tok essay title 4 may 2022

IB ToK Essay Titles and Topics: May 2022

Here are links to ideas and suggestions relating to the the six May 2022 IB ToK Essay topics:

• Topic 1. Can there be knowledge that is independent of culture? Discuss with reference to mathematics and one other area of knowledge.
• Topic 2. To what extent do you agree with the claim that "there’s a world of difference between truth and facts". (Maya Angelou) Answer with reference to two areas of knowledge.
• Topic 3. Is there solid justification for regarding knowledge in the natural sciences more highly than another area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.
• Topic 4. How do historians and human scientists give knowledge meaning through the telling of stories? Discuss with reference to history and the human sciences.
• Topic 5. How can we distinguish between good and bad interpretations? Discuss with reference to the arts and one other area of knowledge.
• Topic 6. If we conclude that there is some knowledge we should not pursue on ethical grounds, how can we determine the boundaries of acceptable investigation within an area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Title 1: Can there be knowledge that is independent of culture? Discuss with reference to mathematics and one other area of knowledge.

Thoughts to consider with essay 1 include:

• the relationship between truth and knowledge
• is truth always relative to some context?
• can the same truth be seen in different ways?

These thoughts, and others, will be developed here shortly: come back soon!

Title 2: To what extent do you agree with the claim that "there’s a world of difference between truth and facts". (Maya Angelou) Answer with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Thoughts to consider with essay 2 include:

• truth is a property of representations, e.g. factual sentences
• facts are truth-makers - what make true sentences true
• do all facts exist independently of all minds?

The kinds of things that can be true or false are representations: they represent things as being a certain way: some represent truly, some falsely (misrepresent things). Photographs are representations: an acceptable passport photo represents the face of the passport owner with a true likeness, for example. Factual sentences are an important kind of representation. True factual sentences describe or represent the actual facts: e.g. the factual English sentence "gold is a metal" is true because gold is, in actual fact, a metal. False factual sentences misrepresent the facts: e.g. "gold is plastic" is false because, in actual fact, gold is not plastic, but is metal. True factual sentences are therefore an important way of recording and communicating factual knowledge: knowledge of the facts. For example, I can use the English sentence "The city of London is on the river Thames" to communicate the factual knowledge (knowledge of the fact) that the city of London is on the river Thames. Facts are therefore truth makers: they are what exist in reality to make factual sentences true. Reality therefore comprises, or contains all the facts. Someone who claims to live by "alternative facts" is therefore claiming to live, literally, in an alternative reality. Many TOK students make the mistake of talking about "true facts". This commits a category mistake. Facts aren't the kind of thing that can be true or false, precisely because they aren't representations, they just exist there in reality. It is factual sentences that are true in virtue of the facts. Some facts undoubtedly exist independently of all minds: the fact that the earth orbits the sun is so, it is a part of reality, whether or not anyone does think, or ever has thought, about it. However, are there some facts which rely on minds for their existence, such that if minds ceased to exist those facts would too? These thoughts, and others, will be developed here shortly: come back soon!

Title 3: Is there solid justification for regarding knowledge in the natural sciences more highly than another area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Thoughts to consider with essay 3 include:

• the uses and purposes of knowledge
• how are beliefs justified?
• the difference between knowing and claiming to know

Title 4: How do historians and human scientists give knowledge meaning through the telling of stories? Discuss with reference to history and the human sciences.

Thoughts to consider with essay 4 include:

• the role of narrative construction in knowledge creation
• the difference between trivial and significant knowledge

Title 5: How can we distinguish between good and bad interpretations? Discuss with reference to the arts and one other area of knowledge.

Thoughts to consider with essay 5 include:

• the purposes and uses of interpretation
• the difference between interpreting an artist's intentions and interpreting their work
• the relationship between interpretation and truth

Title 6: If we conclude that there is some knowledge we should not pursue on ethical grounds, how can we determine the boundaries of acceptable investigation within an area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Thoughts to consider with essay 6 include:

• the ethical difference between knowing something and using that knowledge
• should ethics provide decision-making procedures?
• can we assume there are there clear ethical boundaries that it is possible to determine?
• 1. Can there be knowledge that is independent of culture? Discuss with reference to mathematics and one other area of knowledge.
• 2. To what extent do you agree with the claim that "there’s a world of difference between truth and facts". (Maya Angelou) Answer with reference to two areas of knowledge.
• 3. Is there solid justification for regarding knowledge in the natural sciences more highly than another area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.
• 4. How do historians and human scientists give knowledge meaning through the telling of stories? Discuss with reference to history and the human sciences.
• 5. How can we distinguish between good and bad interpretations? Discuss with reference to the arts and one other area of knowledge.
• 6. If we conclude that there is some knowledge we should not pursue on ethical grounds, how can we determine the boundaries of acceptable investigation within an area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.
• About Dr Phil Joyce
• Standard of Service
• Terms of Engagement

• Philosophy Degrees by Distance Learning
• Critical Thinking Tutor
• Oxbridge Application Tutor
• Logic Tutor
• University Philosophy Application Advice

May 2022 TOK essay titles

TOK Home > Free TOK notes > TOK essay guidance > May 2022 TOK essay titles

M22 prescribed essay titles

The M22 TOK prescribed essay titles are now being written by Northern Hemisphere schools, for a mid-March deadline. Check out the M22 TOK essay webinar , which models what an initial unpacking session would look like. Below you’ll find the key words to pin down in the essay introduction, links to the  BQ framework , and other consideration points.

Prescribed title 1

The ideas you see here roughly correspond to the initial unpacking session you will have with your TOK teacher. You’ll then go on to have three face-to-face interactions with your teacher, in which you’ll discuss your progress in writing the essay , working through any difficulties and challenges you experience.

Make sure you pin down…

• I ndependent of culture

relates to…

• Perspectives (BQ4) – think about how knowledge is subject to interpretation, and whether that interpretation is culturally-driven.
• Creativity (BQ5) – think about the development of knowledge, and the role culture plays in this.

BEAR IN MIND…

• Knowledge itself will require a definition
• Can knowledge be produced without a cultural background?
• Mathematics – the assumption is that this is independent from culture – is that true?
• See culture in our key concept resource

Prescribed title 2

Make sure you pin down….

• World of difference

RELATES TO…

• Foundations (BQ1) – think about the nature of truth, role of facts, etc. – and come up with your own definitions of these.
• Spin (BQ3) – facts can be used to mislead us, by presenting half-truths (“A truth that’s told with bad intent / Beats all the lies you can invent.”- Blake)
• Angelou’s full quote also refers to ‘facts can obscure the truth’ – tricky to decide whether to include this section of the quote
• Ensure it establishes (or refutes) world of difference – not just difference
• A broad question in terms of which AOKs you can select
• See truth in our key concept resource

Prescribed title 3

• Solid justification  
• More highly
• Values (BQ2) – this could be one of the bases for this essay, that highly regarded knowledge is synonymous with knowledge that helps us to improve our values
• Perspectives (BQ4) – perhaps highly regarded knowledge is that which is the most objective (and therefore least vulnerable to interpretation)?
• Experts (BQ6) – think about how do we regard knowledge with more discernment
• What does ‘solid’ justification mean (as opposed to just plain old ‘justification’)?
• Regarding something highly is vague – needs pinning down very clearly
• The purpose of knowledge needs to be considered
• See justification in our key concept resource

Prescribed title 4

• Telling of stories
• Spin (BQ3) – think about communicating ideas via means that aren’t always factually-based.
• Creativity (BQ5) – think about how we create knowledge via our imagination.
• What does ‘give knowledge meaning’ mean – and how does this happen via ‘telling stories’?
• The most prescriptive of the PTs
• There is a lot of cross-over between history and the human sciences – it could be harder to craft a contrasting essay. 
• It could also turn into a descriptive essay (it’s not “to what extent to historians and human scientists…”)
• ‘Telling stories’ really needs to be nailed down.

Prescribed title 5

• Good  
• Interpretations
• Perspectives (BQ4) – think about how our perspectives lead us to make different interpretations. When does this strengthen our claims (perhaps personal experiences)? When does this detract from our claims (perhaps when we seek to confirm our biases)?
• Experts (BQ6) – think about how experts make discerning judgements on the world – in terms of humility, evidence, an agenda that doesn’t seek to be served, etc.
• There is quite a lot for students to do with this essay – interpretations within the arts will probably be evaluated in a completely different way to other AOKs
• See interpretation in our key concept resource

Prescribed title 6

• Ethical grounds  
• Boundaries of acceptable investigation
• Values (BQ2) – clear links with this BQ. Think about how and who should decide on the ethical boundaries of knowledge?
• Creativity (BQ5) – this is about creating new knowledge, so it also links to this BQ
• “If we conclude”… but if we don’t? 
• Who is the ‘we’? Not a bad thing – this is a great way of including a consideration of perspectives in this essay. The experts? The authorities? Ordinary knowers? Etc.

M22 essay webinar $24.99 / $49.99

This webinar discusses the M22 titles, and how to begin writing the TOK essay. We look at the key words of the titles, link them to the course, and run over possible approaches. This is a great starting point for writing the essay, and works similarly to the initial unpacking session that teachers run with their students.

