“We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth.”
-Pablo Picasso
“Art renders accessible to [those] of the latest generations all the feelings experienced by their predecessors and also those felt by their best and foremost contemporaries...[Art] is a means of union...joining [people] together in the same feeling. Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that others are infected by those feelings and also experience them...A real work of art destroys in the consciousness of the recipient the separation between himself and the artist, and...also between himself and all whose minds receive this work of art. In this freeing of our personality from its separation and isolation, in this uniting of it with others, lies the chief characteristic and the great attractive force of art.”
-Leo Tolstoy
For Friday:
In one of your other classes, find a lie that makes you realize a truth. Identify the feelings with which it infects you, and consider the nature of your knowledge. Is it subjective? Can it be both subjective and universal?
For Tuesday:
Is there a moment of universal truth described in Friday's comments with which you take issue (where you think the knower plays a subjective role)? How and why would the experience be different for you? Which of the ways of knowing come into play, and how?
Today in dance class, SaskiaTOK, Ami, and Mary were all discussing this question with our teacher. She told us a story of a male dancer, who was married with children, and loved his wife very much. He knew in his heart that he loved her. That was the truth. However, onstage as a dancer, he had to pretend to be in love with his female partner. His job was to make the audience believe that he loved her, and ONLY her. After the show was over, the dancer still went back to his wife because she was the only woman that had his heart. This is how a lie can make a person realize the truth. Although the dancer was married, he had to lie to the audience by pretending he truly loved his female counterpart; the dancer had to completely immerse himself in the role. Through this lie, he realized that he really DID love his partner…onstage. Offstage, she meant nothing to him. This can show how an actor, dancer, or any entertainer must take up a lie, that he, himself (or herself), must believe to be true in order to have the audience believe it as well.
ReplyDeleteAnother short example is from history class, when we learned that the American ship, Lusitania, was sunk by the British, American propaganda portrayed the Germans as terrible people who attacked the civilians of an innocent country. This was a lie that the United States fed to their citizens. The truth in this lie was that the American streamliner was carrying ammunition and weapons to Great Britain, whom Germany was against.
Even in small lies can one find the truth. Sometimes, the truth may hurt the person receiving it, but other times, it adds as a moment of clarity and final understanding. Truth is not something that can be subjective. One cannot grasp full control of gaining the truth. However, it is possible for one to try to blind himself/herself from what is right in front of their face. It isn’t a choice to learn the truth, but it is a choice how to take it, and whether or not to make up excuses and blind yourself from it. In this way, truth is something that is universal, and is something that ALL people can relate to. The truth in lies can be found throughout any situation, event, or personal experience that one must face throughout his or her lifetime.
A lie that makes me realize the truth would be the book we’re reading in English. The Awakening is a fictional story which means that it is untrue. Even though it’s fictional, it helps you realize on the other hand what was true for women during the Victorian time period. The feeling that I get from reading this book would be of sympathy. I feel bad for the women because of their lack of freedom, and I know if I was them during this time knowing how life is today, I would hate it. This is because I see and know the world differently than they do, and I know of the different possibilities that are available in the world.
ReplyDeleteToday in English class, we were discussing Edna Pontellier from Kate Chopin’s The Awakening and whether or not her actions, which the class brought in as homework, should be classified as childish. We were divided into two groups to refute or support the idea. I was on the refutation team. Members of the support team very adamantly argued that by moving out of her house, she was acting selfishly and was therefore being childish. She was acting like a child because she was selfish. I can agree that not thinking about the repercussions of one’s actions is childish- children are often impulsive- but I cannot agree that because she was selfish she is childish. I think that knowing when to be selfish and when not to be is a very adult matter. She realizes at this point, it will be what is best for her. This isn’t exactly a lie what is mentioned above but it is something that I didn’t believe that made me realize a truth. This is fully my opinion on what selfishness does to a person and the true meaning of what it means to be selfish and there for it is a subjective matter.
