ToK Essay

Question:
“We see and understand things not as they are but as we are.” Discuss this claim in relation to at least two ways of knowing.

Center name: Markham College

Candidate number: 000633 - 021

Candidate name: Alonso Elías Garrido Pinzás

Word count: 1550

Lima, Perú

Freudian psychologists say that our adulthood depends closely on our childhood experiences, so, in other words, that what we are about to live depends on what we’ve already passed through. This has various serious implications, such as the fact that we see and understand things not as they are but as we are, leading onto a whole range of possibilities for different interpretations of things and events. In other words, our interpretation of things is naturally subjective; throughout this essay I will evaluate the above statement by relating it to the different ways of knowing

.
Addressing my initial knowledge issue, whether we understand things as they are or as we are, we have to first define what makes us what we are. There has been a long time discussed debate between psychologists addressing this point: are we molded by our environments or by our genes, or is it a combination of both. Both the biological perspective and the learning perspective assumed deterministic positions, not wanting to accept the double nature of humans. In the end it was accepted by psychologists that people were forged both by their biological backpacks (genes) and their environments, both being very important in the upbringing or molding of a human being. So we can assume that we are as we are because of these two factors.

Sense perception is the first barrier between ourselves and the things around us, so that what we first receive from our environment is first processed by our senses. This directly leads us into the possible limitations or handicaps a person can have; for example, if two persons, one with perfect sight and the other with impaired vision, are asked to describe an object by looking at it with their bare eyes, their descriptions may be similar, but will differ at some degree, depending on the personal characteristics of the participants.

If an audience is enjoying the performance of an amateur school choir and between them is someone with perfect pitch, he may notice some errors in the songs performed while the others have no clue about them. Different people may train their senses in different ways, depending on their necessities in life, or their past experiences, as an artist can distinguish different types of yellow from Van Gogh’s Still life: Vase with twelve sunflowers and a sculptor can feel different textures and be able to separate them. A blind man cannot understand the world as we see it; the same happens with deaf people and subjects with any other sensitive handicaps.

The visual description now leads us to a different way of knowing: language. In the hypothetical case that both participants have perfect sight, there is no way that their descriptions of the discussed object will be equal, and for the simple reason that one may prefer using a different adjective, synonym or shade of yellow to give its description. One may prefer technical against casual vocabulary, as he may have been educated in a strict school, or may have studied law or economics, while the other may rather be subjective than objective due to his possible, purely artistic upbringing. And now, the range of possible connotations or implications given by the use of one single word depend on both the speaker and the hearer; one may describe one activity as “thrilling” because it was so much fun, but this same word may instantly flash Michael Jackson’s song “Thriller” into the others mind, changing the whole message.

Now, the cultural implications added by simply using the word “thrilling” in fact depend on the interlocutor’s cultural background; this now shows how language is closely related to the person’s upbringing. A local indian living in the Andes that has never heard about “Thriller” nor Michael Jackson would never think about it by hearing the word “Thrilling” being pronounced by an English-speaking subject; in fact, he may not even know English. In the same way, the word “potato” for a North American could mean “what French fries are made of”, while “papa” (Spanish for potato) for this same Andes local indian could mean “the generic name for one of a huge variety of different potato crops we have to harvest ”.

Both Spanish and English speaking people have a background culture that puts a great importance on how “good” or “bad” something is. On the other hand, as we may have seen in movies such as The Godfather, Italians and Italian speaking people rather focus on the beauty of the object or subject in question, so, where we would usually say “that’s good” or “que bueno”, an Italian would say “que bello” (how beautiful).

In the previous case we were looking at how different cultures attribute things with different words, but now we will compare the meaning of the same word, but for different people. Western cultures usually name and understand things for their appearance and practical significance; in English (and Spanish too), the word for spider (or araña) basically means “8 legged insect”, or “arthropod that belongs to the Arachnida class”. On the other hand, Eastern cultures look at a more profound meaning of things; the Japanese word for spider is “Kumo”, and what a Japanese man would understand from it would be “intelligent insect”. The differences in content between these two words that, in theory, refer to the same thing, is abysmal; while both the English and Spanish words refer to the totally observable or scientific descriptions of spider, the Japanese word seeks for a deeper, more philosophical point of view. And this huge gap in knowledge acquired by a single word is only due to the differences in culture; the Japanese culture is well known for its mysticism and deep thinking of things, while the western cultures are known for their objectivity.

And each individual’s culture does not only affect our language and understanding or words, but our understanding, reasoning and criticism of all things, of our complete environment. This is how we move on to Reason as a way of knowing. We reason according to our mental capabilities, which were given to us by our genes and explored and exploited by our environments. We also reason according to our social positions, our culture and our values or moral fibre. Reasoning of a certain subject depends on all of these things; a mentally impaired person will not be able to proceed with common market calculations in the same way someone else may.

Hermann Nitsch is an Austrian artist best known for his performances and rituals where he paints with the blood of slaughtered cows. This may sound shocking, but it may sound reasonable or common for an artist from the same circuit, accepting it. On the other hand, an average Indian who thinks of cows as sacred animals would definitely think of this as an insult to his culture and even as sacrilege. Both have reasoned according to their own selves, their own cultures and their own upbringing, reaching diametrically opposite conclusions, but the totally objective outcome of Nitsch’s work is that he paints with cows’ blood. The object in question remained unchanged; we changed the interpreter and the dependant interpretation resulted different. So, after this small exercise of simple induction, we can say that the interpretation, the understanding of something, depends on the analyst in question.