• Group ticket – $49.99
• Individual ticket – $24.99

May 2022 Theory of Knowledge Essay Titles | Tips + SAMPLES

Table of contents

• Writing Metier

Already nervous about the BIG ToK essay? We hear ya! From finding the right ToK essay topic to making sure you cover all your basis, ToK essay can be a big deal and frankly overwhelming as well. The key here, however, is forward planning and by the looks of it, you seem to be on the right track!

IMPORTANT! These are topics for the year 2022. Check the latest 2023 November TOK Essay Titles

Finalizing the topic for your essay is just one component of ToK but an extremely important one. According to the ToK essay core, it holds 67% weightage in the final grade. Through this essay, examiners see how coherent, critical and clear the reflection and analysis of the topic you have chosen is. And because of how essential the essay is, students often find themselves in a pickle because they are often not guided correctly on how this essay needs to be done.

The idea behind this essay is not to assess the amount of knowledge you possess regarding a subject matter, but how you explain the findings that you have. It must demonstrate your knowledge in a constructive manner and that is what helps you with this 67% of the grade.

ToK essay topics:

Now that you have landed on this page much in advance, let’s touch some base on the prescribed May 2022 theory of knowledge essay titles. Furtheremore, you will find several ToK essay 2022 samples completed by our theory of knowledge essay writers .

1. “Can there be knowledge that is independent of culture? Discuss with reference to mathematics and one other are of knowledge.” + SAMPLE

If  Math as a subject  is something you are passionate about, this is the perfect topic for you. Here, you need to talk about mathematics and the relation that culture has to it. The best way to explore this topic is to talk about the universality of mathematics in terms of the subject being one that is extremely objective. The same formulae are used to solve problems in mathematics world over. However, when we talk about a different area of knowledge like human sciences or art, we can explore how these are highly subjective in nature. Hence, contrasting the role of culture in these two areas of knowledge can help understand this much better.

2. To what extent do you agree with the claim that ‘there’s a world of difference between truth and facts’ (Maya Angelou)? Answer with reference to two areas of knowledge. + SAMPLE

Including two areas of knowledge may get a handful, but it’s not to say that this won’t be an interesting ToK essay because of how subjective and debatable it is. In this essay, you have to talk about the fine line of difference between truth and facts. The best approach here is through the use of examples. It can be quite difficult to understand this for someone who does not have any prior idea of the substantial difference between the two. For this reason, pick out something that you are familiar with, and then highlight how the truth and facts differ in these.

3. Is there solid justification for regarding knowledge in the natural sciences more highly than knowledge in another area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Science is the most important source of knowledge and information. It gives us the solutions we need in our everyday functionality and helps in unfolding the mystery of the world. If you are a science geek, this is the perfect topic for you to proceed with. If you decide to go with this topic, then it is best that you give examples from the sciences and highlight how these can be evidence based, and hence proved to be right or wrong. Contrasting this with something more subjective like the human sciences can help shed light on this in the best possible way. The point that you need to highlight here is how natural sciences as a subject is one that is highly evidence based, whereas other areas of knowledge are subjective, and different meanings can come out of those.

4. How do historians and human scientists give knowledge meaning through the telling of stories? Discuss with reference to history and the human sciences.

Storytelling is an art and historians and scientists have been doing that for decades with their findings about life on the earth. This topic requires an essential link between these two disciplines. The idea is to shed light on what storytelling mainly is, and how storytelling can help gain insightful knowledge in different situations. The idea behind using these two areas of knowledge is that these are as such that storytelling is very common in these. So give examples of how historians and human scientists have come up with evidence through the use of stories, and how it has been helpful in people understanding things in a much better way,

5. How can we distinguish between good and bad interpretations? Discuss with reference to the arts and one other area of knowledge. + SAMPLE

Gut feelings and interpretations are indeed important human fundamentals. This is a fun topic to play around with and if you wish, you can get into the depths of multicultural elements around interpretations and discuss how they vary geographically as well. The way that human beings interpret things differs greatly from situation and situation. Not just that, but there are also several other factors that affect our understanding of things, which essentially means that our interpretation will also differ.

6. If we conclude that there is some knowledge we should not pursue on ethical grounds, how can we determine the boundaries of acceptable investigation within an area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

This is a common debate – the correlation between law and ethics. If you like to take a controversial front in a topic, this essay topic might be the perfect fit for you! Ethics in itself is something that is so highly debatable based on the opinions and outlook of different people. So outlining your own definition and boundaries of ethics, you can talk about the role that ethics plays when it comes to knowledge. This can be a very interesting topic for you to work on if you can highlight the different role that ethics plays in different areas of knowledge based on several different schools of thought.

The year 2023:

• November 2023 TOK essay prompts
• November 2022 prescribed TOK essay titles

Previous years prompts:

• November 2021 ToK Essay titles
• May 2021 Theory of Knowledge essay prompts

Now you know about the ToK essay topics you can expect for May. Plan ahead, don’t mess with the TOK essay word count , and start doing your research.

⏩ And in case you feel you  need a hand with the ToK essay , you know where to come! ⏪

Free topic suggestions

Vasy kafidoff.

Vasyl Kafidoff is a co-founder and CEO at WritingMetier. He is interested in education and how modern technology makes it more accessible. He wants to bring awareness about new learning possibilities as an educational specialist. When Vasy is not working, he’s found behind a drum kit.

Similar posts

November 2023 tok essay prompts explained + samples.

This article is a complete guide to the November 2023 TOK essay prompts, which includes detailed explanations of each prompt along with samples to help students understand them better. It offers practical advice and expert guidance to help students improve their writing skills and succeed in this important assignment. Whether you need help selecting a topic or want to enhance your critical thinking skills, this article provides valuable insights that will help you craft a successful TOK essay.

IB ToK Essay Prompts for November 2022

Every year, students who started IBDP are waiting for IB to share the list of specific prescribed titles for Theory of Knowledge essays. Like in all the previous years, IB opened a list of six topics for TOK essays for the next semester.

ToK Essay Titles November 2021 | Explained + SAMPLES

In this article, we will be talking about the six Theory of knowledge essay topics students enrolled in the IB diploma need to be aware of. Just like every year, this TOK November’s topics vary in different elements, and in this article, we will share descriptions about each topic which the students need to keep in their minds when selecting the essay topic for their diplomas.

30 Different TOK Presentation Topic Ideas to Succeed in IB

Given that the TOK essay's structure and the presentation are unlike others, students can find it challenging to proceed with it. You can only do well on the TOK presentation if you have an excellent idea.

May 2023 TOK Essay Prompts + SAMPLES and Suggestions

Every year, students anxiously wait for the IB to announce the TOK essay topics. So this year is not an exception; IBO has also announced 2023 May titles for IB TOK essay. In this article, we have provided the list of prompts with short directions and suggestions for each topic. Enjoy reading ;)

Prescribed May 2021 IB ToK Essay Titles

This year begins with the prescribed topics for 2021 May IB ToK essays. In this article, we will talk about the six ToK titles that were recently released and discuss the possible questions, responses, suggestions and strategies on how to construct the essay.

We rely on cookies to give you the best experince on our website. By browsing, you agree to it. Read more

Theory of Knowledge: An Alternative Approach

Why is an alternative approach necessary?

Prescribed Titles May 2022

Thoughts on the latest IB TOK Prescribed Essay Titles May 2022

The TOK essay provides  you  with an opportunity to become engaged in thinking and reflection. What are outlined below are some strategies and suggestions, prompts and prods, questions and possible responses  only  for deconstructing the TOK titles as they have been given. They should be used alongside the discussions that you will carry out with your peers and teachers during the process of constructing your essay. The TOK essay is a challenging assignment at any time but especially now given the worldwide Covid-19 pandemic and the various learning environments that are a result of that pandemic.

The notes here are intended to guide you towards a thoughtful, personal response to the prescribed titles posed.  They are not to be considered as an answer let alone  the  answer to the question(s) posed by the title and they should only be used to help provide you with another perspective to the ones given to you in the titles and from your own TOK class discussions and research. You need to remember that most of your examiners have been educated in the logical positivist schools of Anglo-America and this education and its social contexts pre-determines their predilection to view the world as they do and to understand the basic concepts as they do. The TOK course itself is a product of this logical positivism though efforts are being made to make it more universally embracing.

There is no substitute for your own personal thought and reflection, and these notes are not intended as a cut and paste substitute to the hard work that thinking requires. Some of the comments on one title may be useful to you in the approach you are taking in the title that you have personally chosen, so it may be useful to read all the comments and give them some reflection on how they might be of some use to you towards the title you have chosen.

My experience has been that candidates whose examples match those to be found on TOK “help” sites (and this is  another  of those TOK help sites) struggle to demonstrate a mastery of the knowledge claims and knowledge questions contained in the examples.  The best essays carry a trace of the struggle that is the journey on the path to thinking. Many examiners state that in the very best essays they read, they can visualize the individual who has thought through them sitting opposite to them. To reflect this struggle in your essay is your goal.