ReplyDeleteAs Sara previously stated, in dance class we discussed the relation of lies in dance and how it becomes truth for the dancer. To explain this I will use a different example than Sara did. Throughout the class we discussed how dancing can also be considered acting in a way. The dancer is playing a role in the dance and becoming someone else. From this statement, we began to discuss theater and how often times one can notice that the actors within the movie put themselves in the role long before the filming or performance actually takes place. In this time period they become someone else, they no longer have their families or their regular schedule, they live a lie. They live the life of another person, an inexistent person. In this moment they are someone else and what they experience is a lie, but as soon as the movie starts and they are playing their part, they are living it. This means that what they are experiencing during the movie or play is true to them, in that moment. The audience also sees these movies as true, if the actors in the movie are in love that is true to the person watching. They feel the emotion, they feel the passion within the relationship, and it is real in that moment. When the actor leaves the role, though, and the movie is finished they go back to who they used to be. This was explained in Sara’s paragraph as the dancer, and how he acts within the performance. This is an example of a lie becoming a truth, not only to the person experiencing the lie and truth but also to the audience in that piece of art. When I watch a movie, it is often true to me whether or not it is a real story. I feel the rollercoaster of emotions that the actors go through, it is why movies are entertaining to me. As a person in the audience, I am not able to decide how I feel while it is going no. What I mean by this is, the emotion I feel and sense is not something that I tell myself to think about. The lie that is the movie evokes certain things within me that I am not in control of. I think, though, that what is felt during a performance or act by the audience is always different. Some may not feel anything for the movie or the actors and completely ignore the fact that they should feel something, others might be content with a certain happening and others may even be angry. Emotion is never truly selective, it comes from within you and to me, it is never a choice.
ReplyDeleteIn history class, I sometimes find that the truth is underneath the lies. Since history are events of the past that have already happened, it is almost impossible to know the whole truth, because in order to do so we have to be there to witness the events. But the way I find out the truth is from looking at different prospective of views and finally deciding what the "truth" is for me, that could be different from someone else's truth. But whatever I consider to be the true is what I have decided for it to be true, even if its a lie. This therefore meaning that truth can never be universal, but it is rather the way one looks at something and decides if it is a truth or a lie. For example, if one looks at the treaty of Versailles, it was 6 weeks of negotiations, deals and compromises. For the Allies, Germany had caused the world war but of course that was not true if you asked the germans. To them, just like any other country, they went to war to protect the allies. So it depends on how you look at it, to me Germany could take blame at 50% for causing the war but not 100%. That is what the truth for the blame of the war to me, so my truth could be someone else's lie.
ReplyDeleteIn preparation of history class, we had to get into the mode of our given country (mine was Great Britain) and determine what would happen in terms of consequences after World War 1. We get to history class, and the debate begins. Everyone was attacking Germany. Germany really din't have much of a chance, especially since most of the countries felt that they were a large contributor to the damage and commencing of World War 1. The atmosphere was getting hectic! I sat there silently. Then came the lies: Britain saying that it would limit Germany's power, and give it some territory (as if it was a reward when it was just Britain handing Germany a toy to play with while they shut Germany down. Language made it seem nicer than it was). Or the lies and failure that resulted Germany having to take so much blame when in actuality Austria-Hungary should be the one with the burdens that Germany had to hold. I am personally one who like to participate in class and discuss. However, the narrow-mindedness and rigidity that was mandatory for this role play exercise was not my style.
ReplyDeleteAnd there there was a truth:
There is no way that I can ever be a politician. I cannot take it! While doing this assignment I could not help but think about the other side, sympathize, and recognize. If I were ever admitted into The White House after the 2012 elections, the snipers on the roof would have to escort me out of there! On the way out they would scold me about how I am a poor excuse of a politician. Politicians these days say the most ridiculous things! Im not saying that people in history class were ridiculous. But I did learn that Germany was not even present when the countries were deciding their fate! I cannot even fathom that concept! How could they not have been able to be present? The victors are once again calling the shots. That is just sad.
