“Context is all” (Margaret Atwood). Does this mean that there is no such thing as truth?
The above question is one of the ten prescribed topics for TOK essay, IB Nov '07 session.
I don't know why but I have since regretted not picking this question for my TOK essay. It is one of the shortest -- it gives a lot of space of interpretation. That's the tantalising part. And the difficult part, too.
Enough wallowing in regret, then; let me try to tackle this, without the restriction of the mark scheme.
To comprehend such a statement, it is only appropriate for us to be acquainted with the context surrounding this statement.
This statement appears more than once in Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. Set in dystopian post-nuclear age , the novel gives a glimpse through the eyes of Offred, a handmaid. For Offred, what utterance of "context is all" could mean? I believe for the bulk of it, she demanded context to make sense of her surroundings. You see, Republic of Gilead where Offred lived in, was still in the midst of transforming to a dystopia. Offred could recall her life before in (presumably) the United States. The sudden change in situations confused her. Life didn't used to be like this, so what now? That is the state of mind Offred is in. When her old life, her 'context', has been snatched away, she needs a new one.
But, what exactly is context? We have the vague idea of it. A bigger picture, a larger body of knowledge, the plane on which we define things. Let's extend the metaphor about the picture a bit more. Say you have a jigsaw puzzle. Take a piece. Describe. Well, it has interesting shape and fancy colours, but otherwise it is a piece of crap. Assemble the whole thing and tadaa...! You've got yourself a clear picture (Disclaimer: depends on your jigsaw puzzle picture. If you bought an abstract picture then not my fault). Same thing with pixels: A pixel means nothing but with other pixels on the screen, then you have some meaning to it.
One way to look at it is to differentiate between two things that may make up a context: the laws and the facts (or truths, if you like, but that word is so philosophically loaded that one is reluctant to use). For example, let's look at Euclidean geometry. The "laws" are the five axioms postulated by Euclid. Those are the rules of the game. Now, restricted by these rules we can construct infinite geometrical shapes -- these are the "facts". So you see that the laws provide the plane of existence (pun on Euclidean plane geometry intended) on which it supported the existence of the objects, the facts. You could immediately see how this explanation makes perfect sense to mathematicians and scientists: Yes. Precisely because they deal with laws and objects governed by those.
Another way to look at what context really is, is back to our jigsaw puzzles. Coherence is the keyword. Mismatched jigsaw pieces can only mean that there are other pieces form other set contaminating yours (of course there alternatives like your or the manufacturer's stupidity, but well you don't want to consider them, do you?). This approach is clearly different from the previous one. Some facts that agree with each other can make up a larger body of knowledge. For instance, two facts: "A attended Dr. X's class yesterday" and "There was Dr. X's class yesterday". Coherent, isn't it? Let's say we change the second statement to "Dr. X's class was cancelled yesterday", then the first statement must be false; a mismatched jigsaw piece, or something else entirely.
To unify the above two approaches, picture it this way: there are laws which are the foundations of all truths. But these truths are interconnected in intricate way with one another, like a mesh; they are not beads neatly arranged on a plane; picture the beads in a kind of neural-level-intricacy network. Now, for convenience, sometimes it is easier to take a look at a bead by zooming at few beads surrounding the one being viewed. This is our jigsaw puzzle. Or look at the more fundamental, in the truest sense of the word: the laws. (To complicate matters, these laws are actually are layered cakes also. For example, in Euclidean geometry we have 5 axioms, then we still derive a whole lot of theorems, which in a sense, are also laws.)
It is worth reiterating here that contexts come in different sizes. You choose how big or small it is according to practicality. Actually, we can classify people according to how they use the above two approaches. Natural scientists look at the physical laws that govern physical bodies. Human scientists limit their scope of context to society and history. Psychologists restrict it even more to human minds and interactions. Mathematicians also look at the fundamentals like natural scientists; but then they go and create their own contexts (e.g: imaginary plane).
By now you should have already understood that the word 'context' also carries hefty epistemological weight.
So: context is all. Without context, independent "truth" cannot be considered truth. There must be a framework surrounding it, supporting it, then the "truth" is construed. Here is a good example:
What is this? (Warning: trick question)
The answer? You've guessed it. Depends on the context.
To Greeks and physicists, it is clearly a lambda, as in λόγος 【logos】 isn't it?
But my Chinese friends beg to differ. It's rù as in 进入【jìnrù】 (enter; get into).
Who is correct? Both are correct in their respective contexts, aren't they?
Lastly, let's address that old philosophical question:
If a tree in the woods fells and no one is around, does it make a sound?
Assessing from utility and usefulness point of view, the answer is: it doesn't. Or more precisely: I don't give a damn, because it makes no difference whether it does -- there is no added value whatsoever. This sounds like a jest, but anthropocentric view like this is actually more common than what most people think. To simply limit one's context to what are useful to humans is certainly practical, but it is dangerous when one is unaware of it.
To a physicist, the answer is quite clear: it does. Sound waves travel through the medium of air. Our ears are just detectors of these sound waves. If there are no human ears around, then just use other kind of detectors to confirm the vibration in the air that is the sound wave.
Do you see how the above example make use of the different scopes of contexts?
Back to our heroine Offred. She desperately needed context: to construe things around her; to glean truths from lies.
I believe we also desperately do.
The above question is one of the ten prescribed topics for TOK essay, IB Nov '07 session.
