Ways of Knowing Essay

In order to distinguish between something that is true, and something that is believed to be true, it’s important to examine the truth-in-question with the four ways of knowing, as well as it’s justifications, and through Plato’s three truth requirements. If something that is believed to be true cannot be properly explained and justified through the ways of knowing and the justifications of at least empiricism and/or authority, than it is probably not true.

When examining something to figure out if it is true or just believed to be true, it is really important to look at the four ways of knowing, which are: emotion, reason, language, and perception. If something that is believed to be true can be looked at through these four ways of knowing, then it is mostly likely true, and not just believed to be true. For example, it is true that I have, what is generally known as “red hair.” I perceive my hair to be of a reddish color. Using reason, I can deduce that I am a “red-head” because my hair is not brown enough to be considered “brunette”, nor is it light and honey-colored enough to be considered “blonde,” nor is it dark enough to be considered “black,” and the only general remaining natural color is “red.” Emotionally, I know that my hair is red. I feel the secondary emotion of pride at knowing my hair is red, which I know is more rare than blonde, brunette, or black. I know that it is more rare through the justification of empiricism. I have seen more brunettes, blondes, and black-haired people, than I have seen people with red-hair. Language as a way of knowing, also helps be know that my hair is red. Through further empiricism, I have heard people use terms like “carrot-top,” “ginger,” and “freckle-face,” to describe not only me, but other people who I know have red-hair. These Language terms help me to know that my hair is red because the terms themselves generally refer to the color red, or reddish colors, and so using them to describe someone helps us know that they have red hair.

There are counterclaims to this of course, the first being that “red” is not a natural hair color, and that anyone who has natural “red-hair” actually has more orange-colored hair. One who is using this counterclaim, could reference the language term “carrot-top” citing that carrots are orange, and so someone who is a “carrot-top” actually has orange-colored hair, rather than “red.”

Another way for us to examine something that may be true is to look at it platonically. Plato’s three requirements for truth help us limit what has the possibility to true and what does not, and ultimately helps us differentiate between the real truth, and the believed truth. Plato said that for something to be true it must be “Public” (available to the masses), “Independent” (of one’s belief system), and it must be “Eternal” (it always has been and will be true). This platonic examination of the four ways of knowing will better help us distinguish between the truth and the belief of truth. An example of this is a traffic light in America. It is true that red means stop and is at the top of the traffic light, yellow means slow down and prepare to stop, and is in the middle of the traffic light, and green means go and is at the bottom of the traffic light. We can justify that this is how an American traffic light works, through Knowledge by Authority. Our parents, our drivers’ education teachers, and our government, all authority figures, tell us that this is how an American traffic light system works. We know that this is true because it is public. Anyone can go to a traffic intersection and see a traffic light, and watch the traffic as it goes by and how the cars react to the changing of the lights. By doing this, they will also get an empirical justification. Or, if one does not have access to a streetlight at an intersection, the literature is available, on the Internet or at one’s local Registry or Department of Motor Vehicles. It is independent of one’s belief system in that, anyone of any religion in America, can look at a traffic light and understand what each color means and knows what they are supposed to do. Because it is known to the public, even if you believe that what others see to be the color red, is green, and you run a red light or in you opinion, “green light,” you can still be ticketed because the truth of the way the traffic light works is independent of your belief that the color red is actually green. Finally, the traffic light system is eternal. Even if the system one day, changes, it will always be known that at one time, red meant stop, yellow meant slow down, and green meant go. It is a part of history and it has already been proved to be Public and Independent, so we know that is will be Eternal.

However, one could claim that because not everyone in the world has Internet access, nor the literature that describes would an American traffic light, that this knowledge is not Public enough, and so it would not pass one of Plato’s three requirements for truth, and can only be considered to be true, not a simple truth.