All in all, the debate was not too bad. I felt so bad for Germany. I am aware that Germany was the figure head of the Central Powers during the World War. I didn't argue because I could not deal with the situation. I had a picture of morals and ethics, not a picture of what is more lucrative or 'what's in it for me'. I was never thinking about becoming a politician, but the lies floating in my mind during the history class debate helped me realize that I would be a fool if I chose to be a politician.
My truth was also found in The Awakening by Kate Chopin. Like LolaTOK said, that the book was fictional but it showed that women had little freedom. I believe that there was some non fiction and truth written between the lines of The Awakening. I think that this book accurately highlights the struggle for freedom that women faced during this time period. I used to wonder why women back in the Victorian era did not speak up for themselves or rights, but they couldn't. It's almost the opposite of Stoneleigh-Burnham's motto "find your voice", because it's much more difficult for Victorian women to find theirs. So the lie that I found while reading The Awakening was thinking "the women back in that time period could have found their own voice". But no, my thought is a complete lie. There was a huge struggle, women can barely have their own thoughts nevermind their own voice! Now I completely relate to the Victorian women for not speaking up.
ReplyDeleteIn order to give an example fully relevant to my life and to the ultimate question within the assignment I'm going to use one somewhat from outside of class: music. (We have done some listening in IB music, so I'm making it count as an example from class.) Music itself is strangely powerful; as Oliver Sacks (who was in our very first ToK assignment!) says in the opening sentence of Musicophilia, "What an odd thing it is to see an entire species -- billions of people -- playing with, listening to, meaningless tonal patterns, occupied and preoccupied for much of their time by what they call 'music.'" We hear a series of pitches with varying lengths and volume and are incredibly moved, infected, or inspired - and, most amazingly, unwillingly remember. One of music's most powerful characteristics is its ability to evoke emotion or memory. Last night my parents (for whatever reason) were listening to classical repertoire that has been a part of my childhood which we listen to around Christmastime every year, and needless to say - we have all experienced this - I was transported by these series of pitches. Really, each piece was technically only a slight variation on the last - move a few notes up and down, lengthen or shorten some. The lyrics were all in Latin and didn't say things like "Christmas Eve" or "winter" or "Evensong" or "incense", but these were the things I was reminded of. The memories had tied themselves inextricably to the music. I am sure, on the other hand, that nobody who listened to these particular pieces would be reminded of the same scenes or have the same emotions. There are millions of people for whom the music would mean nothing, and the events surrounding their first exposure would attach themselves to that music for them: this is the subjectivity of music. As for the truth in this, perhaps it is nothing other than the emotions music has the power to evoke which are different from words, facts, and arguments, and are in fact impossible to describe or say. It's a cliche, but it has its basis in truth. Therein lies the power of music, and its truth. I do not believe music can be used as merely an alternate medium for the same philosophy and reason and truth expressable through language and word. Our realities and minds are greater than these: music (and therefore art) offers emotions and perceptions which are just as legitimately part of being human as philosophical discourse.
ReplyDeleteEarly on in life, last year, I learned through textbooks that World War I was caused by the assassination of the archduke of Austria Hungary. The textbook did not specifically say that it was Germany that made the war bigger than it actually was but it implied it. As a student, I was told that it was because Germany bombed Lusitania that the US got involved in the war. I later find out that Germany bombed Lusitania because they suspected it of having military supplies on the boat to send to Britain after announcing that they were neutral. In the textbook, it does not state that there were possibilities that the US were sending military supplies on a cruise to Britain and that was the reasons beyond the bombing of the Lusitania. It was through America's lie on why they were pulled into the war that I learned the truth. America was willing to have innocent people on the ship get killed just to get in the the war.
