Week 7 Overview and Assignments

This week our goal is to consider the progressive nature of historiography throughout time.

 We completed an activity on historical reliability and transmission of information, considering how personal perceptions and our interactions with various ways and areas of knowing affected the ways in which our historical information was relayed.

 We also discussed some of the underlying principles of historical observation using Jorgenson's rationalist 7-step model on the limits and reliability of history based on time, space, motivation, and quantity.

 On Wednesday  we considered the development of history throughout time, starting with the Greco-Roman traditions, swerving into the non-western developments of China and Muslim cultures, contrasted with the Early Christian and Judeo-Palestinian conceptions of time, into the Enlightenment Whip school, Hegelianism, Annales school and lastly, Marxism. I suggested for the ongoing, 21st century discussion of the philosophy of history and its impact on the present/future to research the system of thought known as "Sustainable History", which sees all human culture as a single entity comprised of many parts.

Assignments:

TOK Ch. 6, p. 211-236

Team 1: 211-215

Team 2: 216-220

Team 3: 221-225

Team 4: 226-230

Team 5: 231-233

Team 6: 233-236

PP: Team 1-3: Georg Hegel

Team 4-6: Michel Foucault

AIO: Just War Theory

Blog 5 Discussion Here (Due 3/4)
Next week we will be debriefing with an informal Socratic Seminar.  We will also begin preparation for our second formal Socratic Seminar as you begin researching one of three Problem of Knowledge issues regarding History and one other area of knowing.

Week 7: Historical Method

07. historical method from Justin Morris

05. forming ethical questions from Justin Morris

Week 5 Overview and Assignments

Hello, IB ethicists!

This week we discussed the chapters from week 4 regarding ethical reasoning.  We made some headway on the issue of reason and emotion as it relates to our ideas of ethical decision-making, and how the areas of Science and Language interact with it.  Should innovation in science be constrained by Ethical decisions, or is it an impediment to true knowing?  What is the purpose of Science if NOT for the sake of better humanity (an ethically reasoned presupposition to Science).  Excellent thoughts all around.

We also discussed some contemporary issues of Ethical reasoning, including Mansanto's intellectual copyrighting of organisms, drone strikes and the potential causalities and constitutionality issues,  human development and human value in connection with rights to life versus rights to choice/freedom.  We covered a broad range of topics to expose students to the various interactions of Ethics in current global issues.  This will aid you in the development of our first formal Socratic Seminar next Thursday.

On Thursday, 2/14, we will be meeting briefly in my classroom and then turning you loose in the library to do research on your topics.  You received a packet that should help walk you through the development of an authentic Problem of Knowledge that is tailored to your own personal interests and current, yet still evolving, positions as genuine Knowers from what we have studied the past four weeks.

Make sure you come prepared Thursday, 2/21 with all of your notes, question, toulmin model of argument, and with a strong handle of rhetorical fallacy for use and discussion.  Our goal is to keep the conversation moving, keeping in mind the respect we have for one another as thinkers, and with an eye towards learning, not just teaching.

Week 4 Overview and Assignments

This week we begin looking at the foundations of Ethical Reasoning. While ethical questions may come natural to us when thinking about controversial topics (i.e. is x right or wrong?), the epistemology of ethics has depth and categorical breadth deserving of our attention and practice.

 On Tuesday, we mentioned the disaster of Primavera Island, and the resulting ethical dilemma associated with a scarcity of resources coupled with preconceived notions of utility v. innate value. Most teams chose the route of pure, arbitrary chance, and rationalized this ethical decision as "blindness leads to fairness". Some teams began rationalizing in order to avoid the ethical decision (does the baby count as a passenger due to weight? etc.). One team couldn't select more than 5 "useful" people, and would thus have some extra leg room. What separates these ethical decisions from one another? Can we make some progress on this notion of Ethics with thoughtfulness despite societal complexity? Is there meaning to "right" and "wrong" action?


 On Wednesday, we discussed the competing theories of ethics. Utilitarian Ethics suggests a focus on end results towards a maximum happiness. Deontological Ethics suggests a focus upon the virtue of an ethical choice in terms of its innate rationality above its ultimate consequence. We offered examples of both that were sometimes palatable and sometimes difficult in order to recognize the debate may not be simplistic.

On Thursday, we developed a Socratic Seminar on the topic of Discriminiation.  The concepts included 1. How subcultures are formed 2. How complexities of culture are simplified to emphasize differences 3. How discrimination may lead to solidarity and new worldview formations. and 4. The interaction of nature with discrimination practices.


Assignments:

TOK Chs. 7-8, p. 237-257

Team 1: 237-241

Team 2: 242-246

Team 3: 246-251

Team 4: 251-257

Team 5: Case Study 1

Team 6: Case Study 2

Philosopher Portrait: Mill or Kant

Argue it Out: Gene Modification

4. Ethical Reasoning

Week 3 Overview and Assignments

Last week we completed our discussion of formal and informal fallacies, analyzing through political discussion both the usefulness (emotional appeal) and the defense against fallacious reasoning. We offered several different problems of knowledge associated with media bias (focusing on theory of truth over ethical reasoning).

Our argue it out for week 3 was associated with discrimination. So often fallacious reasoning is associated with the development of in/out groups and "othering". The interaction of practical topics with a Theory of Knowledge lens is the goal of this course.

Our Philosopher Portrait was on Socrates. The introduction of the Socratic Method of questioning. Consider how the Socratic Method can be used to interact with topics of discrimination, or the defense against "othering".

Lastly, our reading was a supplemental resource called "Thank you for Arguing", suggesting practical steps in the art of persuasion. This will be discussed more in Week 4 (transitioning to Ethical Reasoning).