Theory of Knowledge

Ok… That idea I had about writing about the presentation of Mr. ToK God? Yeah, that did not happen. I think the ideas were not even clear in my mind, therefore I was unable to express them on paper, or blog in this case. So… after browsing several blogs I read Glori Sojo’s on politics and ethics and an idea popped into my head. Mr. Rafael Angel Calderon, ex-president of Costa Rica, currently accused for corruption and is on trial. These are just three small details of this man’s life. (Notice the sarcasm). Oh! And I almost forgot, to sum up to his uneventful life he is planning on running AGAIN for president for the political party Partido Unidad Social Cristiana. This is where I begin to enter a quandary [vocab log word =D - I hope I applied it correctly] and wonder where are the ethics in this country?

Six, or so, years ago a huge scheme of corruption was unraveled by the press. This ‘chorizo’ involved many prestigious people, including the president of widely known pharmaceutical company, the manager of the CCSS (Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social), which is the national insurance company, the manager of ALCATEL in Costa Rica, and a Costa Rican ex-president! Yes, there is probably many small corrupt business in the country, but when a mess like this one becomes public it cannot be ignored or forgotten. After 5 years of investigation the trial has finally began. Mr. Walter Reiche has been in the process of telling his side of the story, saying that Mr. Rafael Angel Calderon told him the only way one of the projects of his company would pass the approval of the CCSS was by bribing the manager. Mr. Calderon had some acquaintances in the CCSS and he could persuade them to approve the business deal for a ’small’ sum of money. At least this is what Mr. Reiche claims. Who knows what the truth is. I don’t want to point fingers at anyone yet.

However, evidence does prove that Mr. Calderon was somehow involved in a corruption scheme. Now, the problem I want to focus is not how corrupt were his acts. What I question is the ethics in allowing him to run for presidency. First things first, how can there be people who want someone who betrayed the trust of the citizens to LEAD the country? Is there any way of ensuring these acts of corruption will not be repeated?? No. I understand that some people believe this man is innocent and bla bla bla (sorry for my politically biased opinions), but even pretending he was, doesn’t the slightest suspicion of him being a corrupt man creates doubt among the citizens? Is it not the responsibility of all voters to choose someone who will lead the country through the right path, or maybe not so right, but at least an honest path?? OK maybe I am now expressing too much personal opinions, but I am not convinced it is right to have a criminal, because as harsh as it sounds, committing a felony makes you a criminal, as the leader of a nation. This will not only have a horrible impact on all Costa Ricans but it will also give a terrible image to the rest of the world. If this man ends up as president, which I hope we will not, this will only lead Costa Rica towards a down-hill path and will make it very difficult to climb up that hill again after his presidency is over.

Breaking the law and running for presidency is a paradox! It is like John Travolta calling himself an eco-friendly man whilst having 7 airplanes! These are two things that not go together and only lead towards disaster.

It is Tuesday morning and I am being incredible lazy and not really looking forward to a whole day of T.o.K discussions. Actually, I am not looking forward to it at all. Once at the Omar Dengo Foundation I find myself in a room with other students, not really knowing what to expect. We are then lead to a conference room, where the borther of astronaut, Franklin Chang, gives us an introductory speech about space, plasma motors, Mars, and men. Personally I found the speech itself very interesting and caught my attention for the whole 45 minutes he spoke. However, the most appealing moment was at the very end, when two people asked the following questions: Do you think humans should conquer space as if it was another place on Earth? Don’t you think we will then pollute and destroy space the same way we have been damaging the Earth? Do you think it is ethical to use these inventions of plasma motors to reach Mars as just a profitable business? Is there no limit to what men can achieve? Wow, I was surprised by such questions because these were questions that made me think about all these technological discoveries and research projects that are currently being developed. The media portrays such discoveries as amazing advances that push human limits and knowledge further than ever. Yet, this pressure to expand our horizons has dangers and implications that must also be taken into account. Mr. Chang spoke about how, soon, men will have to begin a life outside planet Earth because it will become uninhabitable. The levels of pollution are reaching a critical level that if not treated will become an even greater hazard than they are today.

For my blogs I plan to discuss these questions and give my personal insight on these, but first, I want to give a short summary of what Mr. Chang explained. He is the brother of astronaut Franklin Chang and is actively involved hand in hand with him and a team in the development of a plasma motor to reach Mars in a shorter amount of time, weight, and price. He then reiterated his views by stressing the importance of men being able to reach space and with this motor also create a market for outer space tourism and market. I believe some of his views seemed a little too commercial and profit-seekers rather than contributors to the world of science and technology.

