Here is a collection of selected writings from “Theory of Knowledge” class (TOK) at Newark Academy 2006-07 (Dr. DiBianca).

In TOK we generated many more questions than we answered. Actually, we probably never definitively answered any question at all. One can safely say, this was a very confusing class. I think the main function of this course was indeed to open our eyes to the confusion of, well, everything. And here, in my last TOK journal entry, I abandon my well known (and perhaps boring) side as the logical, math and science geek, and write as an appreciator of the arts, or, a naturalist, or, a well rounded student, or I don’t know – a person: In TOK we attempted to answer questions – big questions. Some days we thought we were on track, other days, we were utterly confused. Now that TOK is done, we are back to the regular daily routine with a new and profound appreciation of how confusing it all is. I think this confusion is beautiful. Yes, beautiful. I think we can all agree on this, even though we never answered the question, ‘what is beauty?’. I think that while this course did not answer most of the questions it raised, it did something much more important: it introduced us to this beautiful confusion!

My favorite area of art is literature, but I find it very hard to single out one piece of literature as my favorite. I have a group of about 8 pieces of literature (none of which, by the way, i read on my own: only in lit class) that I like very much. I guess I’ll discuss some of them here.
“Our Town” by Thornton Wilder (from freshmen lit w/ Mr. Downs) – this book is so realistic, so compassionate to the human experience, it really does make you appreciate immensely the simple things in life.
“Walden” and “resistance to civil government” by Thoreau, and “self relience” and “nature” by Emerson (sophomore American li w/ Ms. O’Connel) – I liked these four for the same reason: the way Emerson and Thoreau reason clearly and simply about many timeless issues.
“Sand county almanac” by Aldo Leopold, “A friend of the earth” by TC Boyle, and “Desert solitaire” by Edward Abbey. These are from eco-lit class w/ Mr. Downs. I like them because they are books about nature, the environment, and its protection. Some of them echoed my views, some were entertaining, and some made me think critically.

The objective of a scientist is to seek the truth. Once society starts imposing subjective restrictions on what scientific discoveries are “morally” acceptable or unacceptable, society is effectively closing its eyes on the world in which it lives, and doctrines and false beliefs take the place of truth. A great example of this is the banning of teaching of the theory of evolution in some American schools in the early 20th century. Back then, the local governments of some districts decided that Darwin’s theory of evolution was morally unacceptable, according to their religious doctrines. This resulted in one such town in the famous Scopes Monkey trials. If that town continued to ban teaching the theory of evolution, nothing would stop the authorities from manipulating textbooks in any way, shape or form to their own benefit. Now, to the first question, should scientists be held responsible for applications of their discoveries, If they were held responsible,, Einstein would have to be held responsible foe the atomic bomb. But that is nonsense. Einstein discovered some truth of nature. But any knowledge can be put to positive or negative application.

I think the most important historical lesson is that power tends to become corrupt. Any kind of power – powerful government or powerful nation. We see it throughout history. Those who get the power abuse it. An example of this is in Ukraine: after 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, some shrewd folk became very powerful by privatizing formerly federal and public land and enterprises. They abused their power and took over the government by controlling the press and media. Once in power they maintained their power by rigging the national elections and using their wealth to essentially buy their way into power. What happened in Ukraine illustrates the fact that those in power abuse it. The historical lesson learned is that power always tends to corrupt, and the people of a nation must prevent one party from getting too much power. Human history is a history of power: parties trying to control the nation, nations trying to control the world. And in any nation there usually form two sides of the political spectrum: conservatives are those who are in power and do not want to change anything, and liberals are those who are not in power and want to change everything. What we also often see in history is that a nation that grows and becomes more and more powerful tends to always collapse. Examples include the Roman empire, Russian empire, Ottoman empire, etc.

By the 20th century the human population, due to industrialization, started to have a great impact on the environment and climate, and this is when environmental ethics became an issue. People realized that their treatment of the environment could effect their survival. First it was realized that pollution of water, air, may have a direct effect on human health. Later, science and ecology gathered evidence to show that human activities could harm and even shutdown processes that sustain ecosystems, that ultimately sustain us, and that was the birth of environmentalism. We now find ourselves in a situation similar to what our prehistoric ancestors faced. In order to survive, we MUST develop an environmental ethic, just as our ancestors developed social ethics.

Humans do not have such instincts that tell us not to kill other humans. We see that humans do kill others, sometimes by the thousands. Just as biological evolution resulted in instincts of animals, social evolution has resulted in human morals. Simply, societies that had moral laws and order were more successful and took over other societies that did not have such a social structure. Morals and ethics are just a means of survival of society, of our species. If humans did not have morals or ethics, we would start killing and steeling from each other and the species would not survive. Societal evolution is the source of morals and ethics. In my opinion, and I realize that its different from what most people have written, religion and religious books, such as the Bible or Koran, are not a source of morals. They are written records of ethics and morals of the societies that wrote them. They are containers of water (morals) rather then a spring (a source of them). Sense of right and wrong are passed from generation to generation from parents to children and from society to individuals, but again, those are not sources of morals or ethics, they are means of transfer of them through time.

I acquire knowledge to appreciate the world around me, and to be able to participate in it. I think that the book Tao of Pooh clearly states that acquiring knowledge for the sake of complaining or appearing clever or appearing wise is pointless and a waist of energy, and I agree with that. Knowledge is just a tool, a skill we use, to interact with the world and our surroundings. I do not focus on knowledge as if it is some kind of ultimate, stuff of enlightenment. Just as I use my arms and feet to appreciate the ruggedness of a mountain, my eyes to appreciate its size, my nose to appreciate the fresh air, I use knowledge to appreciate the time it took for the mountain to form, the way the wind flows around and erodes the mountain’s ridges.