Remember to include sufficient TOK content in your essay. When you have completed your essay, ask yourself if it could have been written by someone who had not participated in the TOK course. If the answer to that question is “yes”, then you do not have sufficient TOK content in your essay. Also, follow the basic format requirements of the assignment: 1600 words, 12-point font, etc. Have the assessment rubric ready-to-hand and use it to guide you in the structuring of your paper.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/0B-8nWwYRUyV6bDdXZ01POFFqVlU/edit?resourcekey=0-n1jVSy4hexafvfYZdPcW8A#slide=id.p4

A  sine qua non : the opinions expressed here are entirely my own and do not represent those of any organization or collective of any kind.

• Can there be knowledge that is independent of culture ? Discuss with reference to mathematics and one other area of knowledge?

We are asked in Title #1 to consider whether there is a knowledge which transcends culture, a knowledge free from the limitations or biases that might be seen in the “values” that a particular culture esteems most highly. We are asked to consider mathematics as the one area of knowledge that appears to transcend cultures since a man working in Moscow, Idaho will have no problems collaborating with a woman who researches in Moscow, Russia on the same topic of research since mathematics is perceived as a “universal language”. It might be better, perhaps, to ask whether there is a mode or manner of knowing that will provide a knowledge for us that is beyond the limits of change that is brought about by becoming (time) and history, what is properly called “historicism”.

“Knowledge” is a product (something that is brought forth) of and through human beings; and individual human beings are the product, or what is brought forth, of and through the societies, communities or “cultures” they happen to inhabit at any given time. Being products of these cultures, they will value or esteem what their particular culture holds most highly or most dear. What a culture values most highly will be based upon or grounded in what that culture has determined is most necessary to its “security” and permanence. The culture’s need for security and permanence decides in advance  what the individuals in that culture think experience is and what the things about them are. For us in TOK, this is central to how we understand and interpret our Core Theme of “knowers and what is known”.

Title #1 asks what is considered “knowledge” and asks you to look specifically at mathematics and one other area of knowledge. This is an appropriate question, since in technological societies algebraic calculation is esteemed or valued most highly by those various “cultures” and societies. (I put “cultures” in scare quotes because there is only one “culture” in technological societies since technology is, ultimately, an homogenizing force. That is the point of the example of the man and woman collaborating in different Moscows: they are able to do so because they are working in the same “culture”).

The word “culture” was first used by the Roman orator Cicero where he spoke of “the cultivation of the soul”, the perfection of human beings, what we today would call “empowerment”. Culture is related to the word “cultivate”, to the gathering and securing of a place, to the tilling of it, to being responsible for it, to responding to it, and to attending to it caringly. In the Biology lab, we speak of a “bacteria culture”. Care and its attendant concepts would be a central category or predicate of any discussion of our Core Theme in our attempts to describe who we are as human beings. We are the beings who “care” for things.

The concept of what we mean by “culture” today is relatively new. It came to prominence in the 18th and 19th centuries  in Germany, although today it is ubiquitous or commonplace. Today we speak of “ancient Greek culture”, but this is erroneous for the Greeks had  no “culture”. Their closest word to our concept of “culture” would be  ethos  from which we get our word “ethical”. The ethical has to do with actions, with doing something, what the Greeks called  praxis, and this  ethos  was lived out in the  polis  or the “shared community”. We sometimes call a culture the sum of all the thoughts and actions of the human beings who compose it.

Why does a culture need to secure itself? Because a culture involves the activities that engage the human beings within it, there must be some purpose or goal that provides the ground to those activities, something which gives those activities meaning and stability. The concept of “culture” was necessary because of the relativism that arose with the arrival of historicism.  Is there a knowledge that is independent of historicism i.e. a knowledge beyond an historical period, geographical place, localized cultures which in turn are used to give context to theories, stories and narratives, and other interpretations of our being-in-the-world from within those cultures?

The issues present in Title #1 are not new. They have been with us since human beings began questioning and thinking about the world we live in. Historically, the  nominalist  view thought that universals or general ideas were merely “names” without any corresponding reality or relation to particular objects. Properties, numbers, sets or the mathematical itself were considered merely a way or mode of considering the things that exist and, therefore, they were arbitrary and had no correspondence to the “real world”. It took no less an effort than Immanuel Kant’s three great Critiques: Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Practical Reason,  and  Critique of Judgement  to overcome this view, and Kant did so through showing how the mathematical was related to nature and to objects in the world around us. The mathematical was embedded in the objects of Nature.

In the AOK Mathematics, the title invites us to consider whether mathematics was “discovered” or “invented”. Until the thinking of the French philosopher Rousseau, reason (upon which the mathematical and mathematics are based) was considered ahistorical and beyond or independent of any cultural limitations such as time and place, etc. After all, it was reason which determined what human beings are ( the  animal rationale: the being capable of reason )  and thus determined and made what became called “culture” possible. Reason was prior to mathematics and culture; and the principle of reason ( nihil est sine ratione:  nothing is without (a) reason) was the ground of both mathematics and culture. If mathematics was “discovered”, it would be beyond the limitations of any particular culture. If mathematics was “invented”, then it would be a product of those particular cultures wherein and from whence it arose. Today, of course, scientists are able to collaborate on projects without regard to the culture in which they are dwelling (or can they? Do they not “dwell” within the same “culture”?). Some research on your part should provide you with examples of the discoveries of the origins of mathematics which occurred simultaneously in China, India and Greece and would seem to suggest that mathematics is not a product of a culture but is more a determiner of what a culture would become. (The Greeks, for instance, rejected Babylonian algebra as being “unnatural” for them.)

Today, we rely on the mathematics of finite calculus and algebra. These define what knowledge is for us. Nature is understood as that which can be measured with exactitude, and through such measurements its “what”, “how”, and “why” can be determined through reason. Our culture esteems mathematical reason, for through it our control over nature (our “knowledge”) provides us with the power to secure our human being-in-the-world (our “culture”) through our sense of caring (concern) and responsibility. Mathematical science is a product of technology , that is, it is a predicate of technology, not vice versa as we commonly think. (See the writings on technology on other pages of this site.) Technology will be used by our culture to solve the problems that technology itself has brought about (climate change, pollution resulting from the use of fossil fuels, etc.). 

When considering the Arts as an AOK relating to this title, one does not have to look far to see that the Arts play a secondary role in the estimations of value in our modern cultures. Arts are for our entertainment, amusement, or to provide us with “experiences” in our leisure hours. They help us to pleasantly pass the time when we are not engaged in the more “serious” pursuits that our cultures reward.

Whenever I ask a group of young people if they agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the usual response is a one hundred percent hands raised. When I follow up the question with “what then is beholding”, the perplexed looks begin. The more brave will try to give a Cartesian-inspired response along the lines of “subject/object” and of the “subjective” representations of the evaluations of the work of art as an object and the “subjective” values deriving from matters of taste. It is no co-incidence that judgements in the Arts and their truth became “subjective” along with the arrival of the “objective” considerations of algebraic calculus in mathematical physics. Truth lies in the domain of mathematical calculus, not in the works produced by artists. Artistic judgement is now called “the philosophy of aesthetics”.  The separation of human beings and their actions  (what we understand as their “cultures” and “histories”) from those of nature (Descartes’ concept of the Self as Ego cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am ) resulted in human beings being placed at the centre, as the apotheosis of nature, as makers of their own destinies and histories. This was the great paradigm shift of Occidental human beings and it began around the time of the Renaissance and found its completion in the Age of Reason. Human beings became “creators” unlike the “makers” or technites/technes as the Greeks understood them. 

We can rephrase our earlier question regarding mathematics by asking: “Is great art discovered or invented?” The most probable response (because it is the easier response) will be that great art is invented or created. Does great art’s truth lie beyond (or is it independent of) the culture of which it is a product?” If great art is “invented”, then it is clearly a product of its time and place, its social contexts, etc. If it is “discovered”, from where does it originate? We often hear of the “timelessness of great art”. And when the artists themselves are asked about their art, they are at many times, at a loss for words to explain it and sometimes refer to mystical or other sources such as “muses” or “possession”, other “spirits” or “daemons”. They are usually not at a loss for words, however, when they speak of their techniques when engaging in bringing forth their works. This suggests that the truth of art and art itself (and I am only speaking of great art here) lies independent of and beyond the culture of which the artist as an individual is a product.

Here in Bali where I live, the people do homage to their gods for the many gifts that the gods have bestowed on them. Those of us from the West and from the technological societies of the East find it “silly” or “superstitious” that the Balinese would pay homage to their gods rather than to Honda, Toyota or Yamaha for the making of their motorcycles and their automobiles. But for the Balinese, it is not Toyota or Honda that have “created” their motorcycles and cars. Motorcycles and automobiles were always already there  as gifts from the gods, waiting for “inspired” human beings to “discover”, or more precisely, to “uncover” them and bring them out into the “open”.