Prostitution is a legal act where a woman (an adult) sells herself, her body, and sex for money. Many choose this hard path because of extreme reasons where money is desperately needed to maintain themselves or their children. Usually prostitutes work for a pimp, who “administrates” the business. How ethical is this act of prostitution? In my personal opinion I do not believe it is.

Yet, it was common that in the past prostitutes were considered items to entertain men. In different societies, such as Japan, what in the Western culture could be considered prostitution, there it was considered a normal past time for men. As it was discussed in English class, it is customary in Japanese cultures for men to go to tea houses and women to entertain them before going home to their wives. However, these women never give themselves completely to their ‘customers’, that is, they do all but sex. In the case of what is commonly known as prostitutes, the women are paid for any sort of interaction with men.

When a woman allows a man to play with her body, it is an act of disrespect. In the culture I have been raised I have learnt that my body is something I should respect and is not an object to sell. I also believe that a woman’s image is despised when she gives herself to an unknown man. In some societies women are believed to serve men and do what they are told, however this should not be the case. Women who do not respect their bodies are just giving one more reason to be considered as inferior.

On the other hand, it is sad that people have to live of sex. Many of these women that prostitute themselves have a family to maintain and prostituting is the only way they can survive. Of course, one can argue there are other means to earn money, even if the job does not pay as well, that are much more ethical. It is a harsh reality these women live in and it is a reality that we must combat in order to be able to minimize such irresponsible acts. I believe prostitution should not be allowed for the women’s reputation and dignity.

<!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:”Cambria Math”; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:”"; margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>

Russell Peters is a Canadian comedian originally from India. He has become incredibly famous over the past year or so thanks to his comedy shows. These are widely known for their mocking and ridiculing of society, ethnic groups, races, and other differences among people. Peters makes fun of black people, Chinese (and Asians in general), Indian, Latinos, Americans, Europeans, everyone. Many people believe he should not be taken seriously because it is all just an act, it is not meant to be offensive. However, is imitating Indian people not rude? Is it not disrespectful to mock others’ jobs and lifestyles? Russell Peters makes sure that everyone can have a laugh at the Mexicans in the United States that work as gardeners or maids. He makes fun of Arabs and their conservative culture. He mocks Indians and their accents and customs. The basis of his acts is pure stereotypes. Should Russell Peters be punished for what has made him famous and he makes a living out of? Well, I believe he should, at least in some cases.

I must admit, it is sometimes funny to hear him imitate an Indian accent, or make fun of Chinese stereotypes. It is wrong nonetheless. Why should one make fun of others just because they are different? Where is the respect in all of this? I believe this comedian has just found an easy way to make money by targeting people who do not see the disrespect involved in his skits or just do not care.

Stereotypes are inevitable; everyone always makes generalizations in society. But why is it necessary to mock these generalizations which are always wrong? I understand how Russell Peters claims he is not intentionally insulting anybody and how he also makes fun of himself and his culture. Not everyone is like him, though. It is unethical to disrespect different cultures, races, ethnicities. Insulting different people can result in misunderstandings, hurtful situations, and when it reaches the extreme, cases like war develop.

I believe what Russell Peters is doing is wrong, and it is even worse that people pay large amounts of money to go to his shows and tag along in his insulting, derogative jokes. This is just an example of a widely known comedian, but situations of mocking occur every day in school, for instance.

Here in Lincoln School I hear people everyday using the “N” word. For my sister (who this morning complained about this) and for me this is totally shocking and unacceptable. When we lived in Switzerland this was unheard of. Here, however, it seems as if people do not really see how offensive this word can be. In the United States it is illegal to use the “N” word and here there is no reaction when it is mentioned. I believe this might due to ignorance or just plain lack of knowledge.

It is important to stress the significance of this word and other uses of derogative language. The reason for this is so that society as a whole can become an accepting society where no discrimination of any sort exists. This way so many conflicts could be solved and a better understanding of people as a whole will flourish.

Last Saturday, while I was doing a practice SAT test, I came across the essay and the topic proposed. Firstly, the topic was introduced by stating that throughout the years society has evolved culturally and has become more open and public, where exposing one’s life has become a hobby and of others’ interest. Then, the question asked was what you had to comment on: should an effort be made to maintain privacy? Again, this topic was brought to my attention tonight at the senior’s Gong Show. Renzo presented a skit where he criticized social networks, such as Facebook, and how these have become such an important aspect in the lives of people today. And these statements are totally true.