There are implications of my argument that a truth needs to be backed up by the four ways of knowing, the justifications of Authority and Empiricism, and Plato’s three requirements of truth. One general implication is that a lot of things that we considered to be true will be questioned, and perhaps found not to be as believed. For my peers, this might mean when reading an article passed out in History class, we have to considered it’s source, where it was published, by whom it was published, etc., before we can accept that the information provided to us is the truth. For my school, the implication is that the teachers must work harder to provide and inform the students with the most possibly accurate information, and that they must go through the ways of knowing, as well as Platonic truth requirements and justifications, to be sure that information is accurate, and provides, at the very least, one part of the truth. The implication for the world is that leaders may be questioned on what they proclaim to be “the truth.” And if they know that they may be questioned about why what they are saying is the truth, they are more likely to do the proper research and confirm that what they tell people is true, and not simply believed to be true. An example of how this may work is an example from the past. George W. Bush claimed that dictator Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), and that he wanted to use them on the United States. If he had been questioned on this claim with the four ways of knowing, the Platonic definition of truth, and justifications, it is very possible that his claim could be shown to be simply believed to be true, but not actually true, and many American soldiers’ lives would have been saved.

In conclusion, when we examine a claim, using the four ways of knowing, the Platonic definition of truth, and justifications, we can better distinguish between something that is true, and something that is simply believed to be true.

The Elephant Man

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

1. (A) Is John Merrick a Monster? In your answer, consider how you could use the following Areas of Knowledge to justify your claims.

John Merrick is not a monster.In relation to history, he does not behave like the monsters in our fairy tales. In the movie, he can speak, he can create, in general he can contribute to society unlike the monsters of fairy tales, who are generally the antagonists of those stories, and do not seem to contribute to the fairy tale kingdoms. In The Elephant Man, John Merrick is the protagonist of the story.

In relation to the natural science, John Merrick is not a monster. He has a disease, and having a disease does not make you a monster, much in the same way that having cancer does not make you a monster. Also, not every part of John Merick was deformed. As Dr. Treves pointed out when Merrick first came to the hospital, Merrick's genitals are completely normal for a human, further evidence that although he is deformed, he is not a monster. According to social science, John Merrick is not a monster. He behaves like a gentleman, is intelligent and refined. When given nice clothes to wear, and a dressing case, he uses them, just as any other gentleman would. Merrick proves himself not to be dangerous, nor a criminal, and so social science shows us that he is not a monster.

Finally, in relation to the arts, John Merrick proved himself not to be a monster. Not only can he appreciate the arts, such as the theatre, which he visited, and wished to go again, as expressed in the movie, but Merrick was also able to create art, something no monster should be able. In visiting the theatre, and creating a beautiful paper catherdral, John Merrick has proved himself not to be a monster, through the Arts.

1. (B) What is the counter-claim for each Area of Knowledge?

The counterclaim for each Area of Knowledge, can be shown through the actions of Mr. Bytes, John Merrick's former "owner" in the circus.

In relation to History, Mr. Bites would claim that he knows the story of why John Merrick looks as he does, that his father is an elephant, that the African story Mr. Bytes was told is true, to look at the elephant man and hear the story, one would know it was true.

Mr. Bytes would also say that, according to the natural sciences, John Merrick is clearly a monster. He would say again that simply looking at the elephant man would show you that he is a monster. He would say that obviously no human could look like that, and that no animal could look like that either, so a cross between a human and an animal would be a monster.

Mr. Bytes also believes that John Merrick is a monster according to the social sciences. It seems that Merrick won't speak in front of Mr. Bytes, so it appears that all Merrick can do is grunt and spit. Merrick does not act like a man in front or Mr. Bytes, so Mr. Bytes would claim that he is a monster, and not a man because he does not act like a man.

Finally, in relation to the arts, Mr. Bytes would claim that Merrick is a monster because Merrick cannot create, nor appreciate any art, and that monster can neither create or appreciate art. it is evident through the film that Merrick is too frightened of Mr. Bytes to really do anything in his presence, so it appears to Mr. Bytes that Merrick cannot create or appreciate, or indeed contribute to society, so Mr. Bytes sees him as a monster, and treats him as such.

