Universal Truth

Every culture develops what they believe to be true. Americans believe that everyone should have freedom of speech. Christians believe that you should follow the message of Jesus Christ. Muslims believe women are children and should be treated like property. The English believe that you have the right to rule the country based on your parents. At one point Germans believed themselves to be the superior race. The Aztecs believed sacrificing a human would make their gods happy. All of these beliefs, at one point, were or still are seen as truths. These are just a few examples, but in reality every culture holds They took an idea and decided it was absolute and therefore fought to protect it. How can all these be truths though if they are not seen as the truth by everyone?

I think labelling an ideal a cultural truth is misleading. Instead I think these are strong beliefs that become a fact to a majority of people. I don't think it is very likely that anything can be an ultimate truth to everyone on the planet. This is especially true in the respect of ideas that aren't solid. The idea of one omnicient being, although widely accepted by a majority of the world, has proven time and time again that everyone in the world does not have the same views. Even through physical force this idea could not be changed from a belief to a truth. This leads me to raise questions about the ideas behind the Truman and Bush doctorines. These both state that democracy should be pushed far and wide. The Truman doctorine goes farther and states that Communism should be completely obliterated. Two presidents in what is considered to be the most powerful country in the world have written what they believe to be truths. These documents can be used to destabilize numerous governments and potentioally kill hundreds of people. Democracy is purely a political belief, but in America this has become a political truth. This is the perfect example of how cultural truths can become lethal.

When people believe an idea to be an absolute truth, they become blinded by it. Cultures close their minds off to the possibility that their truth could be a lie; an illusion fabricated to make meaning or re-enforce dominance. The idea of a "cultural truth" has rarely been a good thing throughout history. Many people have been pursecuted because of the beliefs of others that had been made into "truths". When people are hurt because of a truth, that should be a sign that it is not a truth. So are there any "cultural truths"? I think when it all comes down to it, there are strong beliefs that people have. They may become facts to some individuals, but when they are put on a large scale they have the potential to hurt others. Any sort of "manifest destiny" of any idea may have devastating results. Cultural truth is a myth that has been wrongly titled and the attempt to spread it has only been regressive.

Thalidomide

The drug thalidomide had terrible effects on thousands of people around the world before it was banned. Who's to blame for this tragedy?

The government clearly felt some blame for this because they had it banned. The government regulation of medication given to the public should have definitely went through some adjustments. The government should definitely be taking an active role in the administrating of prescription drugs. No government should allow a drug to disable thousands of people before it realizes something is wrong with it. The government should have more strict laws to ensure this.

The drug company that researched this chemical and had it cleared for general use should definitely take some responsibility as well. They clearly did not have enough research on the drug before it was prescribed. This led to a tragedy that effected thousands. That should set off a red flag that there need to be more adequate research techniques before administering a drug.

Doctors and patients on an individual level have no where near the amount of responsibility that the drug company and government have. When it comes to a drug that is supposed to help morning sickness, nobody should feel weary about side effects that extreme. It is not up to the doctors and patients to research every prescribed drug. Although this may be helpful this is work that should already be done for the individuals.

Disembodied Learning

Does emotion play a role in knowledge? If it does have a role, is it positive or negative? A strong passion for anything will undoubtedly influence what you put into the knowledge. These passions can be negative or positive, but both have an effect. Humanity has a natural mental block against doing things they don't want to do. The real test of character is how well you get over this block. Making the best out of a class or any type of required knowledge is something that can become essential in life.

Emotion can definitely bias you towards a subject. Religion is an obvious example of this. Religion puts strong emotion in the minds of millions around the world. Many people wont give a moment towards the thought of stem cell research or evolution because of their religion. In cases like this, emotion is hindering the acquisition of knowledge. This is a negative side effect of emotion that can leave an individual blind to countless topics. The evolution of scientific knowledge was stunted for hundreds of years because religious law did not allow anything that could possibly disprove any canonical text. Things like this have held back knowledge since the birth of religion. In school, dislike of a teacher or subject may lead a student to not try their hardest. I've seen kids completely disregard a class because of this. This type of close-minded thinking is a shame. In cases like these, emotions are preventing the attainment of knowledge.



There is another side to this though. When an individual is passionate about a subject, they are more likely to put more time and effort into learning more about that subject. I am a self proclaimed history nerd. I have taken every social studies class that the school offers a year ahead of graduation. Along with that, I watch the History Channel almost every day. I plan to major in history when i go to college. Although history really has nothing to do with my career choice I enjoy learning about it so much that I am willing to put a great deal of time and money into it. Positive emotions towards an area of knowledge spurs the learner into putting more into that learning. Even just a love for knowledge in general can cause this. There are plenty of people that have an internal desire to learn more each day.

