The Elephant Man

1a. Is John Merrick a monster? In your answer, consider how you could use the following areas of knowledge to justify your claims. (history, natural science, social science, the arts)

-In my opinion, John Merrick is not a monster. He is a normal human being with emotions, and he has a wonderful ability to show compassion, despite being afraid to at first. I can justify this through history, because a monster is someone like Hitler, who shows no emotion whatsoever, because he is a mass-murderer of so many people. John Merrick was not like Hitler at all. I'm not really quite sure how the others would fit in, because we haven't studied this and I don't understand...

1b. What is the counter-claim for each area of knowledge?

-I know that a counter claim for history would be that in fairy-tales, children are brought up to believe that monsters are people with physical deformities. For example, green creatures with fangs and only one eye is a childhood version of a monster. Therefore people could argue that because John Merrick has physical deformities, he resembles a childhood version of a monster.

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

-John Merrick is trying to convey that he is sick of people treating him like an animal, where they act like he is unable to understand what is going on. In reality, he can very well understand what is being down to him by others, and he has feelings attached to this. He knows this through emotion, because he is able to feel humiliated by the people while they show him nude to a crowd of people; he is able to feel love when he is reading Romeo and Juliet with that other girl. He is just a human being, like every one else, who happens to have a deformed body.

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

-He is questioning whether or not he is doing the same thing to John as his owner once did. he is unsure as to whether he is actually helping John to develop and realize that he is just a normal human being, or if he is just putting him up to be looked at and humiliated like he was before. He has to justify what he believes through his own perception and reason, by figuring out that eh actually is helping John to become a better person because John is developing, and he feels happy and safe where he is.

4. What role does the herd mentality play in the film? Please be specific in your answers.

- I believe that the "herd" mentality" plays a huge role in the film, because it really helps to reveal who the true monsters are. It seems as though wherever the mob of people are, the monster is revealed. For instance, at the beginning, there is a mob of people around, which reveals John Merrick when he is first seen as a monster. When John Merrick is at the hospital, and the man who does the night patrol comes into his room with a crowd of people, another mosnter is revealed (the man who does the night patrol.) It seems as though the large groups of people bring out the worst in people. Maybe this is because it is sort of like a huge battle: a bunch of people against one.

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

-The community reacted to John Merrick by basically making fun of him for the beginning part of the film, once they finally got to know him however, their viewpoint of him changed and they did become much kinder to him. This is because they realized that he was just a human being like everyone else. However, another monster in this movie was the owner of John Merrick. At first, nobody realized that he was a monster, because he was too busy pointing out what he viewed to be another monster. But then, when the real side of John Merrick was revealed, people began to see that his owner might have been the real monster. An example of this sticks out in my mind when close to the end, the owner steals John Merrick back and puts him up for a show. He is doing the show, and then all of a sudden John Merrick falls over and can't get back up. The people see how cruel John Merrick was treated, and they start to boo at his owner; I think this certainly shows something significant about whot he real monster is.

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 with your answer.

-I do agree with John Merrick's statement very much. As human beings we tend to edge away from what we don't know, because we feel so comfortable with what we do know. It is similar to the saying that "we are afraid of the unknown." Personally, I know I fear this very much. I think this statement does apply to the real world, because for the most part when we see someone who is a bit different than us, we begin to act differently, may even without realizing it. For instance, sometimes a person may be in a restaurant, and a person with a mental disability might be there- we then, as an instinct, may start to feel a bit uncomfortable. Or even if we don't feel uncomfortable, we feel different than we would feel if it they were not there. Maybe we feel a bit bad for them, but we don't want to show it, so we act differently. However we may feel, things certainly change when we are around a person who may be different than our normal schema.

Truth Essay

What is Truth?

There are four different ways of knowing which are essential in helping us as knowers distinguish the difference between something that is true and something that is believed to be true. Almost daily, I encounter personal experiences where I must use perception, language, reason, or emotion to figure out whether or not something is true. The implications of my claim may result in people constantly thinking about what they believe to be true, while using knowledge to decide if it actually is a justified truth. The counterclaims of this argument would arise if a person doesn’t follow Plato’s theory on the ways of knowing. In order to distinguish between something that is true and something that is believed to be true, a person must know how the ways of knowing are using in creating a justified true belief.

There are four different ways in which we as human beings can gain knowledge- through perception, language, reason, and emotion. However, in order to claim that we know something, we must be able to justify it. This can be done through authority, empiricism, memory, or reason. For example a person can claim that all teenagers are bad drivers, which would be his personal belief. He could even justify this by using empiricism or reason. If he were to use empiricism he might say that, “yesterday when I was driving, a teenager cut me off.” He could also create a syllogism and use reason to say, “People who cut others off while driving are bad drivers. The only people who cut me off while driving are teenagers. Therefore, only teenagers are bad drivers.” Therefore, in his mind he may believe that it is true that all teenagers are bad drivers, which is different than what is actually true. This is because in order for something to be true it must be eternal, public, and independent. This man’s claim that all teenagers are bad drivers isn’t true because although that one specific incident may have been eternal, it doesn’t mean that his claim is eternal. Also, his claim that all bad drivers are teenagers isn’t public, because it is not a claim that is made by an authority figure. For instance, if his claim was public, teenagers probably wouldn’t be allowed to drive because they would be such high risks to the surrounding community. Finally, his claim was not independent, because although the incident did occur regardless of what anyone else may have believed, it cannot stand alone because there is not enough evidence to support that all teenagers are bad drivers. In my personal life I face situations similar to this one, where I have to decide if what I believe to be true is actually true.