ReplyDeletehistory might be the class that covered with thick layers of LIES, because it reflect to people's complex emotions and there are no way to relly find a TURTH from someone or something with only one perspective. during the history class,as Nahfeee says, all the countries are attacking Germany and both sides have arguments, but when people say they did something or their relationship with someone has completely no motivation, then they are lying, because all these war were fighting for benifit and the evedence are invisible that we might sense that but hard to prove them.
ReplyDeleteAs Saskia and Sara previously stated, we learned about the role of a dancer. Sometimes dancers have to take on the role of a lover, when in fact they are truly in love with someone else. the audience believes at that moment on stage in which the dancers are in love. But harshly speaking this is a lie. Rome and Juliet are not in love, because they are different people off the stage. This also applies to acting. An actor becomes a different person when they are on the stage or screen. The audience in that instant believes that he or she is the character being played. But when the play or movie is over, reality sets in. This is subjective, because the audience feels it to be true in that instant.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mary in her belief that during a performance, the audience believes that the actor really IS the character he or she is portraying. They tend to forget that it is just acting, which is why the difference between the truth and a lie is hard to differentiate between during the moment the performance is taking place.
ReplyDeleteEven though I agree with Ami's post as a whole, I disagree that this can be a universal truth. For example, although the textbook and countries like America might believe that Germany made the war bigger, Germany might disagree with this. Even though the textbook did not come straight out and state the war was Germany's fault, the readers can tell that's what the authors believe. The lies are that the textbook authors were writing much more about Germany's position in war, which helps the learners see the belief in "truth" that the war was Germany's fault. I have seen the textbook's idea of this, making it a new truth for me. When Ami says "It was through America's lie on why they were pulled into the war that I learned truth", it makes me wonder how is she so sure NOW that she knows the real truth? Her idea of the truth on this can change based upon what another country has to say, not just the textbook, who is trying to influence the reader's of other things too, like how Germany made the war bigger. Although America may have lied to protect its nationalism and keep the wool over their citizen's eyes, other countries were probably doing the same thing as well. It is hard to find a real "truth" in history, as we are always constantly learning of different conspiracies, events, and actions. This is why it is hard to consider this a universal truth, because each country has influenced it's people on what is true and what is false.
In some way, I saw that in Friday's comments, we all, the knowers,play subjunctive roles. For all of our examples, we looked for the truth in lies in our classes, and vice versa. There are many truth in lies in our own personal lives as well. We are constantly having realizations of the truth, and make it pretty well known when we say "ohh!". Experiences can be different based on one's past, and the events that are currently happening in that person's life. For example, if I was speaking with a friend on divorce, she might have realized that divorce leads to the idea that the husband and wife were never truly in love and has ruined a family's happiness, while I might realize that divorce is because the relationship seized to truly exist and that neither people were happy, but now they have another opportunity to. Based upon my past, I might have a different opinion on certain experiences. All of the four ways of knowing come into play almost every time one "knows", though depending on the issues, one might know more because of emotion than because of reasoning. It simply all depends on the situation it is, and the person's personal history that might affect future beliefs.
For Sara-Sara’s comment it would be different if I witnessed this because I wouldn’t think that he male dancer lied just to the audience to bring out truth. I would think that think that he was also lying to himself for the purpose of bringing out an emotion to show to the audience with his dance partner. He had to convince himself that he loved her so that he could show it, even if he didn’t actually love her. This is using the element of perception because you’re using what you see to come to a conclusion.