Something similar happens when talking about emotion as a way of knowing. Emotions themselves also depend on the subjects personality, upbringing and past experiences; he or she would have to evaluate and compare a present event, object or subject with past references, to his or her believed and rooted model of love, hate and every other emotion to know and define what he or she is feeling. Someone that has lived a basically plain life will not feel in the same intense way a very experienced person could feel. This is one of the reasons why different songs appeal to different people; they can like or dislike a certain song due to the feelings they can experience or recall when listening to them.

Usually scientists try to interpret and understand things in an objective, scientific way, following the scientific method. If this were always possible, understanding of things would not always depend on the analyst but on the nature of the studied object or event, resulting on an even and equal perception of everything from everyone; but this is not the case. This is impossible on the world we live in, where everyone has different aspirations and abilities, different ideals and ideas. Even in a perfect hypothetical case, scientific analysis of something would depend on the degree of studies and “scientificness” of human beings, and due to the fact that all humans are different, this is impossible. To overcome these difficulties when trying to reach definite truth, scientist average and compare values and information with their fellow colleagues, reducing uncertainties, possible bias and subjective interpretations. In the end this is as close as we can get to achieving objective truth. In conclusion and with proof with reference to all four areas of knowledge, we can say that we indeed see and understand things not as they are, but as we are, as our personal abilities, culture, upbringing, personality and reasoning influence in the way we comprehend things.

χιονάτος

El último día del invierno, cuando se iba, Boreas, de un fuerte soplido helado, sacó al dios Zeus de una siesta profunda, quien despertó para ver frente a él a su sueño personificado en un último hijo, dormido y cansado, acostado de lado.

Le echó a ese mismo la culpa infundada de su reciente insomnia, acusándolo de robarle su somnolencia, y como castigo por tal atrevimiento, lo despojó de todo carácter divino.

Aburrido, olvidado, y desheredado de todos sus derechos olímpicos, sin nombre, y sin ninguna tarea que cumplir, se dedicó a dormir el sueño confiscado de su padre durante todo el verano. Estaba triste, pues le faltaba una madre, y yacía acurrucado en una nube esponjosa, alejada de todos (salvo de Hypnos, quien estaba orgulloso de las cualidades dormilonas del no-nombrado, por lo que lo nombró su ahijado favorito).

Seis meses inmóvil, triste en una esquina, descuidado por toda sirvienta divina, acumuló sobre él polvo, paja y mugre blanca en la cabellera que creció descontrolada desde su nacimiento, hasta que, el primer día de un nuevo invierno, volvió Boreas con su soplo eterno, y de frio se despertó el joven durmiente, sacudiendo su melena del blanco presente. Y de su pelo cayó a la tierra despacio, en el frío invernal, cubriendo todo espacio. La gente, ante el suceso no sabía qué hacer, resolviendo a sus casas entrar y desfallecer, triste ante el aislamiento y el realzado clima invernal.

Zeus, en el Olimpo, mirando hacia abajo, sorprendido por esa visión y por esa nueva invención, recordó no haber nombrado a su último hijo, y al ver la tristeza en la cara de los mortales, resolvió Quionatos nombrarlo ante tales.

"Nuevecuatrodos cien setecientosuno"

Tras la puesta del sol, luego de huir por nuestras vidas al ver la evidente e inminente crítica degeneración de la situación en el Carnaval de Barranco, tomamos un taxi. No le dio miedo vernos completamente pintados y posiblemente mojados, y nos brindó sus servicios. Estaba con ropadebaño. Me quité el polo para no mojar el respaldar y saqué mi celular del bolsillo de atrás. Lo puse en el asiento y cerré la ventana para que, junto a mis dos amigos, disfrutemos del calorcito del carro luego de haber estado caminando mojados. 

Al llegar a nuestro destino bajé del carro y, ante tanto frío, me puse rápidamente el polo. Pagamos el taxi, despedí a mis amigos y me dispuse a caminar a mi casa, sólo que, pensando en lo que iba a hacer más tarde, palpé mi bolsillo y no encontré mi celular. 

En mis 19 años, nunca había perdido un celular. Le dije al portero que, en caso de que regrese un taxista con un celular, le avisé a mi amiga. Entonces se me ocurrió llamar al celular, que afortunadamente no estaba en vibrador, y le pedí a mi amiga que llame por el intercomunicador. Cuando llegué a su departamento me dijo que no contestaba, pero intentamos una vez más y sí lo hizo. El taxista le dijo algo sobre llevarlo mañana al Sachún, y curiosamente yo vivo detrás de este. Resulta que mi mamá ya había hablado con él y habían quedado en que lo llevaba mañana. Le pregunté si porfavor podía dar la vuelta para traerlo aurita que lo necesitaba urgente. Me dijo que no me preocupara, que el igual lo iba a regresar, pero ante mi insistencia accedió. 

Esperé afuera de un edificio sanisidrino por unos cinco minutos cubierto de pintura, descalzo (para no resfriarme por el agua acumulada), hasta que llegó el taxista. Cuadró, bajó la luna y me pasó el celular. Ni siquiera me pidió plata. Me repitió que él de todas maneras iba a devolverlo. Le dije que por personas como él el Perú estaba mejorando. Qué bestia. Le pagué la carrera y le pedí su teléfono. 

Taxi Rafael:
"Nuevecuatrodos cien setecientosuno"

Se fue y un carro de Serenazgo me vino a intervenir. Les expliqué de donde venía y que había estado esperando al taxista para que me devuelva mi celular. No podían creer que me lo devolvió.