Tuesday, April 12, 2016

8 Absent Students

It’s not enough to open the window
To see the fields and the river.
It’s also not enough to not be blind
To see the trees and the flowers.
It’s also necessary to not have any philosophy at all.
With philosophy there are no trees, there are only ideas.
There’s only each of us, like a wine-cellar.
There’s only a shut window and the world outside it;
And a dream of what you could see if you opened the window,

Which is never what you see when you open the window.*

  • Does this quote agree or disagree with the text?  Explain your thinking.
“Anyone who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light”

9 comments:

  1. Remi
    The quote does agree with the text. Both talk about what you expect it to be but it isn't the actual thing once you do it. For example, in the poem it said "And a dream of what you could see if opened the window, Which is never what you see when you open the window." I believe the text was saying how you expect something to be want you hoped and wish for but once you actually take that step forward and do it, it's not what you expected. Which is similar of what was discussed in the text. It was informing us that there are misunderstandings to what you know and that can be caused by doing the activity or what you heard about that activity. In all, it's not what you expected.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Camiella,
    The quote agrees with the text in the sense that it all connects with the human need to understand the world and it's mysteries. I believe as humans we all have one dominant eye whether we look in the world in a common sense/reason only matter or creative free flowing; both of these when used alone do not give us a holistic view. They still put us at a disadvantage when it comes to perceiving and understanding the world. The poem and quote are alluding to the fact that in order to fully understand we need to have a balanced mix of both eyes. The text says "It is also necessary to not have any philosophy at all" this I connect to bewilderments from going into the light. By guiding ourselves to a strict philosophy we constrain ourselves and our view of the world. It is impossible to full enjoy our environment if we put common sense into every possible thing. We need to let things occur naturally. In having a strict philosophy of course we can still demystify events and creatures but since the mind is stuck to a principle there is no room for growth. When the text mentions "it's not enough to open the window" goes with stepping out of the light. When looking at things creatively, we can attach new meanings to the mysteries our eyes perceive. But if we do too much of free flowing thought things would not have roots, which could lead to distortion from the external world. Life is all about equilibrium I believe, just like how we try to get a balanced diet not too much meat, veggies, candy as it is bad for the body we should also try to diversify the way we look at things sensibly yet with a creative mind spirit. This can help us accurately predict what is outside of that window (our eyes). There is a time to think and a time to feel if we spend too much thinking we will not enjoy life and if we spend too much time feeling the mind will not grow and civilization will not develop ( in my view).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jenifer

    I think that the quote by Plato disagrees to the poem because for him in order to actually see something you need to move out of a certain place (the darkness) and moving into something else (the light) and vise versa. What I get from this is that he believes you can see things clearly in the light as well as in the dark. What's contradicting is that in the darkness you can only create assumptions and ideas of what something is which contradicts to the poem where it says that philosophy hinders your ability to view things for what they truly are because your are only seeing it for what you want to see it as. Plato's belief that only clarity is needed in order to view things also contradicts to the poem that states in the beginning "It is not enough to open the window" the window, in my opinion, being your eyes. Simply opening them and seeing the world is not enough to truly see things.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hannah

    I believe the quote does agree with the text in the context of having eyes of two kinds which arise from either being on the outside or being on the inside. The text explains that there is something much deeper to see than just looking at what's around you because depending on your perspective of this view, the meaning can change. It goes into the idea of thinking there is something more than what is there, depending on if you are looking from the "outside world" or from the "inside world." These ideas are what relate to the quote's idea of looking at things as a person "coming out of the light" and as a person "going into the light."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Aakilah
    I believe that this quote does agree with what was being said in the text. The text discusses how you dream of what you can't see but what you actually see changes your perception on what you thought that something would be. The quote discusses something similar because it explains that what you know from sight can't always be trusted but what you know from reasoning and understanding can be. I agree that what we see with our sight isn't always what it is actually there. Much like in the videos where Thompson was so sure of who her attacker was that it was difficult for her to accept who her real attacker was. She believed that she saw this man and knew him as her attacker because we feel that we can trust our sight. When she actually saw her real attacker she didn't even recognize him because she didn't perceive him or “see” him as her real attacker although he really was in the TOK book it often explained how people believe that sight is their most important sense although it has been proven that it shouldn't be trusted.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Beltine
    This quote seems to agree with the text.Both text speak of sight and the different angles to sight. The poem says with sight comes different views and perspectives and without it you see nothing, you could only have an opinion.The quote on the other hand speaks of sight and how you may not always need sight to interpret.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Aakilah
    I believe that this quote does agree with what was being said in the text. The text discusses how you dream of what you can't see but what you actually see changes your perception on what you thought that something would be. The quote discusses something similar because it explains that what you know from sight can't always be trusted but what you know from reasoning and understanding can be. I agree that what we see with our sight isn't always what it is actually there. Much like in the videos where Thompson was so sure of who her attacker was that it was difficult for her to accept who her real attacker was. She believed that she saw this man and knew him as her attacker because we feel that we can trust our sight. When she actually saw her real attacker she didn't even recognize him because she didn't perceive him or “see” him as her real attacker although he really was in the TOK book it often explained how people believe that sight is their most important sense although it has been proven that it shouldn't be trusted.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The quote does not agree with the text. The poem mentions how "with philosophy there are no trees there are only ideas" this means that there isn't a connection to what is visually seen and what the ideas that are going through our minds. The quote connects the idea of only if you have "common sense" then you'll be able to understand how "seeing" actually works. Either from coming out of the light or going into it. This essentially means that there was not any type of philosophical connection made between what you see and your ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I do believe that both the quote and the text agree on the idea, perception and acquisition of knowledge. The poem itself, the way I interpreted it is speaking of knowledge and how it's not enough to take action towards acquiring knowledge and understanding It also discusses how it's not enough to simply see this knowledge and understanding or recognize it. It talks about how its ts not necessary to have a way to find knowledge or understand knowledge and that philosophy or a way of doing something is not concrete but its abstract. We are individuals that have to figure it out on our own. There’s only the world around us that is unopened that we have to open ourselves, and a wish or dream of the knowledge one could acquire, which is something you can’t see when you are unaware. This idea is something that is prevalent in the quote by Plato in The Republic. The quote states that anyone with common sense can in turn recognize the difference in knowledge on a metaphorical level. Both the quote and the text are discussing the ways of looking at knowledge and how they can both be different from sense perception.
    Jasmine

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for posting!!

Swift