prize doesn't always go to the most deserving; it goes to those who want to push the agenda.
In May 2008, a 98 year-old Polish lady named Irena Sendler died.
During WWII, she got permission to work in the Warsaw Ghetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist but she had an ulterior motive. She KNEW of the Nazi's plans for the Jews. Irena smuggled infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried and, in the back of her truck, she had a burlap sack for the larger children. She had a dog in the back of the truck that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto. The soldiers wanted nothing to do with the dog and the barking covered the noise of the children. She managed to smuggle out and save 2,500 children before she was caught; the Nazis broke both her legs and her arms and beat her severely.
Irena kept a record of the names of all the children that she smuggled out which she kept in a glass jar buried under a tree in her back yard. After the War, she tried to locate any parents that had survived and reunited the families. Most, of course, had been gassed but she helped those children to be placed into foster family homes or adopted.
In 2007, Irena was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize but was not selected. Al Gore won - for a slide show on Global Warming!
K@W:
The above article was sent to me via e-mail. The source is: CRN.WRO.NotesUsers@areva-td.com. Irena Sendler's motive to rescue the Jews from the clutches of the Nazi's was purely driven by emotion. However, the way in which she planed her moves to rescue them was done with reason. In this case, it is clear that the outcome of her doings were fruitful as both emotion and reason worked antagonistic to each other. Even though she did a good deed by saving the lives of the Jews, was it ethical for her to lie that she would work as a plumber in the ghetto, but actually smuggle people. In life and death situations morals and ethics are generally not thought about, in fact no future planning is made. Only the current step is thought about. If her emotions woulf have only dominated her, then it would be unethical to lie and smuggle Jews, as there would be logic or rational thought behind her motives. It is beacuse she used emotion only as a stimulus and worked with reason, her motives were ethical.
Even in dangerous situations, such as this, Art plays an important role. She had the skill to train the dog to bark when a Nazi was approaching. Without this talent of traning the dog, her plan would have been a failure as she would have been caught easily. Throught the article it is not mentioned that she used any weapons or arms to smuugle the Jews. The language used by Ms. Irena was non violent and in turn she was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. During the war, she smuggled children without using the languae of warfare. Now, this also is an art. To control anger and violence and use the language of peace during warfare is a classic example of art and language are linked to each other.
The bias in this situation is that Irena Sendler should have won the Noble Peace Prize. She put her life in danger so as to help the Jews escape, in addition, after the war she reunited the children with thier respective parents and the ones who did not have parents, she arranged for them foster homes. However, she did not win the Peace Prize, which is unfair as her motive saved many lives. The most important reason for why she should have won the prize was beacause she used the language of peace during warfare and saved many Jews.
To: CRN.WRO.NotesUsers@areva-td.com
Subject: Story of the Day - Wednesday (22nd April, 2009)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:56:05 +0530
The e-mail was as follows:
And this is true! The prize doesn't always go to the most deserving; it goes to those who want to push the agenda.
In May 2008, a 98 year-old Polish lady named Irena Sendler died.
During WWII, she got permission to work in the Warsaw Ghetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist but she had an ulterior motive. She KNEW of the Nazi's plans for the Jews. Irena smuggled infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried and, in the back of her truck, she had a burlap sack for the larger children. She had a dog in the back of the truck that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto. The soldiers wanted nothing to do with the dog and the barking covered the noise of the children. She managed to smuggle out and save 2,500 children before she was caught; the Nazis broke both her legs and her arms and beat her severely.
Irena kept a record of the names of all the children that she smuggled out which she kept in a glass jar buried under a tree in her back yard. After the War, she tried to locate any parents that had survived and reunited the families. Most, of course, had been gassed but she helped those children to be placed into foster family homes or adopted.
In 2007, Irena was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize but was not selected. Al Gore won - for a slide show on Global Warming!
