1.What is reason?

Reason is a cause, action or justification for an event or action 
The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically
as stated by the Oxford Dictionaries 

2. Write definitions of deductive and inductive reasoning.

 deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be (deductively) valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises (assumptions) are true. This point can be expressed also by saying that, in a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. An argument in which the premises do succeed in guaranteeing the conclusion is called a (deductively) valid argument. If a valid argument has true premises, then the argument is said to be sound.

Here is a valid deductive argument: It's sunny in Singapore. If it's sunny in Singapore, he won't be carrying an umbrella. So, he won't be carrying an umbrella.

Here is a mildly strong inductive argument: Every time I've walked by that dog, he hasn't tried to bite me. So, the next time I walk by that dog he won't try to bite me.

An inductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer merely to establish or increase the probability of its conclusion. In an inductive argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they were true, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion is false. There is no standard term for a successful inductive argument. But its success or strength is a matter of degree, unlike with deductive arguments. A deductive argument is valid or else invalid.

The difference between the two kinds of arguments does not lie solely in the words used; it comes from the relationship the author or expositor of the argument takes there to be between the premises and the conclusion. If the author of the argument believes that the truth of the premisesdefinitely establishes the truth of the conclusion (due to definition, logical entailment, logical structure, or mathematical necessity), then the argument is deductive. If the author of the argument does not think that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion, but nonetheless believes that their truth provides good reason to believe the conclusion true, then the argument is inductive.

Lateral thinking is looking at a matter by taking a creative and indirectve approach, by viewing an issue in a new and and unusual light. 

The enemies of reason would be strong emotions and biases mainly. those two things affect an individual's ability to reason.

Sometime Emotional can help reason but in most cases it hinders it. If you want to look at a matter in a reasonable or logical light you should not involve your emotions because sometimes it affects one's ability to rationalize and make exact conclusions on a matter(s). Sometimes emotions works to help us imagine what we should or could do in a situation, that is where lateral thinking comes into place. It varies. If we can justify our emotions in a matter by using solid or tangible evidence then it may be alright in that case/argument. 

The Klu Klux Klan Versus the Westboro Baptist Church

I was going through my home page on one those social websites and while I was scrolling I saw something that nearly caused my eyeballs to drop out of my sockets. It was entitled 'The Klux Klan Protests Westboro Baptist Church And Their Hateful Anti-American Tactics'. I myself am not an American by birth, but this headline captured my interest regardless. Why may you ask? Two extremely right-winged (with emphasis on extremist) groups were publicly bashing each other and I would have thought they would have supported each other in rallying against the LGBTQ Community given their backward thinking. I immediately read the article and watched a supporting video link. I found the matter to be quite hilarious and contradictory. I have posted the links below to both the article and the video. The Westboro Baptist Church was protesting the entitlement of marriage rights (especially for military personnel) of the LGBTQ Community. The article also mentioned the involvement and hacking of the Westboro Baptist Church's twitter account by human rights 'hactivist' Anonymous. I am a strong believer of equality on the basis of religious beliefs (as long as they don't interfere with affairs of the state - they should be seperate), race, sexual orientation/identity and gender. So I don't extend my support to these groups. While both groups are deemed to be unethical, they have the right to express their beliefs in a non-violent manner. Members and supporters of these groups have been found to organise and carry out aggressive acts towards minorities so shouldn't they both be outlawed? Or is it not considered an unethical issue or practice? The claimed 'grand wizard' Dennis LaBonte of the Klu Klux Klan spoke out against the religious extremist group. It somewhat reminded me of when the religious extremists/ 'The Church' condemned individuals of witchcraft. This time it seems the other way around. Ethics and U.S. History would be areas of Knowledge used in examining this occurrence.



http://samuel-warde.com/2012/12/kkk-protests-westboro-church/


http://samuel-warde.com/2012/12/kkk-protests-westboro-church/

The Twin Paradox and Special Relativity - Say what?

I watched another video created by the Open University: 60-Second Adventures In Thought. I was quite intrigued but puzzled by Einstein's theories on special relativity and time presented  in the video. "The faster one travels through space, the slower they move through time?"  I do not know what to make of that statement. If a clock goes slowly it does not change the actual time, right? Maybe I'm not quite grasping Einstein's concept. So I went in search of information on the Time Paradox and Special Relativity's place in it. This is what I found. 