It has become extremely popular among teenagers, as well as adults, to expose one’s intimate details in social networks. I began to ask myself questions about privacy and its value. So many of us have lost the importance of keeping one’s life private, or maybe we have just been raised, or have become accustomed, to sharing so much of our lives that some things are not considered intimate and are meant to be shared with others. I will focus mainly on Facebook because it has become the most common website for this sort of actions. Facebook allows you to publish every single detail of your life, from your birth date to how you are feeling to all the pictures you want to post. Mark Zuckerberg, the creator of Facebook, argues there are privacy measures that the user can apply in order to have a safer profile, but let’s be frank: when one joins Facebook it is not to keep things low-key. Most of the users are there to reunite with old acquaintances, publish photos of their life, share their experiences, but also to be nosy and “stalk” their friends and see what the latest events in the person’s life are.

As the SAT introductory topic says, society has indeed evolved culturally. The word “privacy” does not have the same meaning today as it did 3, 5 or 10 years ago. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “privacy” as the quality or state of being apart from company or observations (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privacy). However, the degrees of privacy have changed substantially. It was unthought-of before to publish or share pictures of a day at a friend’s house, or your latest trip to where-ever you visited. Needless to say it was considered outrageous to give intimate details, such as email address or birth date or facts about you and your life, to strangers or people you barely know.

I feel the need to reiterate that an effort has to be made to maintain the importance and value of privacy. Not only for discretion towards others but for one’s own safety as well. Unintentional information given out to others can be hazardous. There have been cases where people have been killed with details retrieved from social networks such as Facebook. These pages are like paradise to sexual predators. One cannot be careless about the information given out. Privacy is also a way of self-respect. If one cares about one’s reputation or about their intimate life then one could see how these networks at an invasion to private property. Okay, one puts up information willingly, no one is being forced to share anything, but pressures exist. The best pictures, the juiciest gossip, the funniest bumper sticker are among the most popular features Facebook can offer to its users. If one can get a hold of this so easily, why reject it? It is like a vice, addictive. Society’s carelessness will lead to losing the value of privacy and intimacy. Why have we begun to feel the need to share everything we do with others? Is it a competition or a show-and-tell? One should be happy with one’s life and not feel the urge to brag or feel inferior to others because of what others do, say, or live.

As I was reading the headlines in my little news feed on the right side of my computer screen an article about Apple’s new iPhone feature came up: copy paste for text messages. This got me thinking, and I realised maybe Apple has gone too far with extravagant features and technological advances. I read Ana Vic’s blog the other day about materialism and I was shocked by her insightful analysis. I had never really considered the whole materialistic aspect in such ways. I never considered myself as a materialistic person, until now. I must admit I do like to have a nice cellphone, or the latest fashion trends, or even a recent (maybe not latest edition) iPod.

This made me wonder, is the main purpose of companies, such as Apple, to influence material goods and excess expenditure? Well, of course! The companies’ concerns are not the economic crisis we are currently witnessing. Although every day in the media we are informed about how companies are suffering losses and cutting jobs, Apple is still launching new products, like this new iPhone with only a few improvements since the last one was released, or the latest version of the iPod shuffle. Maybe Apple has gone too far.

Are copy/pasting text messages really necessary? Can one not spend an extra minute of their life rewriting a message? Technological victims that feel the urge to buy the latest gadgets will feel obliged to buy this new iPhone, not because of its advances and improvements, but also because it is new, and shiny! Spending on mp3s, iPods, cellphones, etc is not a cheap deal. These accessories’ prices range from around $150 to $600 or more (items such as Blackberries). It is ridiculous how advertising influences people so much that despite living an economic recession they are still willing to spend hundreds of dollars on useless gadgets. Does the 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd generation iPod not play music like the 4th generation iPod? Is it really worth spending $300 dollars to replace something that still works properly, if not better? What I do not understand is, why do we keep buying such unnecessary items?

Of course it is nice to have a new, shiny present we can show off to our friends. It is lovely to think one has the latest trends in technology (or any other area for that matter), but what price are we willing to pay for this? I believe it is silly and superficial to spend such amounts of money on something that cannot really guarantee or grant you happiness.

Not only is all of this spending unnecessary but it can also be considered unethical. It can be unethical in the sense that materialism can be taken as offensive. Millions of people in the world are dying of hunger and one is spending on useless accessories. The money spent can be used to help charities or other non-profit organizations that can help make a change in the world, where a real improvement can be made.

The world has become a consuming nation where ’status’ is somewhat defined by materialism. The more material goods you own the “better” you are off. It is sad to think how priorities have diverged to such a superficial level in some societies, whereas others suffer from real problems, where not many improvements can be done, and cannot be fixed by paying a given price.