In my house as well as at my work, English is the only language that we speak. Because of this, I sometimes believe that English is the dominant language of the world. I might have gained this idea through my perception, because English is always being spoken around me. I could justify my belief to an extent through empiricism, by saying that I constantly hear people speaking the English language. There are even authority figures who are constantly speaking English, and most of the TV shows that are on are broadcasted in English. However, despite my belief, I am unable to claim that it is true that English is the dominant language of the world. This is first of all because it is not publically stated that English is the dominant language of the world. Also, it can’t be eternal because this has never been true before. My belief certainly isn’t independent because it cannot stand on its own due to the fact that it is only my personal opinion. Therefore, despite my ability to justify why I believe something to be true, I cannot justify that it is actually true. ThisHowever, there are some instances where people may create counterclaims against what I think is needed for something to be considered the truth.

There are people who can successfully argue with my viewpoint, by saying that there are some cases where you cannot distinguish between what is believed to be true and what is actually true. An example of this counterclaim is with religions and belief in God. A person can say that they believe there is a God, and they can claim that they know this through their emotions and perception. They can then go on to say that it is justified through authority figures, like the pope, bishops, and priests. This all works, except when they reach the point of distinguishing whether or not God actually exists, and there becomes a problem. The existence of God can be eternal, because when a person goes to church they can say that God will always exist at that one specific time. God’s existence is also public because there are some holidays that only celebrate God’s existence. It is also independent, because knowledge of God’s existence can vary from person to person, but it still remains true to certain people. Although it meets the three key factors from Plato’s definition of what is true, there is still no way of differentiating whether or not what is believed to be true is actually true. The belief that God exists could be true, and according to Plato it is true; however there are people who would say that because there is no way of proving his existence it is not actually true. This is why it is so difficult to distinguish between what is true versus what is believed to be true.

The implication of my argument is that we as human beings have an ability to distinguish between something which is believed to be true and something that is actually true, although it may be difficult at times. However, we are able to use our four ways of knowing to justify what we believe to be true, and we can therefore decipher whether or not it is actually true by testing to see if it is eternal, public, and independent.

Justifications

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

- I think that the word "monster" might have been a bit harsh. I suppose that what Karadzic and Milosovic did were indeed very harsh, but it takes a lot to call someone a monster. After having our discussion in TOK, I believe that the things they did were monster-like, but I don't believe it is fair to call them a monster, because of what a monster actually is, and the feelings that go along with hearing that word. (more about that in question 3)

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.

-This is justified through knowledge by authority, because CNN is broadcasting it, and they are an authority figure. They call the men "war criminals." A person can also justify it through reason, either deduction or induction. An example of justification by reason through induction would be..." All peoplle who ethnically cleanse are monsters. Karadzic ordered ethnic cleansing. Therefore, karadzic is a monster." They can also justify this through empiricism, because the people who were there can say that they saw it happening; or they heard people saying things.

3. When the term monster is used, what do you think it means?

-When I hear the word monster I think of something that isn't human. They have the inability to show compassion, they don't know right from wrong, and they aren't civilized. I think of a big green monster, that can't control what they are doing, because it is just how they are. It kind of reminds me of the hulk in a sense. However, I think in this sense they are trying to convey the two men as power hungry dictators, rather than my version of a monster.

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

-I do agree with my previous answer, because although I do not agree with what they are calling him, they have their ways of justifying it which are completely acceptable. If I changed anything about my answer, it would be adding a few more specific details, like what I mentioned in question 2, now that I ahve read more in depth into it and see the documentary.

Karadzic the Monster

The people of Bosnia are using personal knowledge, which I believe would specifically be knowledge by acquintance and knowledge by authority.

An example of knowledge by acquintance is when the author claims "Karadzic has been closely associated with the men carrying out the killings and is good value for the label 'war criminal'." This would be knowledge by acquintance I believe because the people have learned this through what everyone else is saying... they associate him with killings. Although it is not direct knowledge by acquintance, because they are not learning it from meeting him, they are learning it from other people that they are talking to, so I think that it fits.

An example of knowledge by authority is when the author states, "Government leaders, including the new Muslim President, Alija Izetbegovic, were keen to emphasise the importance of working together, but Karadzic, who was always spoiling for an argument, wanted everything - from television and newspapers to the government itself - to be divided up and argued over." They learn that he is a "monster" because they can see other authority members enforcing the importance of working together, and showing what it is like to be a "good" authority figure. Then, the public sees Karadzic, acting in a complete opposite manner, and it creates a negatvie view of him.

The people justify their knowledge claims by backing it up with real evidence and examples of what actually happened. Their information is backed up with actual facts, so they give reasons as to why they feel a certain way. Here is an example of a fact that is presented in order to back up their claims of their knowledge and feelings, "Through the summer Karadzic's militias occupied large swathes of the country, driving Muslims out of their homes, and introducing Nazi-style regulations or killing those who tried to stay: 'ethnic cleansing'."