After required learning is over, how many people continue with the quest for knowledge? This is when you really understand what you truly enjoy learning about. Choosing to continue acquiring knowledge when it is not expected of you is the rawest way to show that you have a passion for something. This desire to learn has to have an emotional base which, in the long run, makes emotion a positive part of the learning process.

Ethical Learning

Who decides what we learn? While we are in school, that decision is made by teachers, school boards, all the way up to The Department of Education. Many trained professionals are invested in deciding what the children of America are going to learn. This is at least true through high school where you don't have much freedom in deciding what you learn. In college it may be a little more free, but you are still required to know certain things. After this it is all up to you to individually control your learning unless you have a job that requires extra training.

General education is the goal of schooling for 12 years of your life. This is the amount of time the country has decided will give you a grasp of a variety of things. What then is ethical to teach in these years? This is something that can be very hard to decide in a free society. Anything taught can't sway personal beliefs. The Scopes Monkey Trial in the mid 20th century decided that we would stop teaching the creation story in public schools. Students would instead be taught the evolution theory based on Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection and the common ancestor. In a time when most people were very Christian, this was a huge controversy. Now it is seen by many as logical. The changing times made this seem like the more ethical choice; to rely more on science than religion. Where is the line drawn that determines the ethics of general education? This is not a solid line, but instead a changing blur that will always change with the changing times. Political correctness has pushed altered this line in recent years. Is it ethical for a teacher to talk about hot button issues such as abortion? I think censorship in the classroom is only handicapping the minds of students. This is why college is such an important prospect to me; the opportunity to hear opinions expressed freely.



College professors have a huge amount of freedom compared to secondary teachers. They are not guiding the minds of children, but instead the minds of legal adults. This raises the bar for what can be taught. Although colleges have a curriculum for a class that must be followed, they have more leeway for a discussion to go in a sticky area so to speak. At this point you are choosing what you learn because you are paying for the class instead of fulfilling a requirement. does this fact change the ethics behind what a professor chooses to teach and what a college board approves? I think it makes an immense difference. If you dislike the topic of study in a class you don't have to take it. The fact that college is a time to go deeper into study of a field that you are passionate about makes it more reasonable that what you are learning may push buttons of some people and go beyond the ethical line.

After your formal education, learning can go beyond this because there are no ethical lines unless you set them yourself. This is why life after schooling may be where knowledge really begins. (532)

Point of View Part Two

If you think that personal point of view affects your learning than what does it say about teaching? Does your point of view effect how you teach a subject? Every textbook is written through the eyes of the writer and his point of view on the subject. With a science text book an author may stress the importance of one topic. Different math books may vary the order in which they discuss the material. The most biased of them all, and my personal favorite would have to be a history text book. When a subject is open to interpretation it greatly increases the way it is taught to others. A historian may write his opinion into the book subconsciously, but that can be true for any writing. Not only writers do this, but teachers as well. I've seen it all throughout my schooling. Teachers explain what they know in a way that gives you their view. For example, I took AP Calculus last year as a Junior. The teacher had very strong views about the textbook that the school had. He disliked the book so much that he had new ones ordered. When I began my senior year I got in Calculus again. The new teacher had no problems with the book and intended on using it. To me it made no sense to go in the order that this book went. This is because my teaching from the previous year gave me a bias against the book. It gets more evident that teachers have a bias while teaching when you look at these teachers' backgrounds. The teacher that disliked the book went to college in a different country. His professor would give the history of the area of study and continue with the lesson. In the new textbooks, there was a section about the mathematicians that developed the particular area of study. This is familiar and therefore easier to teach. The teacher that liked the book went to Adams City and probably used the same textbooks. Both of these teachers developed a separate point of view about teaching the same subject. This leads them to bias their teaching.

Point of View Part One

The quest for knowledge can be stalled or accelerated because of many factors. These factors are based on each individual and can vary for different reasons. The main question is will your person point of view be an asset or obstacle in the acquisition of knowledge. I don't think it has to be an obstacle all the time. Situations are different for each person, but if you allow yourself to have an open-mind to what you are learning then it shouldn't play any negative role. Looking at what you are learning positively can shape your perspective and give you the best outcome. There is always the chance that someone could have a bias against learning something. In this case, your point of view definitely becomes an obstacle. This is something that can be overcome if you choose to not let it be crippling in your quest for knowledge.