 In the natural science Physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into outer space in a lightning speed space shuttle and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. This result appears somewhat confusing because each twin sees the other twin as moving, and so, according to an incorrect naive application of time dilation and the principle of relativity, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged more slowly than before. However, this scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity: the travelling twin's trajectory involves two different inertial frames, one for the outbound journey and one for the inbound journey, and so there is no symmetry between the space-time paths of the two twins. Therefore the twin paradox is not a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction.French physicist Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been various explanations of this paradox. These explanations "can be grouped into those that focus on the effect of different standards of simultaneity in different frames, and those that designate the acceleration [experienced by the travelling twin] as the main reason...". Max von Laue argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in two separate inertial frames, one on the way out and another on the way back, this frame switch is the reason for the aging difference, not the acceleration per se. Conclusions put forth by Albert Einstein and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.
The twin paradox has been verified experimentally by precise measurements of atomic clocks flown in aircraft and satellites. For example, gravitational time dilation and special relativity together have been used to explain the Hafele–Keating experiment. It was also confirmed in particle accelerators by measuring time dilation of circulating particle beams.

I am still somewhat confused, but more informed than before.



https://youtu.be/oOL2d-5-pJ8

Mathematics as a Way of Knowing

I was placed into group 1 and I picked the task of researching on the mathematical branch known as Geometry. Geometry ifrom the Ancient Greek word 'Geometron' , with geo- meaning earth and -metron meaning measurement. Geometry is the mathematical branch dealing with the theories of size, shape, the relative positions of figures and also the properties of space. It is concerned with lengths, areas and volumes of everything around us. Geometry came about in the 6th Century BCE in the west.  I see many inter-developments between the various topics in Mathematics, for one is dependent or cannot exist without the other. Such an example are trigonometry and geometry. Trigonometry branched out from geometry, it is the study of the relationship of lengths and angles in triangles, specifically and it became known in 3rd Century BCE. It was used to apply to astronomical studies. Pythagora's Theorem is also branched off from Trigonometry.The mathematical science was practiced first among the Ancient Eygptians and Far East, and both have made significant contributions to this science. These Ancient Greats if put in a room together they could communicate via mathematics and would arrive at similar accurate and precise mathematical conclusions. This shows that Mathematics can also be interconnected to Languages for it is its own language.The Chinese formed the abacus, the calculator's predecessor. This proves that Mathematics is an international area of knowledge. To this day it is widely practiced and its equations and formula's can be understood by all (who have the capacity/ knowledge to) regardless of speaking many different languages around the world. If Mathematics were a tree it would have interconnected or tangled branches; tightly interwoven. The tree would go on for infinity for math is in everything around us; it is infinite. 

Stroopwafels

In Thursday's TOK class we each were given a Stroopwafel, which is a caramel/syrup waffle comprising of two thin baked pieces of dough with a syrup, caramel or treacle filling between.
I used logical reasoning, my senses, guesswork and prior knowledge in order to figure out what this treat was. I have consumed one before a long time ago, but I did not know or remember the correct term for this baked good. In class we did not eat it immediately (well those who could control themselves- some took a nip at it). I referred to it as a wafer of some sort before Ms. Tickle informed us it was a Stroopwafel.
I closely scrutinized the Stroopwafel that I had received to ensure it was indeed a stroopwafel and to see what it was comprised of and figure out or guess how it was made. The treat was obviously made from flour dough by its texture and structure/appearance.
Learning the proper name for the baked good helped to add to my understanding of what a stroopwafel was. It originates from Gouda in the Netherlands. 'Stroop' means treacle/syrup and wafel means a waffle, similar to the sweet breakfast baked good the Americans and some others eat. wafers are made up of wafels/waffles so I was not incorrect in my claim especially since there is a creamy substance lodged between the waffles.
How did I know it was safe to eat the stroopwafel? I didn't know whether or not it would be. I trust Ms. Tickle  enough not  to give me something poisonous but how would I really know? You never know. the Stroopwafels came in a decorative and attractive box and were unopened. We all saw when Ms. Tickle opened the package. The packaging may insinuate that the Stroopwafels are safe to eat, but someone can always add something and repackage the stroopwafels if they are clever enough to. While most food companies follow strict health guidelines it is not impossible or unheard of for one to violate those safety regulations. We had a pleasant debate over the validity of the stroopwafels.

