1. (A) Is John Merrick a Monster? In your answer, consider how you could use the following Areas of Knowledge to justify your claims.

I do not think John Merrick is a monster. Personally I believe a monster is something that is not human, and when i same not human i mean not homo sapiens, not the worlds idea of what a person should be. This is justified bt the Areas of knowledge following. (counter claim included)
a) History: In history people have described monsters as people like Hitler that create massive amounts of destruction, or do things that the 'average' person can not imagine having on their conscience. John Merrick never does anything destructive in his life time. On the contrary he creates rather than destroys, he creates a work of art. A counter claim to this is that in History anything that we have found different from ourself we treat it with fear or hatred (ex. witchcraft, people of different races, etc), and automatically call it a monster. John Merrick is definitely different from the normal, and could therefore be classified as a monster.
b) Natural Science: In natural science people have defined a monster as some type of disease that controls a person and turns them into something new. One could argue that Johns appearance is most certainly a disease that is far from the norm, therefore he is a monster. However he is still mentally there. The disease may control his appearance but it does not effect his mind, it does not control him mentally as an individual and cause him to act in a way monstrous or inhumanly.
c) Social Science: In social science a monster is someone that does not respond to social cues, acts different from the norm, or is threating/harmful to others. At first John does act different from the norm, but what he is introduced to a safe environment he in fact acts with class and all social cues of a normal person. Nothing in his manner is threatening or harmful.
d) The Arts: In the arts a monster is portrayed as a something not human, extremely deformed, scary, it normally has claws, and some type of threatening look to it. John certainly does not have a look of threat to him, for the most part he has a look a fear. Yes he may be greatly deformed but he still has a very human element to him, that most monsters in art do not have.


2. John Merrick claimed, "I am not an animal, I am a human being?" What does he mean? How does he know?

Here John Merrick is claiming that he is human, that he is no different then the rest of us. Just because his appearance is altered by a disease he is still human. He wants people to treat him so and not treat him as something to view like an animal in a show. He also does not want to be treated as something to be feared of, like a monster or a fierce vulgar looking animal. He knows this because both of his parents were human beings, science tells us that if both parents are human the child must be human. He also knows he is human because the doctors (authoritative) tell him that he is human, but only has a physical deformation.

3. Dr. Treves claimed, "Am I a good man, or am I a bad man?" What does he mean? How does he know?
When he says this he is stating his confusion over what he has done to John Merrick. He can not differentiate between his selfish needs for greed and how it has effected John. His greed lead him to think that what he was doing to John was for the best. He knew that John would not be accepted into to society, so he thought by teaching him that he is an outcast he would protect him from gaining knowledge and being hurt even more. He has knowledge of how he has effected John by the doctors change in John. He can see that John can be 'normal' and accepted and is confused about what he once thought was right.

4. What role does the herd mentality play in the film? Please be specific in your answers.

Herd mentality plays a huge role in the film. In the film there is there is images of elephants stampeding and the fight that breaks out in the hospital is also a representation of it. The reason why the director presented this images is to represent how humans follow the crowd, and how this was a huge effect on John Merrick's acceptance in society. When he was a circus act and a bunch of people laughed at him it was acceptable to make fun of because others were doing it too. When he was taken into the hospital people began to treat him as a human, he became more accepted. Then when the actress became friends with him it became something acceptable to do, and others 'followed the herd' and accepted him as well.

5. How did the community react to the different Monsters in the film? Please explain your answer.
There was many different monsters the people reacted to in several different ways. The community reacted to the freak shows as one would expect, with humorous fear. Fear because it is different and humor because it is something different from the norm and they do not know how to react. People reacted to John Merrick similarly but with more of an extreme. This was done because his deformities are so extreme and so different that it was nothing people had seen before. Also his likeness to being a human and how this is something that could happen to anyone makes it more frightening. The night watchmen can also be looked upon as a monster, however the community reacts to him herd like as above. He is a monster to John Merrick, but since people are following him it becomes ok, so people follow him with no regrets.

6. John Merrick claims, "We are afraid of what we don't understand." Do you agree? Does this statement apply to the modern world or have we learned to treat perceived Monsters with dignity? Please be specific in your answer.

I do agree with this statement because what we do not understand is s

Truth Essay

How can the different ways of knowing help us to distinguish between something that is true and something that is believed to be true?

Through Plato’s idea of knowledge we are able to get a clear understanding of what is true and what is not. Plato created a set way to identify truth. By looking at his ideas of what knowledge is, there is a greater understanding for how to separate something that is true from something that is not.

Plato’s argument is that knowledge has to be described and communicated, that way it had certainty to its truth. “Propositional” knowledge (aka Platonic knowledge or knowledge by description) is a way that we can determine what is true and what is not. Propositional knowledge is a formal statement of convincing knowledge, or “knowing that” something is true. According to Plato knowledge can be tested to see if it is in fact true or not. In order to be knowledge it must apply to three things, it must be justified, it must be true, and it must be believed. Knowledge can be justified though authority, empathy, ratification, and memory. Belief however is necessary but is not sufficient enough to stand on its own. Now for something to be true it must also fit into three categories. It must be public, independent, and eternal. The information presented has to be public, for example if the true statement was that a dog is friendly is true it must be friendly to everyone. If it was only friendly to its owner and not to other people of the public then it is not true. The statement must also be independent of belief. For example the owner of that dog may fully believe that his dog is friendly when in fact it is a evil beast, his belief does not make it true. Last but not least the dogs friendliness must be eternal. In that moment that dog must be friendly then and forever.