2. To what extent do you agree with the claim that “there’s a world of difference between truth and facts “? (Maya Angelou) Answer with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Title #2 asks for a personal response from  you:  do  you  agree with the claim that there is a world of difference between truth and facts and to what extent i.e. totally? partially? not at all? So the title is not looking for an academic scholarly recitation on the distinction between “truth” and “facts” (if indeed there is any) but rather, a personal response filled with personal examples (unless, of course, you happen to have made those scholarly opinions on truth and facts “your own”). These notes and thoughts to follow may not be helpful to you in this regard, but the hope held here is that they may prod you along the path to thinking about a possible response to the topic. 

Truth is usually discussed from within three main theories: the correspondence theory, the coherence theory, and the pragmatic theory. The correspondence and coherence theories of truth were introduced into Western thinking through the thought of Aristotle and rely basically on the principles of logic. The pragmatic theory of truth finds its origins in the sophist Protagoras (“man is the measure of all things”) and gains further development in the thinking of British and American empiricists and finds its foundations in the Greek word pragma  or practical, “material”, concrete things. If you have read any of the other writings on this blog, you will probably have noted that I subscribe to the original meaning of the word “truth” as it is found in the Greeks:  aletheia,  which means “to uncover”, “to reveal”, “to unconceal”, “to bring out into the open so that something may show itself”, “to retrieve from forgottenness”. This original meaning of the word “truth” is broader and encompasses the other main theories within it. No matter what your response to this topic, your essay will have to contain elements of the correspondence, coherence and pragmatic theories of truth if it is to be successful. Your essay will “bring forth and show” your propositions and assertions (correspondence), your evidence (coherence) and your judgements (pragmatic) regarding the question asked and demonstrate or show your knowledge of the terms used.

What is a “fact” and are there facts that stand alone outside of the systems which create them? Here in Bali, the date on the Balinese calendar posted on my wall is much different than the date and time shown on my computer. The Balinese calendar is a lunar calendar; the computer’s calendar is a solar one. Both calendars are  correct  but they express different facts. The Balinese calendar shows me when I can anticipate various religious activities to occur here; the solar calendar lets me know when, for instance, the TOK essay titles will be released. The two calendars reference two distinct worlds.  Both calendars express “truths” in that they are a “showing forth” of time; it is the  same time.  Both calendars are attempts to understand what time is. We commonly view time as a series of consecutive “nows” which can be measured with exactitude in discrete mathematical units. We do the same with space. But what time and space are in themselves (their “truth”) remains a mystery for us, hidden from us. The use of mathematics and the facts which it reveals about the nature of ourselves and our worlds (and  the  world) is the reason why it is so highly valued among technological cultures. The spontaneity of our freedom is made greater through our control and commandeering of the spontaneity of nature.

We as human beings inhabit a number of different “worlds” simultaneously. You inhabit the world of being a student or a teacher; you are a mother or a father, a son or a daughter, a friend or lover in another “world”; you may have a number of different avatars in the virtual “worlds” you may inhabit; you may be a sportsperson, or musician, or inhabit some other “world” in your hobbies. Each of these worlds contain their own facts which are illuminated for you by their “truths”.

In the AOK Human Sciences, a phenomenon that should be of great concern is the assault on truth that is occurring among the populist movements of both Europe and North America, something which the African-American poet and novelist, Maya Angelou, would be greatly concerned about since truth, knowledge and freedom would be inextricably linked for her. The distinction between North American populism and its European counterpart is in the fact that European populism is based on “blood and father/motherland” while North American populism directs its goals to more abstract concepts such as “liberty, justice and freedom”, etc. Europeans and Asians, for the most part, are indigenous or autochthonous peoples: they have belonged to the “father/motherland” from before the time of making the land their own in their “conscious” memory. North Americans are not so. For North Americans, there has always been an historical awareness of making the land their own since they have no history from before the age of progress.

The North American making of the land their own began with the genocide of its Native Peoples, and in the USA, the establishment of the institution of slavery among its white landholders. The truth of these facts is not written in many of their historical narratives (which have been written primarily by white males, though this is changing). The desire to include critical race theory in the curriculum of its schools is divisive for many in the white society  which does not want to know itself and which is finding itself becoming a minority and feels itself under threat. North American history texts are filled with facts, but truth  is very much lacking in most cases. 

North American populists are searching for the roots that they have never had. The search appears to be focusing on what they believe are their “roots” in European fascism where race, “patriotism”, and the need for a scapegoat for their perceived ills (African Americans, later immigrants, any “other” perceived as “alien’) are what they use to give their threatened identities some meaning. This sense of threat is an indication of their underlying weakness. The threat that North American whites feel is the loss of  security  in their own homeland (their “culture”, if you like), and they are willing to defend themselves against this perceived threat through the use of violence with the many weapons they have ready-to-hand. Any viewing of “right wing” media and its topics of discussion will reveal their concerns. The phenomenon of “alternative facts” is not directed at a desire for truth, however, but a desire for power even if this must be achieved through falsehood. (The Italian political philosopher, Machiavelli, once said that princes gain power through fraud.)

Truth as understood by the Greeks also relates to the individual human being as “one who does not hide or forget”. It referred to a person of candour and frankness, someone who does not dissemble or lie when being with others. It is the person who is “free” to be the person that they are (something that seems to be waning in the worlds of our social media today). Truth is a product of our world: it is given to us; falsehood is the product of human being-in-the-world.  The world does not lie; it hides.  The denial of truth destroys something essential to our humanity and makes us become more bestial.

Within the Arts as an AOK there is, literally, a world of difference between the truths expressed through the Arts and the facts and their truths given to us through our scientific interpretations of the world understood as nature. Scientific research looks for the “fixing of facts” in a world of constant change. This “solidification” of what are called “facts” is provided by our ability to give an explanation and evidence of the “what” and “how” of things (objects) so that they can be secured, fixed, and commandeered to meet whatever ends or goals that we may have in mind. Our age and culture is grounded through a specific interpretation of what is as objects (facts) and through specific comprehensions of truth (correspondence, coherence, pragmatic), and these grounds have come to determine our age as the  technological age. This is the reality of our age; the “world” of our age.  

The painting by Van Gogh shown here (one of his many “Sunflowers” paintings) is titled with the chemical compounds that compose Van Gogh’s yellow paint. A chemist familiar with the compositions of the paints would recognize this “fact”, but knowing this fact would  not bring her anywhere nearer to the painting’s truth, for its truth lies elsewhere, literally, in another world than that of her laboratory. The chemical composition of the paint, its “fact” does  reveal something about the painting, but its truth lies elsewhere. The chemist herself, as a human being, not only occupies the world of her laboratory. She also dwells within a number of other worlds, one of which may be where the beauty of the truth of the painting of the “Sunflowers” enriches her life and gives to her a greater sense of her humanity. To dwell  only  within the world of the facts of her science would be akin to madness.

3. Is there solid justification for regarding knowledge in the natural sciences more highly than knowledge in another area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

To “regard” something is to show “care and concern” for that thing. We send our “best regards” to our near and dear ones when we contact them in order to show our care and concern for them. Since we modern human beings define our “essence”, what we are, as “freedom”, the knowledge that enhances and secures that freedom will be held in the highest regard i.e. it will be given our greatest care and concern (attention) and will be “valued” and esteemed most highly. The knowledge which we have gained from the natural sciences, the knowledge that controls and commandeers the chance brought about by nature’s spontaneity, increases our own spontaneity understood as “freedom”. 

The two Greek words  techne  and  logos  have been combined by moderns into the one word  technology,  and this one word captures the knowing (the knowledge) that is present in the sciences ( logos ) with the making ( techne ) that is the application of those sciences in the applied and mechanistic arts. Modern medicine, for example, is one area where the discoveries of the natural sciences are applied through the art of healing. Technology is our way of being-in-the-world and through it we demonstrate our care and concern for “life”. 

To look at an immediate example of what is being said here: nature has demonstrated its spontaneity with the arrival of the Covid 19 virus and its many mutations, and this virus has limited the spontaneity and freedom of human beings in obvious ways. Through the knowledge that we have from the natural sciences, we have been able to somewhat control nature’s spontaneity through the development of vaccines even though the virus continues to mutate. The ability to secure our freedom (our “lives”, in this case) is the reason why the knowledge that we get from the natural sciences is most highly valued in our technological societies. 

This esteeming of the knowledge gained from the natural sciences comes at a price, however, and this price may be seen and understood in the use of the words “solid justification” in the title. Science is “the theory of the real”. In modernity, theory is the viewing of the real, how the real is seen and appropriated, how the world is taken into ourselves by way of experience. Science sets upon the real to set itself up as theory and to set the real up as a surveyable, calculable series of causes. What comes to presence through the viewing is the real, and science throughout its history has been transformed into the theory that entraps the real and secures its objectness, makes it come to a stand, “fixed”, “solid”, “permanent”. Theory makes secure a region of the real. Every new phenomenon emerging within an area of science (physics, chemistry, biology and even the Human Sciences) is refined to the point that it can be defined and fit into the standardized objective coherence of the theory. It becomes “solid”, “fixed” in other words. It is not permitted to change. 