ReplyDeleteIn Kate’s comment about refuting the idea of Edna in Kate Chopin’s story being childish, I find that her opinion is very different to my own. I feel as if Mrs. Pontellier does not know when to be selfish and when not to be, she makes decisions to benefit herself more often than not. Yes, she has now chosen to do what is best for her, and shut out the rest of the world on the matter. I am not saying that she is childish in doing so, what I am saying though, is that her decision to get married and start a family gave her responsibility. This choice was the reason her selfishness could be considered childish. In this debate, I was on the fence at some points, to be honest, but in this specific case I believe Edna had childish attributes to her choices. The experience was different for me in several ways. First off, I was on the opposing side, I had to debate that Edna was acting like a child and was not being fair to her family. Due to this, I started leaning towards the idea that Mrs. Pontellier was more child-like than not. In this case, I think the idea of emotion comes into play. Being a modern woman, one wants to go with their feelings and the idea that a woman should be allowed to live her life the way we do. With so many abilities and so many options, but one has to keep in mind that in the time of Victorian women, freedom was not always an option. On the other hand, following societal expectations, especially when married, was a choice made for women whether they enjoyed it or not. One needs to put themselves in a position in which they don’t look at the situation with their own view, because they won’t be able to fully comprehend what exactly Edna had to go through to be a bird that soared above the level plain.
ReplyDeleteFor History as an example, there are probably no way to find 100% truth, because it is always been told by someone else, and there are no one can read people's mind and understand why is he/she doing this instead of that. therefore, history is always doubtful. but on the other side, history told people the stories that everyone should be aware for, according to history, people learn and improve themselves in order to grow, although, histories could be lies and evidence less sometimes.
ReplyDeleteIn Kate's comment when she stated that the opposite team thought that"she [Edna] was acting selfishly and was therefore being childish."Being on the opposite team, I don't think that being selfish makes one childish. I do believe however that there is a certain level of selfishness for an adult who is married with two kids that would be considered not childish. Edna decisions were childish because of her level of selfishness.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be a universal truth that the bombing of Lusitania was the main event that caused America to enter the war. I would also argue that it is the universal truth that the reasons for the bombing of Lusitania is not always told in History textbooks, especially in the US. If I was on the Lusitania during the bombing and knew why the it occurred, I would feel betrayed by my country but the most people on the Lusitania did not know of the military supplies it was carrying for Britain. Even today, we are not taught what truly happened that day. I think if people knew either they would not care about the past or they would cause some type of angry mop. If I was on the boat I would be using the element of perception because I would be seeing the bombing happen but most people probably did not understand why they were being bombed.
Firstly, what is truth? How can truth be the same for everyone? No one person believes the same exact thing or wants the same exact thing making truth different for everyone. LolaTOK said she would never want to live during the Victorian era because she feels bad for their lack of freedom. A fellow classmate and I often ooh and aw at the idea fo living during the Victorian era. We think it would be fun be courted, wear the elegant dresses and live in the remarkable houses. We both had never necessarily thought about how much our freedom would be impacted. I think, that in the beginning, I would enjoy having some of my freedom removed because, with freedom, comes many responsibilities. I don’t think I would enjoy it for very long but I think I would for a short amount of time. Also, if I had grown up in that time, I would have been rather content because I wouldn’t have known differently. I believe that Edna was only an exception of her time instead of the norm.
ReplyDeleteMy comment from Friday is in my opinion, so it clearly does not stand as a universal truth. Yes, some people might have the same idea that they cannot be a politician, but they probably found another moment with which they could make that decision.My realisation was definitely subjective, and I never made the point that it was ever universal.I am making this point since nobody else's point doesn't seem for me personally to spark an issue in terms of whether or not it is a universal truth since most seem pretty subjective to me.I fel as though I would be getting really technical if I really wanted to find something to disagree, and soon enough forget the assignment. For example, with Anna's piece about music evoking emotions from people. I can say that maybe there is someone out there who has heard music and no longer listens to it because they are of some Vulcan descent and the music doesn't phase them. Well no, not really, but still. I can say, "well there could be THIS" when in actuality it would have never slipped my mind if the task wasn't to disagree.