K@W:
The above article was sent to me via e-mail. The source is: CRN.WRO.NotesUsers@areva-td.com. Irena Sendler's motive to rescue the Jews from the clutches of the Nazi's was purely driven by emotion. However, the way in which she planed her moves to rescue them was done with reason. In this case, it is clear that the outcome of her doings were fruitful as both emotion and reason worked antagonistic to each other. Even though she did a good deed by saving the lives of the Jews, was it ethical for her to lie that she would work as a plumber in the ghetto, but actually smuggle people. In life and death situations morals and ethics are generally not thought about, in fact no future planning is made. Only the current step is thought about. If her emotions woulf have only dominated her, then it would be unethical to lie and smuggle Jews, as there would be logic or rational thought behind her motives. It is beacuse she used emotion only as a stimulus and worked with reason, her motives were ethical.
Even in dangerous situations, such as this, Art plays an important role. She had the skill to train the dog to bark when a Nazi was approaching. Without this talent of traning the dog, her plan would have been a failure as she would have been caught easily. Throught the article it is not mentioned that she used any weapons or arms to smuugle the Jews. The language used by Ms. Irena was non violent and in turn she was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. During the war, she smuggled children without using the languae of warfare. Now, this also is an art. To control anger and violence and use the language of peace during warfare is a classic example of art and language are linked to each other.
The bias in this situation is that Irena Sendler should have won the Noble Peace Prize. She put her life in danger so as to help the Jews escape, in addition, after the war she reunited the children with thier respective parents and the ones who did not have parents, she arranged for them foster homes. However, she did not win the Peace Prize, which is unfair as her motive saved many lives. The most important reason for why she should have won the prize was beacause she used the language of peace during warfare and saved many Jews.
Monday, April 20, 2009
TOK-Reflection
Q) What is a man driven by, reason or emotion?
Ans) Both.
Q) But which is more logical?
Ans) Reason.
Q) And which is more common?
Ans) Emotion.
Generally it is misinterpreted and thought that reason and emotion are the same. However, they are not. Reason is logical as well as rational thinking. Whereas emotion involves no thinking. Nevertheless, ironically both involve questioning. For example: If a person does not want to cheat in an examination and he /she questions himself/herself:
'Why do I not want to cheat in an exam?'
Answer:
Using Emotion:
'Because I do not want to be dishonest and become the talk of the school if caught.'
OR
Using Reason:
'Because I do not want to get caught and loose marks.'
Generally, reason is misunderstood. Agreed, reason can limit or narrow down freedom and make
many ristrictions but it does nat mean people should over power reason with emotion. Because emotion does not always lead an individual in a correct direction. For example: If two sibblings are given their father's property and the elder son gets more property then:
i) If controlled by reason the younger sibbling will understand that beacuse his brother is older, he will get more of the property.
ii) If driven by emotion the younger sibbling will at first feel sad, then jealous, then angry and soon will start hating his elder brother.
Therefore, if emotion gets control of the mind it is poisonous as there is no base of thinking/ no thought process will take place. Everything is based on ones personal likes and dislikes which creates a bias. Therefore, practical reasoning is a must and emotion should only follow - never overrule reason.
Ans) Both.
Q) But which is more logical?
Ans) Reason.
Q) And which is more common?
Ans) Emotion.
Generally it is misinterpreted and thought that reason and emotion are the same. However, they are not. Reason is logical as well as rational thinking. Whereas emotion involves no thinking. Nevertheless, ironically both involve questioning. For example: If a person does not want to cheat in an examination and he /she questions himself/herself:
'Why do I not want to cheat in an exam?'
Answer:
Using Emotion:
'Because I do not want to be dishonest and become the talk of the school if caught.'
OR
Using Reason:
'Because I do not want to get caught and loose marks.'
Generally, reason is misunderstood. Agreed, reason can limit or narrow down freedom and make
many ristrictions but it does nat mean people should over power reason with emotion. Because emotion does not always lead an individual in a correct direction. For example: If two sibblings are given their father's property and the elder son gets more property then:
i) If controlled by reason the younger sibbling will understand that beacuse his brother is older, he will get more of the property.
ii) If driven by emotion the younger sibbling will at first feel sad, then jealous, then angry and soon will start hating his elder brother.