Based on Plato’s three clarifications must of how a piece of knowledge be true, I believe it fits in with all types on knowledge. In empiricism/experiential knowledge (see it, smell it, hear it, touch it, taste it) any sort of knowledge presented to be true through induction must also have to fit into the three categories. For example if someone were to say “the grass is green” because they can see that the grass is in fact green this knowledge could be verified as truth because it is public, everyone can see that the grass is green, it is separate from belief, and it is eternal because the grass will always be green in that moment. Rationalism and Deduction (instructed knowledge using a prior knowledge, ‘knowledge that came before’) are also an example that knowledge that can be used to distinguish between what is truth and what is not. For example a person can know that fire is hot and not to touch it through rationalization, it can be told to a person through authoritative means, they can tell from the heat it gives off, etc. All of the knowledge that they have acquired about fire can lead a person to know that fire is dangerous and not to touch it through ratification, without them ever having to try. This is public because fire is dangerous to all, it doesn’t only hurt some people. It is independent, because even if you believe it is not hot it is in fact hot. It is eternal because in that moment fire will always be hot.

The implications of my argument are that I believe that Plato’s form of acknowledging truth is the right form, no matter what type of knowledge is used. In my argument I do not address any other ways to justify truth through knowledge, and if people were to believe my claims then they would all think the same as Plato. There would not be any challenges in the way that we conclude what is true and what is not. This could impede on the development of knowledge as a whole. However, it would also lead to a recognized system to decide on truth and would create less ambiguity in the world.

A counter claim to my argument would be that Plato’s belief on finding truth from knowledge is wrong. There might be a different methodology this person may find more suitable to show how knowledge is truth. They could also argue with the three different categories that Plato lies out. It could be argued that truth does not have to be eternal since our realms of knowledge are changing daily, that things cannot ever stay eternal.

According to Plato’s idea of knowledge there it must be believed. However, just believing in something does not make it knowledge. For example you can not know that that grass is green with our believing in it. Also even though you may believe in dragons, it does not mean you have knowledge of them, because they are neither justified nor true. Also according to Plato truth must be independent of belief. This makes it fairly easy to separate truth from something that is believed to be true.

Monster 2

1. After learning about how the Bosnian War began and the role of
Karadzic and Milosovic, was it fair for the Independent to use the
word "Monster".
I feel as though it is not fair for the independent to use the word
monster as a label for Karadzic and Milosovic. Even though what they
were doing was completely wrong they do not deserve the term monster.
The blame cannot be placed entirely on them, for if the people of
Serbia had not lied and thrown rocks at each other Milosovic would
have never said the famous words “you will not be beaten again”. He
did not have the original intent to kill the Muslims, but only did so
when he felt it was revenge/defense for his people. A monster would
originally have the intent to hurt, and be looking for a reason to do
so, not the other way around. Plus a monster would not have human
driven motives such as revenge or defense, but would only kill for the
sake of killing.

2. How do you think this phrase would be justified, according to
Plato? Use specific examples from the reading and the documentary, The
Death of Yugoslavia, to justify your claims.
I think the phrase of calling Karadzick and milosovic would be
justified through authority and reason. News articles such as the
independent are authoritative sources and are telling people that
these people are monsters, so then it must be true. In the Peter Maas
article we are able to read a first hand account of the witness of the
brutalities committed. They are presented to us with such distaste and
we take what we are learning about to obviously be extremely inhumane.
Since we see the actions as being inhumane it is easy to place the
term of something none human to apply to the persons in charge, i.e.
monster.

3. When the term Monster is used, what do you think it means. (You can
look it up in the dictionary, but as you know, that has limitations).
I think a monster can be defined as something inhumane, or something
that is not human. Monsters thoughts are purely based on blood and
destruction with no other motive or reasons for their actions. A
monster does not stop until everything is destroyed, it does not have
a certain goal or objective.

4. Has your answer changed since your first entry? Why or why not?
My answer has not changed since my first entry. It has not change
because I still feel as though a monster is just a term used to place
the blame on these two individuals, making them look horrendous
instead of showing their side of the argument and seeing why and
where these cruelties really manifested.

Karadzic is a Monster? How do we know?

The Independent refers to Karadzic as a "Monster." Think back to last year and consider: "How do they know what they know?" How have they attempted to justify their knowledge claims? Please be specific.

The knowers in the two articles are claiming to know what they know from deduction and rationalization. Peter Mass describes his first hand account of his tours through the prison camps and depicts the torture and pain he has witnessed. Clearly only a monster, something that is inhuman, inhumane, could allow something like this to happen. He uses deduction to conclude what is really going on behind the scenes, what is being hidden to make the camps look good. His emotional response as a human to seeing other humans tortured and beat tells him that what is going on is wrong. Being a human and having a disgusted response to what is happening in the authors mind only something inhuman, not humane, could allow a monstrosity like this to occur. Dare I say a monster? The independent uses deduction and authoritative reasoning to claim that Karadzic is a Monster. Similar to Peter Mass, being humans who create the Independent, a normal response to such cruelty and hatred they responded with fear, disgust, confusion, and an automatic bias that blocks their reasoning from seeing Karadzics views on the situation. The fear, disgust, and confusion of how someone could allow this to happen makes the knowers automatically dehumanize him by calling him a monster. Making it easier to hate what him from what he has done. They can claim that they know things also from the images, reports, and other sources of information that they have at thier fingertips to interpret as they wish. Which is authoritative.