2. John Merrick claimed, "I am not an animal, I am a human being!" What does he mean? How does he know?

He means that he is not wild, a monster, someone who would hurt others. He is trying to explain that he is not dangerous to the crowd that is converging on him, simply because he looks different, scary and dangerous. He wants them to know that he will not hurt them, or anyone, because he fears that they will hurt him.

He knows he is human through knowledge by authority. Dr. Treves has told him that he is not a monster, that he is human, and Dr. Treves is a physician, so he has authority. Dr. Treves even explains to his colleagues how, although Merrick is deformed, he is a human, and even in spite of his deformities, some parts of him remain unaltered. Merrick also knows that he is human, through knowledge by introspection. He knows how to read, and knows the Bible, front to back, he can appreciate beauty, and art, and he can even create beautiful things. He knows that he is a thinking being as, believes himself to be a human because of theses things.

3. Dr. Treves asks, "Am I a good man, or am I a bad man?" What does he mean? How does he know?

He wants to know if he is a good man for taking care of John Merrick, for giving him a place to stay, for examining him, and for introducing him into English society, and giving him friends like the actress, Ms. Kendal. However, he wonders if, by introducing Merrick into English society, he has behaved like Mr. Bytes, showing Merick off to the world to see, just as Mr. Bytes did, presenting Merrick as a freak. He knows he is a good in two ways, Knowledge by Authority and Knowledge by Introspection, just as John Merrick knows he is human, not animal. The Knowledge by Authority comes from his wife, and from John Merrick. When he poses his question to his wife, she reassures him that he is good because of all he has done for Mr. Merrick. This inspires his knowledge by Introspection, where he examines what he has done for Merrick, such as rescuing him from Bytes, giving him a place to stay, food, and companionship. His knowledge by Introspection is confirmed by John Merrick when, upon his return to the hospital after being kidnapped by Mr. Bytes, Merrick tells Dr. Treves, that if it were not for him, Merrick would not be happy, because he would not know that each moment of each day, he was loved, and calls Dr. Treves, "my friend."

4. What role does the herd mentality play in the film? Please be specific in your answers.
The role of herd mentality plays both negative and positive roles in the film. Some of the negative roles are:

-The proclamation of Merrick as a freak in the circus.

-The excitement in the bar, as the night watchman, eggs on the drunks to come and see the elephant man.

- The reaction of the drunken crowds when the night watchman brings them to Merrick's room.

-The gathering hoard chasing Merrick in the train station after the little boy steals Merrick's protective cap/sack.

The positive roles of the herd mentality in the film are:

-The clapping of the audience after Ms. Kendal when she dedicates the performance to Merrick.

-The standing ovation that follows Merrick when he stands at the performance.

-The visitors to Merrick after Ms. Kendal, who comes of her own accord.

-The treatment of Merrick as an intelligent human being by the nurses and other hospital staff, after Dr. Treves presents and explains him as such, instead of an idiot.

5. How did the community react to the different Monsters in the film? Please explain your answer.

If you believe that John Merrick was a monster, then the community reacted two different ways to the three monsters in the movie.

The first reaction to a monster that they had, if you believe John Merrick to be a monster, was in horror and fear, at the beginning. Before Dr. Treves showed English society that Merrick was not a monster, almost anyone who looked at him, saw only his disfigurement. Women screamed in terror, men jeered and laughed, or just looked in disgust. It wasn't until Dr. Treves showed Merrick kindness and discovered his intelligence and gentleness, that he could be accepted by others as a man, and not a monster.