ReplyDeleteIn the spirit of disagreeing( and this is mostly because I am afraid that if I stop at the above paragraph I will have done the assignment incorrectly) , I would just like to make the point hat music is simply an organization of sound, so why would it be a problem for the people that Oliver Sacks speaks of to call "meaningless tonal patterns" music? It seems like what we are getting into is whether or not the music we listen to is considered to be "good" music. Personally, music is a fun additive to my day, not a daily routine or a valid part of my upbringing. What ever makes me feel (whether its feel like partying, or feel reflective, or feel happy) I will listen to. My perceptions are what lead me to deciding that. The language of the song doesn't really matter to me, as I have a song in the Punjab language in my ipod. I have no idea what they are saying! But I still love it and listen to it.Now thats when it gets subjective to a person's taste and cares.Then there is no room for talking about universal truths, and this is why I am stuck.
Each one of our ideas regarding truth are in some way or another connected. Both Saskia, Sara, and myself described truth in the context of dance. We can all admit that the moment a dancer comes on stage we believe in the fictional character he/she plays.There are certain moments in life where a great majority will believe in the same truth. But like LolaTOK and Sara mentioned, there are also many examples showing that there is not always universal truth. One might learn something completely different in history class than another. Therefore people all around the world believe in what they have been told to be true. In this case perception (way of knowing) comes in to play. When a human being comes into the world he/she is immediately influenced by his/her society. I might know something completely different about world history compared to a girl in England.
ReplyDeleteBy reading many of the comments, I found the issue that the knower plays a significant role while trying to realize the truth. While reading many of the comments about history, I can say that the knower and how the know it plays and important role. For example, when Ami was talking about her experience with learning about the cause of World War I, it’s interesting to see that looking through the American perspective, Ami and I cannot see the truth. This experience of finding our the cause of World War I is most likely different in Germany than it is in the U.S, I feel if we were to learn by every countries point of view on a conflict, then historians could accurately write history textbooks to have a “global answer” for all types of learners. I feel like this is an issue of knowing by language, by the different cultures and how they interpret the conflict at hand.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, TO. History is taught so that humans could learn from their past mistakes. Relating to your point, Ami had a very interesting argument, saying "It was through America's lie on why they were pulled into the war that I learned the truth.". This connects to TO's point about history, because if the lie was not taught, it would not lead us to know the truth. So even if you consider that a lie or the truth, it shall lead you to the conclusion of what YOU consider true. Lets say for example, that Lusatania was not carrying any bombs, and that it was only carrying passengers (civilians). How would that change what you consider the truth being learned from the lie? Will the lie now become the truth to you? By doing this, we are using perception as the way of knowing, but if you think about it, it contradicts itself or rather it makes the truth change. So that means that what is being told is not a lie, it is just a different version of the truth.
ReplyDeleteIn reading my classmates' thoughts, I find that each example is subjective; this cannot be avoided. Objectivity is impossible. By being present and looking at a scientific experiment, one changes the nature of the experiment and it becomes a subjective experience. Likewise, as each or any of us observe the performance of an art or even learn history, we learn it and process it uniquely and it becomes a part of each of our lives and thoughts. However, because the art has a creator, it has a purpose and an intended effect. To escape this effect is difficult to say the least. Music, as a medium for expression, emotion and thought, is an interesting example: Western tonal music has a specific pattern and system familiar to all of us. Its progressions are archetypal and predictable, even subconsciously: it follows a pattern our ears expect. Certain sounds sound dissonant to us, others harmonious. We take these things for granted and don't actively think about them. However, other musical cultures have a different basis - a different scale, different chords. Our chords would not sound natural to people accustomed to such music, and Western listeners find their music odd as well: an example of how the simple act of listening is subjective, and how the very art of music, which many consider universal, is not. There is a clear language involved; in fact, music in the 'classical' Western tradition quite ostentatiously mirrors the art of formal rhetoric, introducing two sides (themes), developing them, forming a new conclusion. In this way music - art - can be viewed even as a language, especially in its ability to communicate and be perceived and taken in (subjectively, of course).
ReplyDelete