We all learned some Dutch today, a couple words from a foreign tongue/language and it somehow helped my understanding of what a stroopwafel was. Language does indeed help my understanding of what I 'know' although there are many variations/dialects of a language and this can alter each meaning of a word or phrase. that has been proven with the many translations of religious texts into the English language from Latin, Ancient Greek, Hebrew, Welsh, etcetera. Our senses help us (our brains) draw conclusions and come up with reasons and language aids this process. I really enjoyed the Socratic dialogue and thinking time in class- and of course the Stroopwafel. I don't think the exercise limited me, it broadened my horizons and made me more inquisitive and accepting. Is it ever good to limit oneself? I don't know. I don't believe in placing limits overall but I guess it depends on the situation. Yes I do believe that tweeting is a modern version of dialogue in a sense. It is a different, an unusual and modern manifestation. Words and sentences are still used to communicate and convey thoughts so yes it is. I don't mind trying something out twice so yes I would use it again.

The Human Brian

How does the pre-frontal cortex change in humans between the ages of 5 and 25?

The Pre-Frontal Cortex is the brain's remote control and it is a section of the brain that weighs outcomes/consequences, forms conclusions and controls human emotions.  It takes time for this to mature or develop fully. It also helps humans to process human interaction and social behaviour. This part of the brain takes time to fully develop and it does not usually until or around the age of 25 years, in adulthood.

How is this connected to the law, and what personal relevance does this information have to you?

Well in most countries the law states that the drinking age is 21 years of age. However in my country it is 18 years of age. Generally, I think it is because most Jamaicans like to drink and it is somewhat socially acceptable for individuals under the legal drinking age to consume alcoholic beverages. Alcohol affects and influences the human mind; it tends to disrupt rational thought, and most minds are still not developed enough to deal with the influence of alcohol. Alcohol is a drug so it affects the normal functioning of the brain. I can perceive that most would think that the human brain is well enough developed by the age of 21 in order for these 'adults' to have control over their speech and actions. I disagree because no matter what age, alcohol tends to make humans forget themselves and the consequences of their actions in such a vulnerable state. Excessive amounts also damage the 'CPU' and nervous system. Like a lot of Jamaican children, I too started drinking before the age of consent but I made a conscious decision to stop at the age of 15. I went a little overboard than most. It was difficult but now I no longer. Personally speaking, I agree that the drinking age should be moved to 21 in my country. The drinking age is no longer of any relevance to me now but I agree it should be moved up nonetheless, especially after reading this article. Teenagers should not drink. I can say so from shared knowledge and personal knowledge.

If the brain, in the dark inside our skull, is our computer, what interfaces does it have with the outside world?

The brain helps us to respond to other living organisms, consciously or not. We cannot interact with the outside world without it. It helps us to communicate our feelings an or ideologies to others
and other interactions. it helps us humans to evaluate situations and think up answers to problems quickly. Like most things in our bodies, it is connected to our nervous system and hormones which influence and affect how we relate to the outside world. We cannot function without our CPU, our brain. That would be impossible.

The Grandfather Paradox

"Will time travel ever be possible?" is one of the controversial questions/topics which has prevailed on man's mind from over a century ago. The grandfather Paradox argues that travelling back in time is impossible, however it does not state it is impossible to travel to a future time period. In 1943, Rene Barjavel, who was a French journalist and science fiction writer spent a lot of time thinking about the possibility of time travel,  and came up with this theory. In his book Le Voyageur Imprudent the main argument presented  was imagine that you build a time machine. It is possible for you to travel back in time, meet your grandfather before he produces any children (i.e. your father/mother) and kill him. Thus, you would not have been born and the time machine would not have been built, therefore, a paradox. One of your parents would not have been born so therefore you would never had existed. Another time travel paradox is Robert Heinlein's classic short story All You Zombies. Doesn't Time travel defy the laws of physics? In the space of matter and time how could it be possible? This theory has several gaps in it, but it could be accurate, maybe. There is no evidence that time travel is or isn't possible, but why should we try to alter what is meant to be or rather change what helped to shape and influence our present and future? Couldn't that have serious consequences?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6RjjaEy59I

References:

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/grandfather_paradox.html

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Grandfather_paradox.html

Cartoon of The Day

Never hold an argument without thinking before speaking and ensuring you have the best evidence and facts. You sound brilliant that way. ;)  