I don't know why but I have since regretted not picking this question for my TOK essay. It is one of the shortest -- it gives a lot of space of interpretation. That's the tantalising part. And the difficult part, too.
Enough wallowing in regret, then; let me try to tackle this, without the restriction of the mark scheme.
To comprehend such a statement, it is only appropriate for us to be acquainted with the context surrounding this statement.
This statement appears more than once in Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. Set in dystopian post-nuclear age , the novel gives a glimpse through the eyes of Offred, a handmaid. For Offred, what utterance of "context is all" could mean? I believe for the bulk of it, she demanded context to make sense of her surroundings. You see, Republic of Gilead where Offred lived in, was still in the midst of transforming to a dystopia. Offred could recall her life before in (presumably) the United States. The sudden change in situations confused her. Life didn't used to be like this, so what now? That is the state of mind Offred is in. When her old life, her 'context', has been snatched away, she needs a new one.
But, what exactly is context? We have the vague idea of it. A bigger picture, a larger body of knowledge, the plane on which we define things. Let's extend the metaphor about the picture a bit more. Say you have a jigsaw puzzle. Take a piece. Describe. Well, it has interesting shape and fancy colours, but otherwise it is a piece of crap. Assemble the whole thing and tadaa...! You've got yourself a clear picture (Disclaimer: depends on your jigsaw puzzle picture. If you bought an abstract picture then not my fault). Same thing with pixels: A pixel means nothing but with other pixels on the screen, then you have some meaning to it.
One way to look at it is to differentiate between two things that may make up a context: the laws and the facts (or truths, if you like, but that word is so philosophically loaded that one is reluctant to use). For example, let's look at Euclidean geometry. The "laws" are the five axioms postulated by Euclid. Those are the rules of the game. Now, restricted by these rules we can construct infinite geometrical shapes -- these are the "facts". So you see that the laws provide the plane of existence (pun on Euclidean plane geometry intended) on which it supported the existence of the objects, the facts. You could immediately see how this explanation makes perfect sense to mathematicians and scientists: Yes. Precisely because they deal with laws and objects governed by those.
Another way to look at what context really is, is back to our jigsaw puzzles. Coherence is the keyword. Mismatched jigsaw pieces can only mean that there are other pieces form other set contaminating yours (of course there alternatives like your or the manufacturer's stupidity, but well you don't want to consider them, do you?). This approach is clearly different from the previous one. Some facts that agree with each other can make up a larger body of knowledge. For instance, two facts: "A attended Dr. X's class yesterday" and "There was Dr. X's class yesterday". Coherent, isn't it? Let's say we change the second statement to "Dr. X's class was cancelled yesterday", then the first statement must be false; a mismatched jigsaw piece, or something else entirely.
To unify the above two approaches, picture it this way: there are laws which are the foundations of all truths. But these truths are interconnected in intricate way with one another, like a mesh; they are not beads neatly arranged on a plane; picture the beads in a kind of neural-level-intricacy network. Now, for convenience, sometimes it is easier to take a look at a bead by zooming at few beads surrounding the one being viewed. This is our jigsaw puzzle. Or look at the more fundamental, in the truest sense of the word: the laws. (To complicate matters, these laws are actually are layered cakes also. For example, in Euclidean geometry we have 5 axioms, then we still derive a whole lot of theorems, which in a sense, are also laws.)
It is worth reiterating here that contexts come in different sizes. You choose how big or small it is according to practicality. Actually, we can classify people according to how they use the above two approaches. Natural scientists look at the physical laws that govern physical bodies. Human scientists limit their scope of context to society and history. Psychologists restrict it even more to human minds and interactions. Mathematicians also look at the fundamentals like natural scientists; but then they go and create their own contexts (e.g: imaginary plane).
By now you should have already understood that the word 'context' also carries hefty epistemological weight.
So: context is all. Without context, independent "truth" cannot be considered truth. There must be a framework surrounding it, supporting it, then the "truth" is construed. Here is a good example:
The answer? You've guessed it. Depends on the context.
To Greeks and physicists, it is clearly a lambda, as in λόγος 【logos】 isn't it?
But my Chinese friends beg to differ. It's rù as in 进入【jìnrù】 (enter; get into).
Who is correct? Both are correct in their respective contexts, aren't they?
Lastly, let's address that old philosophical question:
If a tree in the woods fells and no one is around, does it make a sound?
Assessing from utility and usefulness point of view, the answer is: it doesn't. Or more precisely: I don't give a damn, because it makes no difference whether it does -- there is no added value whatsoever. This sounds like a jest, but anthropocentric view like this is actually more common than what most people think. To simply limit one's context to what are useful to humans is certainly practical, but it is dangerous when one is unaware of it.
To a physicist, the answer is quite clear: it does. Sound waves travel through the medium of air. Our ears are just detectors of these sound waves. If there are no human ears around, then just use other kind of detectors to confirm the vibration in the air that is the sound wave.
Do you see how the above example make use of the different scopes of contexts?
Back to our heroine Offred. She desperately needed context: to construe things around her; to glean truths from lies.
I believe we also desperately do.
2 comments:
---rexy----
Hmm nice to see how you interpret this TOK topic using relevant contexts=) sometimes it is better not to construe things around you cuz by doing so you might glean truth from lies but only to realize the truth is hell....philosophy is pretty interesting, isn't it?
Precisely why we have the adage "Ignorance is bliss". Some truths are better left unknown. But, really, incomplete knowledge is also dangerous.
It's a choice for us to choose bitter truths or ignorance.
Post a Comment