Therefore, if emotion gets control of the mind it is poisonous as there is no base of thinking/ no thought process will take place. Everything is based on ones personal likes and dislikes which creates a bias. Therefore, practical reasoning is a must and emotion should only follow - never overrule reason.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
TOK-Rationalism
Rationalism:
Taking a hypothetical situation with one real life incident:
Powerful Emotions:
M.F.Hussain is an artist and one of his paintings depicts Lord Krishna (a Hindu God) naked. This hurts the sentiments of the Hare Rama Hare Krishna Sect (a group of people who are devotees of Lord Krishna). They are angry and disgusted with the artist M.F.Hussain.
Biased Perception:
The sect recognises majority of the paintings as blasphemous or insulting to Gods and they do not appreciate any other painting even though it is good.
Fallacious Reasoning:
The sect states that art is a medium by which people express their indignity towards God and all paintings are insulting God.
Emotive Language:
Hence the sect concludes that art should be band and all artists paint obscene pictures of God.
Taking a hypothetical situation with one real life incident:
Powerful Emotions:
M.F.Hussain is an artist and one of his paintings depicts Lord Krishna (a Hindu God) naked. This hurts the sentiments of the Hare Rama Hare Krishna Sect (a group of people who are devotees of Lord Krishna). They are angry and disgusted with the artist M.F.Hussain.
Biased Perception:
The sect recognises majority of the paintings as blasphemous or insulting to Gods and they do not appreciate any other painting even though it is good.
Fallacious Reasoning:
The sect states that art is a medium by which people express their indignity towards God and all paintings are insulting God.
Emotive Language:
Hence the sect concludes that art should be band and all artists paint obscene pictures of God.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Tok-article: You Said It
B.D. Somani International School
Name: Shreyas P Pardiwalla
Grade: 11
Tutor Group No. : 5
Subject: Theory Of Knowledge (TOK)
You Said It- by R K Laxman (The Times of India, dated April 9, 2009- Pg 1)
The media source is The Times of India, dated April 9, 2009. The knowledge claim of the media source is: The legitimate means to show disagreement. Is it ethical to hurl a shoe at a politician or any other human being in order to express ones disagreement? The cartoonist R K Laxman has used satire and in order to ridicule and mock people in the world of politics.
Recently, Jarnail Sing a journalist hurled a shoe at the home minister P Chidambaram to demonstrate his protest against the CBI giving a clean chit to Jagdish Tytler, a Congress candidate, in a 1984 anti-Sikh riot case. The shoe missed the home minister and he gained composure and urged security men to be gentle with the furious Sikh. The cartoonist with lampoon shows a speaker hurling the shoe back in rage. It is not a new mania to fling shoes or any type of footwear in political gatherings. In fact, in India it goes back to the times when Bal Gangadhar Tilak an aggressive nationalist flung his slipper at Pheroz Shah Metha a moderate to lodge his protest at moderate action against the British rule. Recently the flinging of footwear seems to be a maniacal trend not only in India, but also around the world. A shoe was hurled at former US President George Bush by Muntazer al-Zaidi last December in Baghdad, the Chinese PM Wen Jiabao had a shoe hurled at him buy a German student at Cambridge in February, in March, the Iranian President was also targeted and on March 21st , a sandal was hurled at the SC judge Arijit Pasayat in court.
However, in my view, there is a difference between the actions then and the current actions. Tilak flung his slipper in order to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words and just by making speeches and petitions, India would not get her independence. According to Tilak force was required to liberate India from the British rule. On the other hand, in this recent affair, Jarnail Singh got sentimental and thus, flung his shoe at the home minister. His emotions overpowered his reason and therefore, he was lead to commit such an act. Whereas in the case of Tilak, in my view, even though the action was crude it was to make a point and an expression used to communicate that only aggressive measures would lead to independence. Similarly, for more or less the same reason Sardar Bhagat Singh bombed the assembly. His actions were not to inflict harm on people but to make noise loud enough so that even the deaf British and their supporters in the assembly could hear the cry for independence. However, is it legitimate to hurl shoe’s at an individual in order to state one’s point of disapproval?