The second reaction the community had to the monsters in the film, is a much scarier reaction than horror at a monster. Their reaction to the two men, I perceived to be monsters, was that of acceptance. I perceived them to be monsters because they were exploiting John Merrick, using his misfortune of disease, for their own personal gain. Mr. Bytes beat Merrick simply because he was deformed and Mr. Bytes believed himself to be the owner of Merrick. He did not seek to have Merrick examined, and did not wish for him to live and be cared for in the London hospital, because it was a loss of income for him. The community accpeted Mr. Bytes by going to the circus, and paying him to see the "freak," the elephant man.

The night watchman was the other man I perceived to be a monster, and the community readily accepted him too, with people from the bar, paying him to go and see and jeer at Merrick in the hospital. It seemed as if they believed that what the watchman was doing was okay; those who went to Merrick's room, actively participated in terrorizing Merrick.

6. John Merrick claims, "We are afraid of what we don't understand." Do you agree? Does this statement apply to the modern world or have we learned to treat perceived Monsters with dignity? Please be specific in your answer.

I do agree with Merrick. In the movie, it is evident that almost everyone who first sees Merrick is frightened of him They do not know that he is a normal man with a disease which has deformed him, that he is intelligent and kind. Once they understand this, like Ms. Kendal, they seem to like him, and do not, for the most part, appear frightened of him, because they understand that he is a normal man on the inside.

I believe that for the most part. this statement still applies to the modern world. human beings are still afraid of what they don't understand. The Bosnian War is proof of that. Serbian Christians fear the Muslims in that part of the world, partly because they don't understand them, they don't understand their culture or their traditions. This statement still applies to the US, but less so. In the US, citizens are more accepting of differences and other cultures. However, Americans are often still afraid of what they don't understand. For example, after September 11, 2009, many white Americans were afraid of Muslim-Americans, especially those who wore traditional garb. This fear was irrational because the Muslim religion, Islam, literally translates to "peace." Those Americans did not realize that not everyone who is Muslim is a terrorist. In general, though, Merrick's statement is generally true throughout the world, present somewhere in each culture.

Justifications

Plato believed that there are 4 ways to Justify:

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

Questions:

1. After learning about how the Bosnian War began and the role of Karadzic and Milosevic, was it fair for the Independent to use the word "Monster"?

I still believe, after learning how the Bosnian War began and the roles of Karadzic and Milosevic, that it was fair for the Independent to use the word "Monster." However, the Independent would have been more justified in sharing the cast blame with the Milosevic. Milosevic is only mentioned twice in the article, and while the Independent does mention that Milosevic is "the man who still calls so many of the shots," they focus mainly on Karadzic's actions.

2. How do you think this phrase would be justified, according to Plato? Use specific examples from the reading and the documentary, The Death of Yugoslavia, to justify your claims.
According to Plato, this phrase would be justified mainly through Empiricism. Peter Maass actually went to Omarska and some other work camps, and saw the way that the Muslims were being treated, through the commands of Karadzic. Also, the images from the documentary The Death of Yugoslavia, the ethnic cleansing and mass exodus of Muslims, which is shown as Karadzic's doing, by what he says in the council, is also Empirical evidence to support the term "monster" in relation to Karadzic.

Another way this phrase can be justified platonically is by Authority. Authorities such as our government, the United Nations, our teachers, our parents, etc., tell us that genocide is horrible, terrible thing, and I have, in fact, heard my parents refer to those in charge of genocides, such as Hitler, as monsters. This knowledge by authority justifies calling Kardzic a "monster," as he is responsible for the mass killings, both on the street and in the camps, of the Bosnian Muslims.
3. When the term Monster is used, what do you think it means. (You can look it up in the dictionary, but as you know, that has limitations).
The definition or Monster from Dictionary.com is:

1.	a legendary animal combining features of animal and human form or having the forms of various animals in combination, as a centaur, griffin, or sphinx.

2.	any creature so ugly or monstrous as to frighten people.

3.	any animal or human grotesquely deviating from the normal shape, behavior, or character.

