How can the different ways of knowing help us to distinguish between something that is true and something that is believed to be true?

By using different ways of knowing, we can distinguish between something that is true and something that is believed to be true. In order to express these distinctions, personal experiences, their implications, and their counterclaims are needed to be stated. For something to be “true” it must be public, eternal, and independent. If the “truth” does not follow these guidelines then it can not be “true.” The ways of knowing that something is “true” is comprehended by one’s own perception, language, reason and emotion. With these “ways of knowing” than the “truth” can, in theory, be understood.
Perception is one of the most broad and vague ways of knowing. It is hard for someone and another to have the same “perception” of an object or event. Take example that Jimmy, a young yet intellectual boy who wears glasses, has just seen the biggest bully Bob assault the youngest and smallest kid in school Fred. Their teacher comes over and asks the three boys what happened. According to Bob, Fred fell and received the bruises that way; Fred says that he was attacked by Bob; and Jimmy states that, due to his glasses fogging up, that Bob had inflicted the pain to himself. This vagueness is why the judicial system takes so much time to resolve problems between one party and another. This has implication due our ability to not ever “know” the whole “truth”. The cause of not “knowing,” due to inability to not see “everything,” leads to the effect of problems between us and our kin based solely on our perception of the events that took place. According to the definition of “truth” is that it must be public, eternal and independent and thus begins the problems of “knowing” between Jimmy, Bob, and Fred. The fact that there was a fight and Jimmy watch is public and everyone “knows” thus the first part of “truth” is correct. Eternal works as well due to that point in time there was an incident between those three boys. Lastly it was independent from all outside sources, however the problem arises with what is “true” and who believes that their story is “true.” Bob believes it was not his fault; Fred believes that he was attacked by Bob; and Jimmy believes that Fred did it all to himself. This causes the problem of who “knows” the “truth.” The teacher, being unbiased of course, has no real way of “knowing” who the culprit is based off what the children believe to be “true”. This has global implications as well for cultures perceive things differently than that of another culture. Take example the United States and Japan; the United States shakes each other hands when greeting someone politely were as in Japan they would bow to each other first. This could cause a massive global conflict if for example the United States offends the Japanese Councilor at the United Nations due to not bowing when greeting. As a counterclaim, someone could say that just using perception as a tool for “knowing” is simple not enough. Also perception just is not solely based off the ability of someone to see something but the usage of all five senses. The ability to use the five senses would be the correct way in order to learn the “true.” There is no real way of “knowing” something solely off the assumption of our perception and there is no real “truth,” rather just a collection of “believed truths” that we choose to be the “truth.” Vladimir Lenin stated that “a lie told often enough become the truth.” We want to believe that we have found the “truth” and we will not stop look for that “truth.” Yet how can we communicate this “knowledge?” Thus we need the usage of language and its imprecations in “truth.”
Language plays an important role in our lives. We created this tool to pass on the “knowledge” of others, empirical, and thru this we “learn.” With Vladimir Lenin’s previous quote can be applied to language as well. The winners of wars are the one’s that create the history. It happens to every culture and every civilization that every existed with the ability to record their history. This has global implications that can be recognized off the fact that if a war were to be started and ended than the victory most like would right about how “morally righteous” their country was and how their opposition, the losing country, was. Now as a counter argument to that claim would be that maybe the country was “telling the truth” but then we are right back to the beginning in where “how do we really know what we know?” Can that country account for every action that each one of its civilians, and, or army infantry did during the course of the war? Most likely neither county could. Therefore they can not “truly know” based off their beliefs or their “truths.” This in conjecture with perception is adequate but not 100 per cent sufficient in “knowing” something. We add a third way of knowing: reason.
Reasoning skills are a hard thing to explain about it terms of how we “know” something. Some things can be taught and thus learned by reasoning: putting your hand down on a hot pan thus teaches us to not do it again because it hurts. However when it comes to reasoning skills with moral can be hard to comprehend. One person may see that killing a human is wrong, were as a military general may see the killing of a human a necessity. Bishop Beilby Porteus states that “one murder made a villain; millions a hero.” Is he telling the “truth?” Do we glorify war? The implication of reasoning is of the greatest importance because it literally comes down to our inner instincts. In contrast how should we let our animalistic emotions control us or should we have a higher level of “knowledge?” Can any creature or object ever obtain such a thing? Do we or will we ever “know?” In my option, I believe not; then again what do I “know?”
Emotion is the final piece to the puzzle of knowledge. With the raw passion with what emotion is cannot be simply summed up or described with words along. How can we describe what an emotion is between people? Take for example the emotion of “love.” One passionate couple may explain there definition of what “love” is, however if a restaurant owner was asked the same question he or she may say that their “love” is their restaurant. Hence this gives us the emotion of sympathy towards dictionary writers. Describing such a raw and passionate feeling is incredible. Globally how can one culture translate the emotion of “love” from one culture to another? Our love could not possibly be the same as someone in Russia or India. Is emotion something that we are born with, or grow into? We will never “know,” yet this is the final piece of ways of knowing and thus while using all four pieces of “knowledge” stills leaves us with the belief that we will never “truly know.”
The difference between truth and believed truth can only be answered thru the ways of knowing. The problem is that there is more than one answer. By assuming that there is a finite answer undermines the whole idea of our “ways of knowing.” The age old question of the creation of life has been the greatest battle between science and religion. Who is to say that one side is “right” and one side is “wrong” when we ourselves do not even “know.” There is no “obtainable truth”, only the “truth” that we “believe to be true.”