“Solid justification” is the requirement of the principle of sufficient reason necessitating that reasons be rendered to others for assertions made regarding the “reality” or “facts” of an object, situation or condition. Human beings are the “rational animals”; to be “irrational” is, by definition, to be less than human, to be inhumane. We believe that we can “justify” our scientific observations of the world through mathematical calculation, and from these calculations make “predictions” of events that will occur in the future. It is this “pre-dictive” power (lit. before “speech”, before the handing over to others) that gives calculative reasoning its dominance since the predictive power provides security and certainty with regard to the way things are. This security and certainty enhances our “preservation of life” and allows us to empower ourselves towards “enhancement of life” through a recognition of life’s potentialities in our freedom. By predicting and controlling nature’s spontaneity, our freedom is enhanced and our possibilities widened. 

To “pre-dict” is to make an assertion  prior to  that speech which renders reasons. When the predictions or results are justified  through reason, we believe that we have achieved a correspondence between our minds and the objects, conditions or situations under observation and questioning. To justify  is to indicate “that which is responsible for” the “correctness” of the “judgement” made in the assertion. As the philosopher Kant indicated, “Judgement is the seat of truth”, or that upon which truth is grounded or based. “Reasons” bring that which is being spoken about to light and justifies them. Without such reasons, the thing being spoken about remains in the dark, hidden. “Evidence”, or that which is experienced through sight primarily, must be provided and the correspondence between that which is “experienced”, the evidence and the thing, situation or condition must correspond. For example, reasons provide the relations between a criminal and his crime and “justifies” the assertion of guilt. When one asserts a position that Democrats in the USA are really lizard-like aliens preying on children for their blood (just one of many QAnon beliefs) evidence must be provided for making such a statement. When one asserts that “the Presidential election was stolen”, one must provide corresponding evidence to show that that was indeed the case. Believing that a situation or condition is the case is not the same as “justifying” that belief, as many courts throughout the USA have asserted. Conspiracy theorists, in general, lack the corresponding evidence and reasons for their assertions to be taken as true. Their beliefs are irrational,  without reasons.

One of the consequences of the type of “justification” required by reason is, some believe, not possible when making assertions about morals or ethics because moral judgements are “values” and these must be distinguished from assertions made about what we call “facts”: i.e. there are no “moral facts” because morals are ephemeral, lacking solidity, and fixity and thus without the possibility of justification. “Values” are what we human beings create through our freedom and willing in the world and through our determination of what things are and how they are and what we think they should be. This separation of statements or assertions of fact from statements or assertions of value is known as the “fact-value” distinction and it is the dominant principle or position in every Human Science. Efforts have been made to make morals subject to the same calculations that are used for scientific evidence such as Bentham’s utilitarianism, “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”, and the use of statistics is the primary language that the Human Sciences use to reveal their “truths”. 

To “justify” clearly has relations to its root word “justice”. How does our understanding of the word “justice” relate to justifying and justification? With the modern view of what human beings are given to us by the philosophers Descartes and Kant, human being is that being before whom all other beings are brought before and required to give their reasons for being what they are as beings. This is the domineering, commanding stance of human being before whom all other beings are brought before and “justified” as to what they are as beings. This “justification” is that which is responsible for something being defined as what it is, how it stands in its truth. To justify is to argue for or defend. Our reasons for justifying our mathematical calculations, for instance, are that these calculations give the best explanation of our observations and experiences (experiments). 

Our calculations secure our standing in our being-in-the-world and provide the potential for the all-important “life enhancing” or “quality of life” activities that are the purposes and ends of our arts, what we have come to call our “culture”. It is our calculations that give us our domination and control, our mastery of nature; and their “correctness” is demonstrated in the predictability of outcomes. There is a “justification” provided by the mind’s correspondence to the object in question and in the mind’s representations of that object in the mathematical. These justifications are shared in the language of the principle of reason through the belief in the schemata of the technological framing of the things in this world i.e. the world and its beings (things) understood as  object. In many parts of the world, there is a turning away from the facts so that we may affirm what is contradicted by the experience of everyday living (climate change denial, for instance, or the need to live in an alternative reality).

In the modern age, beauty has been radically subjectivized so that we have our belief that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. In all of our scientific explanations of things, we are required to discount the “other” as beautiful because the beautiful is not calculable (try as we may to do so). “Love” is consent to the fact of authentic “otherness”: we love otherness not because it is other but because it is beautiful.  But what happens to “love” in a world dominated by the view that the freedom brought about through the objectivication  of the things that are becomes most highly valued? The Greek philosopher, Plato, places the tyrant (Shakespeare’s Macbeth, for example, but the list could include all of the other autocrats currently parading or ‘strutting and fretting’ around the world’s stage) as the worst human being because in his self-serving, “otherness” has completely disappeared for him. 

What I am trying to say here is that the world before us is beautiful and our appropriate response to it is love. However over time, trust in the world has been replaced with doubt as the methodological pre-requisite for an exact science. If we confine ourselves to anything simply as an object, it cannot be loved as beautiful (reflect on the example of Van Gogh’s Sunflowers in title #2). The key difficulty is that in loving the beauty of the world as it is (and esteeming it most highly), how does this affect the desire to change it? With regard to our title, what is being maintained here is that one knows more about something by loving it, and it should be this love that should be most highly esteemed because it should determine our understanding of the world. In our age, the knowledge gained in the natural sciences through the principle of reason is exalted above understanding and this is the reversal of the world shown to us in Plato’s Cave. 

4. How do historians and human scientists give knowledge meaning through the telling of stories ? Discuss with reference to history and the human sciences.

Title #4 is very restrictive in the parameters of its requirements: you are required to confine yourself to the areas of knowledge of history and the human sciences. You will also have to consider what “meaning” is and how it might be understood, and what is meant by “the telling of stories”. 

“Meaning” is that knowledge that is handed over to others. It is “meaningful”; it is something requiring concern and care to a greater or lesser degree. It is that knowledge that is intended to be conveyed to another through the use of language, whether that language be in words or in numbers, symbols or signs. Meaning ascribes to something its “de-finition”, its limits or its boundaries so that it may be distinguished from something else which is not intended. The Greeks identified human being as the zoon logon echon,  that animal that is capable of speech and thus that animal that is capable of conveying meaning through language. We constantly tell each other stories about our experiences. This telling of stories is the giving of an account, whether it be what we did over the weekend or our view of what the meaning of life is.

Since their inceptions, both History and the Human Sciences have aspired to the exactitude and “truth” that is given to us in the knowledge of our Natural Sciences because the knowledge given to us in the Natural Sciences is that which is most highly valued. This aspiration realizes itself in History and the Human Sciences in what is called “research” as the most appropriate method in the approach to what is called knowledge. The Natural Sciences deal with the objects of nature, those objects which come to presence in their own ways from out of themselves, and those objects tend to remain “fixed” and can be accounted for as masses in motion in time and space for the most part. These movements of coming to presence can be accounted for mathematically through the use of axioms, principles, laws and theories. This is how they are accounted for.

In History, the object  of study is not present before us. It is in the past and must somehow be brought to presence, to the present, through a way of viewing (theory) and the selection of either appropriate artefacts or other evidence that will support the assertions or propositions put forward. In the way of viewing, the way of how the first principles have been pre-determined, the objects of History become fixed and can be researched in such a way that what we call knowledge can result. The objects that are studied in the Human Sciences are in constant motion. They, too, must be fixed so that statements/assertions can be made about them. This fixing comes about in the form of statistics which provide the “evidence” to support the assertions that are made based on the first principles that are used.

Whether the world is accounted for through language or mathematics, it must necessarily be accounted for.  The giving of an account is the  interpretation  that provides meaning, that which makes something meaningful. The giving of an account is a narrative, the telling of a story. We must remove from our minds the fossilized conception of a “story” being a “fiction”. Accounts or stories may be simple or complex. A recipe is an account of how to bake a cake. Its step-by-step algorithm when followed correctly will result in the bringing to presence of the end product: a cake. The accounts of History or the Human Sciences, likewise though more complex, are stories which will bring about end results that are meaningful to the historian and the social scientist and their audience. The first principles will determine what will be chosen and how the stories will be told, the methodology. A difficulty in the stories told, for instance, is that many women complain that the stories are told by men, particularly white men for the most part.

History is different from the other Human Sciences, or indeed other sciences in general, in that the seekers of knowledge or researchers cannot directly observe the past in the same way that the object of research can be observed and studied in the Natural Sciences. How the past is to be viewed must be decided on beforehand. “Historiology” is the study of history in general, the search for what its essence is, what its purpose is. “Historiography”, that is, a study of the writings of history, is not a study of all of the past, but rather a study of those traces or artifacts that have been deemed relevant and meaningful by historians; and this choosing of artefacts and evidence is the most important aspect of the study of history as it attempts to aspire to “scientific research”. This is where the importance of “shared knowledge” comes into play: what we call our “shared knowledge” is “history”, and what artefacts we choose to select and what stories we decide to tell are determined beforehand by our culture .