4.	a person who excites horror by wickedness, cruelty, etc.

5.	any animal or thing huge in size.

When the term "Monster" is used by the Independent, I think that the 3rd and fourth definitions apply to what they are trying to express. When I hear the term "monster" used, I don't generally think of a literal monster. In relation to a person, i think of someone who has done something terrible, like crippling or killing someone.

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

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

My answer has not changed since my first entry. I still believe that Karadzic c is a monster, justified by Empirical and Authoritative evidence. I believe that any race and/or religion should be permitted to exist, to live wherever they choose to call home, and not have to fear for their lives, simply because they a re a minority. Any person who thinks that those minorities should be exterminated, is, in my opinion, a monster. It is my belief that the act of killing another human being, let alone hundreds or thousands, is a terrible, horrible, monstrous thing.

Karadzic: Monster

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

The Independent refers to Karadzic as a "monster." In an attempt to justify their knowledge claims, the Independent uses war speak, empirical knowledge, and is written in such a way to make the reader feel primary emotions, such as anger and sadness, in order to make their knowledge claims justified.

War speak is the most prolific way in which the Independent successfully (at least, in my case) evokes anger and sadness, two primary emotions from the reader. Some examples of heavily emotionally laden terms, in the Peter Maass article, Love Thy Neighbor, are:

-"survivors of Auschwitz" (recalling the most brutal Nazi concentration camp in WWII)

-"Kalashnikov assault rifles"

-"God-knows-what torture"

-"the sorriest infirmary you could imagine"

-"more bruises, more swelling, more open wounds."

-"they walked surprisingly well for people without muscle or flesh."

-"talking skeletons!"

-"mutilated chest"

-"puss oozed out."

-"his skin was stretched like a transparent scarf over his ribs and shoulder bones."

-"you have a girlfriend who has not been raped."

Each of theses terms is used to describe what Peter Maass saw at the Serb prison camps, but his use of words such as "skeleton," and "mutilated," bring about emotions of sadness and disgust, making the topic of the article more realistic to the reader.

In the Independent article,war speak is used more frequently because the Independent focuses more on Karadzic, rather than on the prisoners of the war camps. Therefore, there is more war speak used in this article to justify that Karadzic is monster, because of the methods of his politics.

War terms in this article are:

-"tanks"

-"killing"/"brutality"

-"'war criminal'"

-"'ethnic cleansing'"

-"intolerance"

-"Nazi-style"

-"'provocation'"

-"detention camps"

-"artillery"

These war speak terms implicate Karadzic as a monster. Comparing him to the Nazis, compares him to one of the most notorious mass-murders of all time. The use of these aggressive war terms, is a (successful) attempt to make Karadzic out to be a dangerous mass-murder, a monster.

Empirical Knowledge

In Peter Maas's article, the reader receives empirical knowledge, as the writer, Peter Maass, is writing in the first person, and at the beginning of the article it is clearly stated: "(This chronicles my visit to several Serb prison camps.)"

Therefore the reader may conclude that this article speaks to the truth of what is generally happening in Serbian prison camps. Peter Maass has experienced it, seeing sights and going places, such as the infirmary, where he was "not supposed to be." If he tells us of his experiences, then the truth is relayed to us, the readers. We may assume that this article is truthful because it is:

-public

it has been published as a clip from a book, and the camp guards occasionally allow the journalists to enter the camps, so others may verify this.

-independent

Peter Maass is an American journalist( http://www.petermaass.com/about/), so his article is free of both the Serbian and Bosnian beliefs that dominate either side of the war.

-eternal

as a published book, anyone who would like to read this article, is available to it, and journalists are occasionally allowed into the camps to report on, so if one would like to visit the camps for his or herself, one could become a journalist to do so.

In conclusion, the Independent, and the Peter Maass article successfully convey the horror of the prison camps, and through knowledge justifications of their claims, portray accurately, I believe, that Karadzic is a monster.