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact.
Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” -Marcus Aurelius

The Elephant Man

Please consider the David Lynch film, The Elephant Man, to answer the following questions.

1. (A) Is John Merrick a Monster? In your answer, consider how you could use the following Areas of Knowledge to justify your claims.
a) History- The past has many monters that can be aquainted to. John Merrick is not a monster but because he is abnormal everyone assumes that he is evil and thus a monster. However this does not make him a monsters because of what he looks like, people just assume that he is a monster.

b) Natural Science- His diformaty is the reason why people assume that he is a monster. Just because his physical features are different does not mean that he is evil. People are afriad of what they don't know or assume to know.

c) Social Science- John Merrick never talks to anyone and only "understands" basic forms of commands even though he is very intelligient and chooses to ignore what people say about him.

d) The Arts- It would be said that John is a Monster because he is not like a human. Yet he is capable of creating a miniature church and thus has the human ability of "the Arts." This is why he is human and not a monster rather than being a monster.

1. (B) What is the counter-claim for each Area of Knowledge?
a- The past shows that monsters are abnormal and clearly John is abonormal thus he is a monster.
b- Because his is diformed people assume that he is not human and as our species thrived basically by the survival of the fitest enables people to assume that he is a monster.
c-John's choice of not talking gives people the sence that he is not human and thus a monster due to his lack of communication.
d-The Arts can be a good thing for a human but people would see his arts as a way to become part of the human society and they would exile him as a monster.'

2. John Merrick claimed, "I am not an animal, I am a human being?" What does he mean? How does he know?
He is human by birth and has human blood in him. His mother was human and so was his father. Therefore he is human. Due to his physical features though buts him as an animal in other people's minds. He knows that he is human because he had a picture of his mother who is human.

3. Dr. Treves claimed, "Am I a good man, or am I a bad man?" What does he mean? How does he know?
He means that he is reminded by the other man who had John as a circus freak who only used him to gain money and fame. Dr. Treves feels the same way because he is helping John but at the same time feels like he is using John as a way to become famous, just like the circus man.

4. What role does the herd mentality play in the film? Please be specific in your answers.
It shows that animals and mankind like to stay together in groups. Everything that has a group can stay in that group and feel like they have a purpose. However John is by himselp with no group to accociate with.

5. How did the community react to the different Monsters in the film? Please explain your answer.
They liked the man who used John as a way to make a living by entering John's home and showing him off to othre people. The man who was at the circus was treated differently because some people enjoyed seeing the elephant man and some didn't. The one's that didn't were mad at the circus man for keeping John in captivity.

6. John Merrick claims, "We are afraid of what we don't understand." Do you agree? Does this statement apply to the modern world or have we learned to treat perceived Monsters with dignity? Please be specific in your answer.
Yes this is true. Mankind has a way of always wanting to find the answer and when they are givin a problem that they do not know about they become afraid and thus is the case with John. They believe his is a monster. This applies to the modern world too because its basic human nature.

Justification

Plato believed that there are 4 ways to Justify:

A) Empiricism
B) Reason (Both Inductive and Deductive)
C) Authority
D) Memory

Questions:

1. After learning about how the Bosnian War began and the role ofKaradzic and Milosovic, was it fair for the Independent to use the word "Monster".

Yes due to Karadzic and Milosivic slaughtered all those people in order to "cleans" the country of Yugoslavia.

2. How do you think this phrase would be justified, according to Plato? Use specific examples from the reading and the documentary, The Death of Yugoslavia, to justify your claims.
The calling of them as being "Monsters" is justified through Empirical Reasoning skills because we clearly saw the video of his in Yugoslavia talking to the nationalist and defending them. Unless the movie was created with digital effects than there is a good chance that it is valid source of knowledge.

3. When the term Monster is used, what do you think it means. (You can look it up in the dictionary, but as you know, that has limitations).
A destructive object, either a person or object, that soul person is to cause harm. My definition.

It will be important to skim both articles again, in light of what you now know.

4. Has your answer changed since your first entry? Why or why not?

No because the evidence produced not only backs up what I believed before but it emphases what was already previously mentioned.

Karadzic is a Monster? How do we know?

The Independent refers to Karadzic as a "Monster." Think back to last year and consider: "How do they know what they know?" How have they attempted to justify their knowledge claims? Please be specific.

The author "knows what he knows" based on Knowledge by Empiricism and Knowledge by Acquaintance, "He emphasizes that he spent time in prison in Communist Yugoslavia, and implies [Empiricism] that this was because he was an opponent of the regime. It has, however, also been reported [Acquaintance] that he was, in reality, jailed in connection with fraud." Also Knowledge by Empiricism is later used when Karadzic is quoted "'We (the Serbs) have no snipers.' (The sniper deaths were, according to this version, deliberate acts of provocation by the Bosnians themselves.) He insisted, too, that there were 'no civilians' in the Serb-run detention camps in Bosnia." Due to Karadzic saying that he doesn't have any snipers means he is informing us with knowledge. They have attempted to justify their knowledge claims by "people's accounts" of what happen, even though we do not "know" if these accounts have any merit or not, therefore we have to come to our own conclusions and "knowledge" of Karadzic.