World peace? These are the only 11 countries in the world that are actually free from conflict

I read the Article entitled World peace? These are the only 11 countries in the world that are actually free from conflict. I found it to be interesting to read however in a few instances it seems to be inaccurate. What is peace? Peace has many definitions, some definitions by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary are:

•  peace is freedom from civil disturbance (
• a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity
• harmony in personal relations

The Global Peace Index chart for internal conflicts, showing the countries defined as having 'no conflict' in dark green (IEP)
The image above I find to be inaccurate because the US constantly suffers from internal conflicts such as still prevalent acts of racial discrimination/the occasional Neo-Nazi/KKK Outbreak, the problem of many incoming migrants, school shootings and the granting of human rights. The Democrats and Republican politicians are always 'bashing' each other (I find it amusing).The US has not learnt as yet how to deal with such conflicts successfully.
I do agree with the point that possibly in the near future Brazil will encounter civil unrest, especially after such a devastating defeat at the FIFA World Cup 2014 in their home country and as the host. From my understanding, personal and shared knowledge, football is life in South and Central America. This will likely affect their economy and crime rates to an extent.

Personally, I do not think any country is fully at peace-free of disharmony. There will always be an opposing force, whether it be a sect, "terrorist"/radical or an idea. Is there such a thing as peace generally speaking?

Picasso Art

I always found Picasso an interesting artist to study and read about. I conducted a research project on Picasso at my previous and original secondary institution in grade 9.I thought he was a bit odd and troubled, but I of all people have no right to even think that. I like Picasso's works and I know that this painting is Guernica. I know what the painting is about but putting aside my shared and personal knowledge of what the painting means, I will look at it as if seeing it for the first time in my life. I associate black and white with death and destruction (to an extent) and that is the main base of this painting. Picasso has made the faces and body parts distorted, painful and crowded- conveying feelings of hopelessness and the man to the far right is on his knees and the composition makes me think of beginning for mercy or praying for some tribulation to be over soon. Picasso uses deformed and mythical looking beasts of burden, to convey the horrors that are going on in the painting. He makes every living creature look terrorized in the painting. I find Guernica captivating and it presents quite a strong historical message as well.

Mapping Emotions On The Body: Love Makes Us Warm All Over

Today I read the article Mapping Emotions On The Body: Love Makes Us Warm All Over. I found it moderately interesting to read. My favourite part of this article is the beginning, how it starts. "Close your eyes and imagine the last time you fell in love. Maybe you were walking next to your sweetheart in a park or staring into each other's eyes over a latte.Where did you feel the love? Perhaps you got butterflies in your stomach or your heart raced with excitement." The last time I felt like that I felt the butterflies, racing heartbeat, everything became alive, like the love map and similar to the happiness map. Everything felt warm, almost dizzying. This is a good example as Emotion As A Way of Knowing. My physical and emotional being tells me I love this individual.This person is my dear friend as well and they're one of the few who can make my day so that's probably why. I may be one of the few who can strongly feel  other emotions (?) in my arms. I feel fear, surprise and anxiety along with the expected anger map in my arms as well as other parts. In my mind these feelings are somewhat similar and connected, and I use my arms when expressing any form of discomfort or displeasure, I cannot control it. Emotions and feelings are a complex set of mechanisms-which I do not like to get into.  Most times I wish I could always feel neutral. That's the most stable "emotion" that one can feel while thinking clearly.
 

This video and the mapping exercise carried out in class has really surprised me, it has made me realize that a lot of the things I had been taught over the years, was not accurate and we students have been greatly mislead. I always thought that the maps I have used in Geography were very accurate, and I had been doing map work accurately and precisely. But now these activities have enlightened me that a lot of these maps are heavily biased based on preference, imperialism, etcetera. Normally humans accept what we are taught and told, without questioning whether or not it is false, true, real or an illusion. We see or believe what we want to see, and believe whether or not it may be so. Ms. C.J. Craig in the video asks where she is after she has been enlightened, and now I also ask, where am I?

I am commenting on the article 'On Reality and Sugar Cubes':

"It’s nothing like what we think it is."