Our ways of knowing are the manners in which we establish a relation between ourselves and our worlds, our communities, and to the things that we encounter in the world about us. One of these ways of relating is through Memory. With Memory, we must also keep in mind “forgetting” and what is forgotten or what is chosen to be forgotten, for memory and forgottenness go hand in hand.

“To forget” in Greek is  lethe.  It is the opposite of  aletheia  or the Greek word for “truth” or “a bringing to presence”. To bring something to presence, to bring something to mind, to “regard it” with care and concern, is “truth”. It is a “bringing things to light”. Lethe  is to cast something into oblivion, into darkness, or that the something is “not present” for us. In Greek mythology, one must first drink of the river Lethe after death in order to be able to cross over in Charon’s boat into the underworld; remembering is essential to being human and to its “life”. To be good at rote learning, to remember facts and dates or mathematical formulas, has nothing to do with Memory as a way of knowing. Memory is more akin to “commemoration” and is part of what distinguishes human beings from other animals; we are able to “commemorate”; other animals cannot. This is why Memory is an essential part of history, and its elements of story telling for History must take the form of “narrative”, a story.

In the oral traditions prior to the arrival of written narratives and stories, Memory was seen as “saving” and “preserving” the story, but this saving and preserving also gave the story “meaning” by its being supported as plausible. The Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, saw philosophy as more akin to poetry than to science. Both History and the Human Sciences attempt to find their truth through the methodology of scientific research and its first principles, but in the search for meaning and preserving both must resort to stories or the telling of narratives. This is especially so in the USA where there is no collective Memory from before the Age of Progress.

What we call History as an object of study appears simultaneously with  ratio,  calculation, thought. Thucydides, the first historian of the West, wished in his History of the Peloponnesian War,  to give an account of the war without the “adornments and embellishments of the poets” (Homer’s  Iliad  and the Trojan War, for instance) so that he could arrive at his universal main theme: an understanding of the essence of war, all wars. He wished to go from the particular to the universal such as you attempted to do in your Exhibition. The height of Thucydides’ History, however, is “Pericles’ Funeral Oration” and it is a fiction: it is not a  verbatim  of the actual speech. It was written by Thucydides himself. Some questions could be: does Thucydides’ History  as an account of the Peloponnesian War come closer to the essence of war, the universal, than does Homer’s  Iliad ? Does an historian aspire to make myth? If Josef Stalin is correct in his statement “Only the winners get to write the history”, are not all historians engaged in writing myth (at best) or propaganda (at their worst)? Are modern historical accounts “science” or “myth” since to arrive at their statements of “truth” they must use words (rhetoric) rather than mathematics to make their judgements? Do modern historians give a sufficient account of their first principles?

The basic problem for history in its attempts to be a “science” is that in establishing the past as object and in establishing ourselves as the summonsers for its artefacts to give us their reasons, we can learn about the past, but we cannot learn from the past since our positions as summonsers already establish us as superior to that which is being studied. Since we have seen the kind of societies the “winners” of history have produced, perhaps it is time to look at what knowledge the “losers” of history might have to share with us. This is what “critical race theory” is all about. 

5. How can we distinguish between good and bad interpretations ? Discuss with reference to the arts and one other area of knowledge.

What we commonly mean by “interpretation” is to provide an “explanation” for some thing that appeals to reason and to common sense. To say that the wildfires in California and Greece are attributable to “Jewish space lasers controlled by the Rothschilds” does not appeal to our reason and common sense, for instance. It is a “bad” interpretation and explanation for the phenomenon of wildfires.

An interpretation is meant to bring some thing to presence  in order for it to show what, how and why it is as it is. It is associated with the thing’s “truth”. In Group 1 and Group 6 subjects, you are asked to provide an “interpretation” of a work of art, whether a novel, a poem or painting for instance, and in doing so name it as “such-and-such” or “so-and-so”, but to do so you must first turn that art into an object. In the Human Sciences attempts are made to find fixed, permanent principles that will lead to interpretations of social life which attempt to understand what is present at all times and in all places when living in communities, while in the Natural Sciences “explanations” are looked for through experiments on the “fixed” things that are the objects of nature.

Our lives are pervaded by interpretations both of ourselves and of other entities and things. Our “Core Theme” seeks to interpret how we understand ourselves, while our “Optional Themes” seek to understand other entities in the world around us. Our everyday interpretations or awareness of things is prior to our systematic interpretations undertaken in the Human Sciences and prior to our explanations provided by and given in the Natural Sciences. You need to find your way to the library or the science lab and interpret the contents in those places as books or science equipment before doing any of the activities called science or research. When you walk into a classroom, you do not first see uninterpreted black marks on the white board or hear the sounds of your classmates arriving. You perceive these things right away as printed or spoken words even if you cannot understand them. That you understand speech as speech or a textbook as a book does not mean that your interpretation is unreliable nor that it creates the meaning of what is interpreted. Your understanding of what the things are about you is bound together with your interpretation of them. Understanding is global and general; interpretation is local and particular.

Hermeneutics  is a special kind of “interpretation”. In Plato’s  Ion  Socrates refers to the poets as the “interpreters” of the gods.  Hermeneta  is Greek for “interpretation”, the disclosing of that which was previously hidden. Interpretation is conjoined with what the Greeks understood “truth” to be. Formally, hermeneutics wa s the study of how interpretation occurs and is intertwined with “method”. It is the art of understanding written texts; but in it, all things are understood as written texts. The Irish writer, James Joyce, gives us a beautiful example of hermeneutical activity and what we understand as art, and in doing so, of what understanding and interpretation indicates, in the “Proteus” section of his novel Ulysses: 

“Ineluctable modality of the visible: at least that if no more, thought through my eyes. Signatures of all things I am here to read, seaspawn and seawrack, the nearing tide, that rusty boot. Snotgreen, bluesilver, rust: coloured signs. Limits of the diaphane. But he adds: in bodies.” 

Joyce here demonstrates that all objects are to be understood as “texts” and must be read. He is attempting to understand sensuality in time and space as “signatures” and “signs”.

Wilhelm Dilthey, the founder of the modern Human Sciences, expanded the methodology of hermeneutics so that it became the study of the methods of the sciences themselves. When we look at ourselves as knowers as we attempt to do in our Core Theme, what we are really doing is interpreting ourselves through the “shared knowledge” that comes to us through our culture. What and who we are is concealed to us through this shared knowledge, and so what is required is a “deconstruction” of this shared knowledge. In interpreting ourselves we are interpreting a text that has been overladen by centuries of “interpretations” and “misinterpretations”. This is how the metaphor of life as “the never ending story” is to be understood.

Hermeneutics originally focused on how the Bible was interpreted, as well as other religious texts. The word itself is associated with  Hermes,  the messenger of the gods, and  pneuma  or “breath, in-spiration” so that the word implied an “inspired hearing” or an openness and a taking in of what the messages of the gods were, and the taking in of those messages and making them our own. They are as Plato understood the poets: those who have been open to what the gods have to say and have taken their messages into themselves.

A “good” or “bad” interpretation will be determined by how well the explanation of the phenomenon brings that thing to light and makes it present to and for others. Your essay will be evaluated by how well you “interpret” the question and bring the issues inherent in the question to light based on the coherence of your arguments.

Some questions that arise from the inherent circularity of interpretation are: How can I learn what art is except by studying works of art? and How can I recognize a work of art unless I know what art is to begin with? Our implicit prior knowledge of what art is enables us to recognize clear cases of works of art. When we ask the question: Is it art?, how we  interpret  the work before us will determine the answer to this question. Whether the work is “serious” or “great” depends on other factors such as “how deep a life it portrays”, how does it illuminate the truth of that which it tries to bring to presence before us. We learn about what language is not by speaking about it and turning it into an “object of study”, but through conversing with it and in it. To do so, we must already know what language is beforehand. We cannot get to hear the message of the messenger unless we already know something about it ahead of time.

Many interpreters of J.R.R. Tolkien’s  The Lord of the Rings  see the novel as an allegory of the events of WW2. Tolkien has stated quite emphatically that the novel is not an allegory because he “does not like allegory” and prefers history. One must interpret the story as myth or fairy tale using the language and truth that are consistent with those genres. To see the novel as an allegory is a “bad” interpretation because it misses the central themes and truths of the work. The essence of power, war, friendship, and good and evil will not be brought to light through allegory (such as George Orwell’s Animal Farm  for instance). They may, however, see the light of day in myth (Homer’s  Iliad ) or fairy tale/myth ( The Star Wars Saga ).

6. If we conclude that there is some knowledge we should not pursue on ethical grounds, how can we determine the boundaries of acceptable investigation within an area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

As has been discussed in other topics here, modern human beings see their essence as “freedom”; what knowledge enhances that freedom, what knowledge provides ’empowerment’, will be held in the highest esteem. Because we like to separate theory from practice, value from fact, we view ethical principles as theoretical possibilities of action (values) rather than the actions themselves (facts). For us, there are no ethical facts but only the values we create in our willing.

