Abhinav Lahiri
Mr. N. Lewis
Theory of Knowledge
18 November 2014
Prescribed Title
Prompt: To understand something you need to rely on your own experiences and culture. Does this mean that it is impossible to have objective knowledge?
Dwight D. Eisenhower once said: “Great truths, can, at times be startlingly simple.” In the same speech, he stated: “Communism claims man to be an animal creature of the state, curses him for his stubborn instinct for independence, governs with a tyranny that makes its subjects wither away”. This public speech was spoken towards communism and its ideological leaders. The outcomes of this ‘truth’ proved vast and shocking with almost five million deaths, and it left the western world in doubt over what was certainty and what was faith.
So does objective knowledge exist? Can it be defined? Is it similar to truth, and can it be justified through mathematics, history or the natural sciences? Is it possible to acquire through ways of knowing, such as memory or reason? There are many theories on whether objective knowledge can really exist. Sir Karl Popper's theory of objective knowledge talks about the problems of the social sciences and the humanities. It also provides a new …show more content…
The word “impossible” is very hard to decipher as you can only argue for all or none, though objectivity never totally exists, it exists to some extent. Words like “experiences” and “culture” are also very vague. How can we possibly experience everything, we cannot be in every place at every time, all the time. Also “culture” basically only implies to history, math and science in some cases, and still is very vague. Can different social or cultural backgrounds really affect our minds to such an extent that our thoughts can completely contrast with someone else’s even after everyone has learned the same thing? There are a few ways to achieve a somewhat objective
Mr. N. Lewis
Theory of Knowledge
18 November 2014
Prescribed Title
Prompt: To understand something you need to rely on your own experiences and culture. Does this mean that it is impossible to have objective knowledge?
Dwight D. Eisenhower once said: “Great truths, can, at times be startlingly simple.” In the same speech, he stated: “Communism claims man to be an animal creature of the state, curses him for his stubborn instinct for independence, governs with a tyranny that makes its subjects wither away”. This public speech was spoken towards communism and its ideological leaders. The outcomes of this ‘truth’ proved vast and shocking with almost five million deaths, and it left the western world in doubt over what was certainty and what was faith.
So does objective knowledge exist? Can it be defined? Is it similar to truth, and can it be justified through mathematics, history or the natural sciences? Is it possible to acquire through ways of knowing, such as memory or reason? There are many theories on whether objective knowledge can really exist. Sir Karl Popper's theory of objective knowledge talks about the problems of the social sciences and the humanities. It also provides a new …show more content…
The word “impossible” is very hard to decipher as you can only argue for all or none, though objectivity never totally exists, it exists to some extent. Words like “experiences” and “culture” are also very vague. How can we possibly experience everything, we cannot be in every place at every time, all the time. Also “culture” basically only implies to history, math and science in some cases, and still is very vague. Can different social or cultural backgrounds really affect our minds to such an extent that our thoughts can completely contrast with someone else’s even after everyone has learned the same thing? There are a few ways to achieve a somewhat objective