Humans perceive what they want to know or see and not what something actually is. We have a tendency to accept what is told to us and regurgitate this "factual" information to others in our circles. Most times we do not question whether or not what we are told is factual, and how do we really know what is factual? This article states that nothing is as it really seems, it's all an 'illusion', smoke and mirrors. I enjoyed reading this article, but in some instances I was left puzzled, especially when the article stated that there are million billons of nothingness in an atom. I learned that everything is made up of matter and the article states every human being on earth and more can fit inside an ice cube without any complications when all the 'nothing' is extracted from us. This goes to show that nothing is as it really seems and that we humans in most cases do not know what we think we know.

Emotion as a Way of Knowing

What are Emotions? I found that defining the term emotion wasn't that easy. According to the Oxford Dictionary, an Emotion is a strong feeling deriving from one’s circumstances, mood, or relationships with others. On Thursday (yesterday) in The Theory of Knowledge's Class we held constructive discussions in our groups and class on 'Emotion as a Way of Knowing'. I disagree to a certain extent with this definition. Emotions are not necessarily "strong" feelings. I can have opinion about something without having strong emotions.We all discussed whether emotion and logic were separate entities or combined forces. We need our emotions to survive (such as keep safe) and respond to the actions and other living organisms.  I personally believe that emotion and logic/reason work together; they are combined forces. We need to use some of our emotions to reason. Do I prefer one over the other? I honestly do not know.We also watched a clip from the 2006 FIFA World Cup final match France against Italy when Zinedine Zidane head-butted  Marco Materazzi of Italy. I remember that day clearly when I watched 2006's World Cup. We debated whether or not Zinedine was being ruled by emotions or logic, and or both and if we were in his position would we have done so. As a footballer/contact sports player, I, of course would have head-butted  Materazzi if he provoked, tripped or swiped me. I am not sure who started it, but if Zidane did I would have fought him. That is a signal that you want to fight me and an insult. There is no other option but to fight. I know that we Footballers and other contact sportspersons can get very emotional during a game and logic normally goes out the door. In Zidane's case I think he was being emotional and his reasoning became limited, it was his last World Cup match so I guess he thought, why not?
Several problems can arise when we use Emotion as a Way of Knowing. When emotions get too high they can overrule logical thought or reasoning causing us humans to act or respond irrationally to the events or others around us. This can have grave consequences in our relationships. It can be very biased or possibly wrong when we try to use emotion as a way of knowing because it is really an assumption, not proven, not a fact. Such as when we judge someone based on first impressions. Sometimes we do not really know someone, even when we think we might know every fiber of their being and we definitely don't know someone unless we make the effort to get to know them.

Information Links of Philosophers

• Galileo Galilei <3

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/224058/Galileo
http://www.netplaces.com/philosophy/the-renaissance-period-leaving-scholasticism-behind/galileo-galilei.htm

• Bertrand Russell

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/

• Confucius <3

 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucius/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/confuciu/

• Plato

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/464109/Plato

• Socrates

 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551948/Socrates
http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/socr.htm

• Aristotle <3

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/
 http://www.iep.utm.edu/aristotl/

• Avicenna

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/45755/Avicenna

• John Locke

http://www.iep.utm.edu/locke/

Banksy the Great

Banksy is a pseudonymous graffiti artist, painter, political activist and film director based in the United Kingdom. His artistic works of political and social commentary have been featured on streets, walls, and bridges of cities throughout the world.

I did a little research on Banksy and viewed some of his pieces. I rather like his dark humour, satirical works of art and epigrams. This is one of his quotes that stood out to me:


"We can't do anything to change the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves."

— Banksy, Wall and Piece

 

I love this quote by Banksy for I do not support the ideologies of Capitalism (most of them) and it is quite humorous.

 

 Banksy once characterized graffiti as a type of underclass "revenge" or guerilla warfare that allows an individual to snatch away power, territory and glory from a bigger and better equipped enemy. His work has displayed a desire to mock centralised power, hoping that his work will show the public that although power does exist and works against you, that power is not terribly efficient and it can and should be deceived.

 

Banksy's works have dealt with an array of political and social themes, including anti-War, anti-capitalism, anti-fascism, anti-imperialism, anti-authoritarianism, anarchism, nihilism, and existentialism.

Although I like some of his ideas, I disagree with his views on anti-authoritarianism and anarchism.

A Summary of Luna S. Kristic

I am Luna S. Kristic and Marie Gabay The Logical Pagan. Two different persons  in one.

I know how to:

• Play Field Hockey, Cricket, Rugby, Football and Softball.
• Feel deeply while thinking and conversing rationally.
• Understand the many different perspectives.