The ancient Greeks, for example, did not think in this way. The word “ethics” arose from ethos, or those actions which arise from living in a polis or a community. Our word “politics” comes from the word polis. This thinking is illustrated in the teaching of the Greek philosopher Aristotle in his work Nichomachean Ethics.  There, the highest human being is the one who possesses  arete  or “virtue” and this virtue is demonstrated through actions. The virtue rests or is grounded in the thinking called phronesis which is the thinking based on experience acquired from the actions undertaken previously and not in the deliberations on those actions.

Human beings are also the living beings capable of discourse, using language; and because of this language, we are able to live in communities and thus be engaged in “politics”. The Canadian writer Margaret Atwood once said: “All art is political”, and we are bound to the “political” whether we would like to be or not as long as we remain within a community whether it be the factual communities of our cultures or the virtual communities of our chat worlds. Because we see our essence as freedom, ethical questions arise when the powerful in those communities choose to apply knowledge that will disadvantage other members of those communities and place limitations on their freedom or their potential to “empower” themselves. Because our societies are “technological”, these societies will reach their ultimate goals in “cybernetics”, what the German philosopher Heidegger called “the technology of the helmsman”.  

The term  cybernetics  comes from the ancient Greek word  kybernetikos (“good at steering”), referring to the art of the helmsman. From the Greek, “cybernetics” evolved into Latin as “governor” because the metaphor of the community and its guidance was compared to that of a ship in the Greek texts. The American mathematician and head of IBM, Norbert Wiener, used the term for the title of his book Cybernetics in 1948.  Cybernetics cuts across the traditional Natural Sciences of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Cybernetics is defined as the science of control over communication and actions in animals, men and machines; and it shows its most prominent form in the research of Artificial Intelligence. Cybernetics extracts, from whatever context, that which is concerned with information processing and control.  Cybernetics is control theory as it is applied to complex systems, and human beings and their communities are one such complex system.

There is an obvious link between what are called cybernetics and what are called the Human Sciences, psychology in particular. What modern psychology is is determined by cybernetics. Cybernetics is associated with models, frameworks and structures, based on systems in which a “helmsman” compares what is happening to the system at various times (what its inputs are) with some standard of what should be happening (what should be the output), and the “helmsman” adjusts the system’s behaviour accordingly.  The system relies on constant “feedback” loops. The search engines we use on our electronic devices are examples. It is amusing and ironic, if at the same time sad, to see “anti-vaxxers” insist that they will not be vaccinated because the “government” has put special devices in the serum in which it can track people, while at the same time boasting about their “bravery” and “courage” in how they have taken a stand against the vaccine by posting a selfie through the use of their cell phones. Those folks should be informed that that horse has long since left the barn. As Edward Snowden remarked, the people who were most happy with the development of the Facebook app were the NSA and the CIA.

What is being said here is that the opening statement of the title that “if we conclude” is no longer an “if” but has already been decided in technological societies. Cybernetics is the unlimited mastery of human beings over other human beings. Cybernetics focuses on the control of the actions and the communications of human beings, both of which define the essence of what human beings are. Cybernetics will determine what human beings will be in the future. We are reminded of Plato’s allegory of the Cave in his Republic.

Cloning and genetically modified or designer babies are predicates of the technological. As the American physicist, Robert Oppenheimer, observed: “When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb.” Certainly scientists see the production of cloned human beings or “designed” human beings as “technically sweet”.

Oppenheimer’s quote highlights that what we think to be the ethics of the actions in technical societies are after-thoughts; the ethics were already decided in the actions themselves. We could, of course, institute laws that would inhibit the actions of technical researchers, but those laws would have to be enacted universally and be observed as not all nations would institute such laws. Consider the difficulties involved in attempting to enact climate change laws and agreements. Given the nature and the desire for power among some human beings, any optimism in the efficacy of those laws would be seen as naïve among the more cynical among us. And we must remember that even Frodo Baggins succumbed to the power of the One Ring.

Share this:

Author: John R. Butler

Retired Teacher View all posts by John R. Butler

2 thoughts on “Prescribed Titles May 2022”

Really? Please give me/us something more bite-sided to think about or comment on!

Bite-sided? What does that mean ‘precious’? Is it tasty? Is it scrumptious? Nietzsche was the epigramist. Consult him.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Breaking Down TOK Essay Titles 2022

The TOK Essay can be a daunting task, and many of us struggle to even begin out of fear of doing something wrong. Not only are you expected to learn the philosophy of all the areas of knowledge, but now you have to write an essay about it too!?

TOK Essay Titles in Human Sciences

As difficult as this may seem, what most of us need is just a nudge in the right direction, and this is exactly what the following guide will provide. If you’re struggling to begin your essay, don’t know where to start or which title to pick, we’re here to help!

Read on for a simple breakdown of the 6 TOK titles and how to tackle them.

1. Can there be knowledge that is independent of culture? Discuss with reference to mathematics and one other area of knowledge.

The first title is very intriguing for those who are interested in the social sciences! The question posed expects you to discuss whether knowledge and culture are always connected and if knowledge can exist without culture in the first place. You’re asked to consider mathematics and another AoK of your choice. Before we consider which AoK’s are suitable, however, we must establish what it means for knowledge to be independent of culture.

Culture is a very abstract concept, and it can refer to anything ranging from a regional food dish such as Spanish Paella to the entire history, language and moral values of a society. This may seem like a lot to tackle, but a simpler way to look at it is to consider whether knowledge is always defined by culture, or if there are exceptions.

In some cases, culture certainly determines the knowledge we produce. Consider the AoK History, for instance, where the history of a country is closely connected to aspects of culture such as language and morality. Historians use language to write history and their morals (which are defined by culture) to interpret the past, such as who was right or wrong. Both language and morality are aspects of culture, and therefore we can argue that historical knowledge may not be independent of culture!

How about Mathematics, then? We must also consider if knowledge can be independent of culture. In this case, mathematics is largely independent of culture as it is mostly an objective AoK. Knowledge is factual, and facts are absolute. Mathematics has one, universal language spoken by all mathematicians, and 2 + 2 = 4 in any part of the world. Thus, we can argue that mathematical knowledge is indeed independent of culture.

Lastly, don’t forget to support your arguments with real-life examples (RLEs). For history, one option would be to look at how bias affects historical writing. Some historians may have biases, which have arisen from their morals and culture and are reflected in their historical writing. For mathematics, consider the absence of bias and how formulae such as Pythagoras’ Theorem remain universal, and no amount of cultural influence can ever change something which is a fact.

2. To what extent do you agree with the claim that “there’s a world of difference between truth and facts.” (Maya Angelou) Answer with reference to two areas of knowledge.

While prompt 1 gives you one prescribed AoK, this one offers you more choice. Hurray! Or? While this question allows you to select both AoKs, too much choice is often more detrimental than beneficial in the Theory of Knowledge. Here, you’re asked to consider the difference between truth and fact. At first glance, you may be thinking that they’re the same thing and while this is not the case, they are immensely similar. Let’s see how you can approach this…

When considering the meaning of truth and fact, it is always useful to put them into some sort of context. For instance, in the natural sciences, we can argue that there isn’t much of a difference between truth and fact. This is because when a scientific theory such as the theory of evolution is proven, it becomes widely accepted as true and factual. Thus, the definition of truth and fact are virtually inseparable in the sciences.

Another AoK to explore could be history. Here, historians never truly know the ‘truth’ of what happened in the past, and they struggle immensely to recover facts from all sources so that they may piece together accurate interpretations. Therefore, they collect facts in an attempt to reach ever closer to the ultimate truth of what happened in the past, but arguably never achieve this fully. This leads to varying interpretations in history, as historians gather the same facts but may reach different truths from them. In this view, we can argue that facts are the building blocks of truth, rather than truth itself.

3. Is there solid justification for regarding knowledge in the natural sciences more highly than other areas of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

It’s time for more science! This is probably the most straightforward TOK title this time around, and that’s good news! Not everything has to be complex, even in TOK. Here, you’re being asked to discuss if there is any good reason to regard scientific knowledge ‘more highly’ than other AoKs. In other words, is scientific knowledge ‘better’ than knowledge in other AoKs, and if so, why and how? Let’s dig in!

To make things easier, let’s consider what other AoKs would be suitable choices for this title. In this case, a social science such as history or art would be very suitable. If we consider the arts, knowledge can be defined as the creations of artists such as paintings or music, and the interpretations people have of them. In this view, we can argue that art knowledge is quite subjective as the same song may make one person feel happy and another sad. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as it also makes the arts unique.

Nevertheless, the subjectivity of the arts could also be one reason that scientific knowledge may be regarded more highly, as it is objective and factual. For instance, it is an objective fact that cells are the smallest unit of life, but it is not factual to say that a painting is ‘beautiful’, as beauty is subjective. Then again, maybe facts aren’t everything, and maybe scientific knowledge isn’t better, but simply different from art knowledge. Consider these perspectives and ultimately decide if there is enough justification for the claim.

4. How do historians and human scientists give knowledge meaning through the telling of stories? Discuss with reference to history and the human sciences.

Storytelling is a powerful tool, so much so that experts in the social sciences use it to communicate their research. If you’ve chosen this title, you should begin by considering how knowledge is defined in history and the human sciences, such as psychology.