In my opinion, if the reason is viable and apt such as that of Tilak’s, then yes, I agree that hurling shoes maybe legitimate, but if this act is done out of uncontrolled emotions, then I disagree with this action. Nevertheless, is it still ethical? No, (without any exceptions). A distinction between the action of a Tilak and the actions of a Jarnail Singh’s or some of the other similar actions, I have described about is of course a point of view and open to debate. In all these acts, the shoe flingers clearly demonstrate their bias towards their cause -legitimate or otherwise must be assessed by each individual independently.
*Note: Some information is taken from the Times of India dated April 8, 2009.
Name: Shreyas P Pardiwalla
Grade: 11
Tutor Group No. : 5
Subject: Theory Of Knowledge (TOK)
You Said It- by R K Laxman (The Times of India, dated April 9, 2009- Pg 1)
The media source is The Times of India, dated April 9, 2009. The knowledge claim of the media source is: The legitimate means to show disagreement. Is it ethical to hurl a shoe at a politician or any other human being in order to express ones disagreement? The cartoonist R K Laxman has used satire and in order to ridicule and mock people in the world of politics.
Recently, Jarnail Sing a journalist hurled a shoe at the home minister P Chidambaram to demonstrate his protest against the CBI giving a clean chit to Jagdish Tytler, a Congress candidate, in a 1984 anti-Sikh riot case. The shoe missed the home minister and he gained composure and urged security men to be gentle with the furious Sikh. The cartoonist with lampoon shows a speaker hurling the shoe back in rage. It is not a new mania to fling shoes or any type of footwear in political gatherings. In fact, in India it goes back to the times when Bal Gangadhar Tilak an aggressive nationalist flung his slipper at Pheroz Shah Metha a moderate to lodge his protest at moderate action against the British rule. Recently the flinging of footwear seems to be a maniacal trend not only in India, but also around the world. A shoe was hurled at former US President George Bush by Muntazer al-Zaidi last December in Baghdad, the Chinese PM Wen Jiabao had a shoe hurled at him buy a German student at Cambridge in February, in March, the Iranian President was also targeted and on March 21st , a sandal was hurled at the SC judge Arijit Pasayat in court.
However, in my view, there is a difference between the actions then and the current actions. Tilak flung his slipper in order to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words and just by making speeches and petitions, India would not get her independence. According to Tilak force was required to liberate India from the British rule. On the other hand, in this recent affair, Jarnail Singh got sentimental and thus, flung his shoe at the home minister. His emotions overpowered his reason and therefore, he was lead to commit such an act. Whereas in the case of Tilak, in my view, even though the action was crude it was to make a point and an expression used to communicate that only aggressive measures would lead to independence. Similarly, for more or less the same reason Sardar Bhagat Singh bombed the assembly. His actions were not to inflict harm on people but to make noise loud enough so that even the deaf British and their supporters in the assembly could hear the cry for independence. However, is it legitimate to hurl shoe’s at an individual in order to state one’s point of disapproval?
In my opinion, if the reason is viable and apt such as that of Tilak’s, then yes, I agree that hurling shoes maybe legitimate, but if this act is done out of uncontrolled emotions, then I disagree with this action. Nevertheless, is it still ethical? No, (without any exceptions). A distinction between the action of a Tilak and the actions of a Jarnail Singh’s or some of the other similar actions, I have described about is of course a point of view and open to debate. In all these acts, the shoe flingers clearly demonstrate their bias towards their cause -legitimate or otherwise must be assessed by each individual independently.
*Note: Some information is taken from the Times of India dated April 8, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)