I know that:

• Everything comes with a price.

My biases are:

• I believe that EVERYONE should have equal rights on the basis of religion, race, sexual orientation and gender. (This is not really a bias to me- your religious beliefs/practices should not affect another person or peoples who have no interest in it whatsoever.)
• I am a revolutionary- everything should be changed for the better whether or not some disagree.
• I believe that people are given too much choices-that's why we have so many problems-we try to please others instead of doing what needs to be done for the better of everyone.
• I am in support of there that there should be a separation of religious ideas/beliefs from the state. I think religious control leads to outrage, it is unfair and opinionated.
• Michelangelo and Galileo are brilliant.
• The only males that I like are my teammates/the bros and my family. The rest annoy me.
• My experiences.

Reflection On Whether I Am Tim Or Storm

I was thoroughly entertained by Tim Minchin's Storm the Animated Movie. I believe I am more like Tim. I know that people are living longer due to advances in technology, medicine and science, there is an increase in Life Expectancy in the modern world. More people are living longer due to these advances, and less people are dying before 40 due to ill health. A lot of pharmaceuticals are derived from natural remedies or plant extracts, such as antibiotics which are derived from fungi. I am like Tim in other ways, I believe in physics, matter and the big bang theory, and a lot in scientific facts. However I do agree with Storm in a sense that pharmaceutical companies are greedy and that there are SOME natural remedies that are better than what these companies put on the market. I do not believe that science has an explanation for everything that happens in our universe, some things cannot be explained. As for fortune telling, I don't really have an opinion on whether or not it is actually true and it depends on the type. It may be. I am a strong believer in knowledge and enlightenment, but I also believe in the supernatural to an extent. But I think that faith can blind people from seeing what is actually going on, I agree that faith can cause the denial of observations so that belief can be preserved and it can control what the population thinks. There is nothing wrong with having faith in a supreme being, each to his own. Most humans have the desire to believe and have hope in something- as for whether or not it may be true who knows? Faith is a controversial issue, and most are biased and opinionated when discussions about faith start. I am a strong believer in Science and more like Tim than Storm, but I will not dismiss that there is no supernatural or a deity(s). Who really knows?

Glossary For Theory Of Knowledge

Knowledge - Knowledge is facts, skills, information gained from enlightenment or through experience. Knowledge can also be the practical or theoretical understanding of a task or subject.

Cynicism - The term Cynicism is derived from a group of ancient Greek philosophers known as the Cynics who believed that people are motivated by self-interest and not for honourable or unselfish reasons or motives. Cynicism is this belief.

Skepticism - Skepticism is the theory that certain knowledge or truths is impossible or false.

 Skeptic- A Skeptic is a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.

Relativism - Relativism is the belief that knowledge, truth and morality exist in relation to society, culture and/or a historical context and are not necessarily valid.

Relativist - A Relativist is a person who believes that knowledge, truth and morality exist in relation to society, culture and/or a historical context and are not necessarily valid.

Philosophy - Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered  an academic discipline.

Personal Knowledge- Gained from your experiences.

Shared Knowledge- It is obtained through gathered information, made collections and from multiple people.

Socrates Ideologies

Socrates was a Greek philosopher who was considered the "(Western) Father of Philosophy" and he lived around 469-399 B.C. I admire Socrates greatly, he was ahead of his time and a brilliant philosopher. One of my favourite quotes by Socrates is  "what I do not know I do not think I know". Socrates was saying he was very aware that he did not know many things, and that wrongdoings were committed due to a person's or people's unawareness or ignorance. I am not sure whether or not I agree with Socrates on the latter, I think I agree and disagree to an extent. People can be oblivious to doing wrong, while they may be very aware of their wrongdoing and still continue to be arrogant and sinister. It all depends on the situation where this quote is being applied to.
Most Athenians did not like Socrates, his philosophical ideologies went against everything they believed in. When Socrates was jailed and stood on trial he preached that the most important thing for families' loved ones was their soul/mental/emotional well being and not occupations and titles. That was a very bold and liberal statement, especially during that time period.  I agree with Socrates on this because a high-paying job does not ensure someone's happiness. Happiness comes from within a person. Socrates was a strong advocate for building oneself rather than focus on materialistic things and I know from personal experience that these materialistic things do not ensure one's happiness.