From the lens of history, you may decide that historical knowledge is a collection of interpretations of the past. Moreover, these are the interpretations of historians who record and teach them, orally or in writing.

These interpretations give historical events meaning by communicating their significance. A potential RLE would be to consider a historical event such as World War 2, and then analyze how historical interpretations teach us to appreciate its significance and not repeat the past.

If we consider the social sciences such as psychology, things can be a bit more complicated and ambiguous. Do psychologists tell stories? Maybe not in the conventional sense, but are research papers on mental health disorders not a type of story, one which teaches us about the disorder and the experiences people have of it? Exactly!

The key here is to consider how knowledge is communicated in history and social science. Thus, your essay should focus on analyzing and discussing the methodology that historians and human scientists use to tell stories.

5. How can we distinguish between good and bad interpretations? Discuss with reference to the arts and one other area of knowledge.

This question is my personal favorite! If you’re a fan of the arts, this is the question for you. What is an interpretation, and what makes it good or bad? In title 4 we considered how historical interpretations tell us about the past, and interpretations in the art are similar. While historians can interpret the past, art critics can judge the quality of an artistic piece. But how can we tell which interpretations are ‘good’ and which are ‘bad’?

When considering this title, make sure to focus on the different types of interpretations we can have within art. Not all interpretations come from professional art critics, as art is free to view by all, and the everyday person can have their own, unique opinion on a piece of art.

A good starting point to explore would be whether one art critic has a better interpretation of a piece of art than the everyday person. Perhaps the critic has professional training and is more qualified to judge the techniques Da Vinci used to craft the Mona Lisa than a casual art enthusiast.

However, art is not only about technique but also about emotion, and the everyday person may be better able to appreciate the subjective beauty of an art piece. Thus, in the arts, it may be difficult to tell the difference between good and bad interpretations, as there are no concrete criteria for determining this.

Through the lens of another AoK, we can see a completely different perspective in the natural sciences. Here, the opinions of experts can be said to always be better than those of the general public. A good RLE could be climate change propaganda, and how scientific knowledge is necessary in order to make educated interpretations.

In the arts, it may be debatable whether the Mona Lisa is a ‘sad’ or ‘joyful’ painting, but in the sciences, global warming is a proven fact, and anything which says otherwise is a ‘bad’ interpretation. Inherently, this question is about the subjectivity of the arts and the objectivity of other AoKs. Just some food for thought!

6. If we conclude that there is some knowledge we should not pursue on ethical grounds, how can we determine the boundaries of acceptable investigation within an area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

The last prescribed title is one of the most difficult, as it deals with ethics. Here, you’re asked to discuss ethical boundaries within two AoKs of your choice. Some good choices could be AoKs which are very research-based, such as the natural sciences and history. Let’s break this down.

Ethics can be very tricky, as you’re essentially asked to discuss the boundaries between what is ethical and what is not. This is difficult because ethics differ as much from person to person as they do from one AoK to another.

In the sciences, ethical boundaries may refer to experiments involving human trials, for example. How can we determine when a new drug is safe for human testing and is it ethical at all to test on humans?

Similarly, in history, we may consider the issues that arise when researching sensitive topics. For instance, is it ethical to interview holocaust survivors and urge them to remember their past traumas, all for the sake of historical records?

At what point do we draw the line, and how are these ethical boundaries determined? This question is all about methodology and whether methodology within two AoKs is ethical, so if that sounds interesting, this is your go-to title!

Prescribed Essay Titles for Your TOK Essay

The prescribed essay titles above are great for tok essays as they cover ethical grounds that you can discuss with reference and solid justification. Once you have narrowed down these prescribed titles, you can conduct research based on factual knowledge and find specific examples to work with. Then the fun part begins: the essay writing process!

Do you have any questions?

Reach out to the team at Lanterna.

Share article links

Related Articles

• IB Theory of Knowledge
• Most Popular

Theory of Knowledge IB Guide | Part 4

Pt. 4 – The Ways of Knowing: Language, Senses, Emotion and Reason  What are the Ways of Knowing? All knowledge comes from somewhere. Even if we say it is innate (comes from within us) we still have to say how that knowledge appears. The Ways of Knowing are what they sound like, the methods through which knowledge becomes […]

Theory of Knowledge IB Guide | Part 7

Pt. 7 – The Areas of Knowledge: Mathematics, the Natural Sciences, The Human Sciences and History What are the Areas of Knowledge The Areas of Knowledge are a bit different, these are about what we know. There are 8 Areas of Knowledge, these are: Mathematics, the Natural Sciences, the Human Sciences, History, The Arts, Ethics, […]

• IB - Understanding It

Getting to Grips with Challenging HLs

With a curriculum as broad as the IB Diploma Programme, it’s no surprise that students generally have a subject or two that they struggle to get to grips with. When these subjects are at HL and are crucial to your university and post-IB plans, figuring out how to fulfil your potential in them can be […]

[email protected]

+919878797000.

TOK ESSAY TITLE MAY 2023

Tok essay title 4, do you agree that it is “astonishing that so little knowledge can give us so much power” (bertrand russell) discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge..

Title 4 of the May 2023 TOK essay prompt adds a humorous touch, reminding us of the adage that “a little knowledge can be dangerous.” The question posed is whether one is surprised by the observation that having a small amount of knowledge can often lead to a sense of power or authority over that knowledge. It is quite common to encounter individuals with limited knowledge who fall into the illusion of overestimating their understanding.

In the natural sciences, this overestimation of capabilities in making knowledge claims can be observed.

Similarly, in the field of human sciences, it is not uncommon to see individuals becoming overwhelmed and overrating their own abilities.

To excel in the May 2023 TOK essay and achieve a perfect score, it is advisable to start early and seek guidance from TOK experts throughout the essay writing process.

May 2022 TOK essay prescribed title #4 – basic knowledge questions

Published by author on october 29, 2021 october 29, 2021.

See the main page for the May 2022 TOK essay basic knowledge questions https://toktips.com/may-2022-tok-essay-prescribed-titles-sample-knowledge-questions/ . Also, have a look at the TOK essay process here: https://toktips.com/the-tok-essay-process/

4. How do historians and human scientists give knowledge meaning through the telling of stories? Discuss with reference to history and the human sciences. 

How do historians use academic research papers to give knowledge through the telling stories?

How do human scientists use lab reports to give knowledge through the telling stories?

To what extent is the use of ____________ by historians / human scientists a way of using stories to pass on knowledge?

Related Posts

May 2023 tok essay prescribed title #3 specific example – indigenous people of northern japan.

Article: “Japan’s forgotten indigenous people” http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20200519-japans-forgotten-indigenous-people In the Japanese school curriculum (set by the central government in Tokyo) there is very little time and space spent on the Ainu, an indigenous group that has almost Read more…

May 2023 Prescribed Title #1

May 2023 tok essay prescribed title #1 specific example – japanese myth on the birth of japan..

The extract below is a translated Japanese creation myth in an ancient text named Kojiki. The original text is written in an type of writing that the vast majority of modern Japanese people cannot read. Read more…

May 2023 TOK essay prescribed title #4 specific example – photo of an execution during the Vietnam War.

Eddie Adams’ iconic Vietnam War photo: What happened next https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42864421 Consider the different aspects where is there “a little knowledge” regarding the photo and the actual incident. Then look into the larger question that is Read more…

Privacy Overview

Jewish Calendar 2022 Elektrostal’, Moscow Oblast, Russia

• Monthly calendar
• Candle-lighting times only

Advertisement

Calendar settings.

Select your calendar app:

• Outlook Web

Apple iOS & macOS

This subscription is a 4-year perpetual calendar feed with events for the current year (2024) plus 3 future years.

Step-by-step: iPhone / iPad or macOS

Use this download alternative if you prefer to manually import the calendar events and merge with your own calendar.

Outlook Windows PC Desktop

Internet Calendar Subscriptions are used by Windows PCs with Microsoft 365, Outlook 2021, Outlook 2019, and 2016.

Step-by-step: Outlook for Windows

Use this download alternative if you prefer to manually import the calendar events into Outlook and merge with your own calendar.

Google Calendar

Icalendar feed url.

The iCalendar (.ics) format is used by many calendar apps.

Outlook Web (Outlook.com)

Outlook.com calendars are used by Windows 10 & 11, Outlook Mac, and Microsoft email accounts such as Hotmail.com, MSN.com and Live.com

Comma Separated Values (CSV)

CSV is a legacy calendar file format for Outlook 97-2003. Select the file that matches your computer’s date format:

• Download CSV - USA mm/dd/yyyy
• Download CSV - Europe dd/mm/yyyy

Step-by-step: CSV for Outlook for Windows

Print PDF (formatted for 8.5"x11" paper)

Download PDF Calendar

Weekly Shabbat times email

Get candle-lighting times for Elektrostal’, Parashat ha-Shavua & Havdalah delivered to your inbox every Thursday.

Email Privacy Policy : We will never sell or give your email address to anyone. We will never use your email address to send you unsolicited offers.

Generating preview

This may take a few moments...