tok essay titles november 2023

Let’s Unpack the November 2023 TOK Essay Titles Together!

As someone who’s been through the IB program and written more TOK essays than I can count, I’m super excited to dive into the TOK essay titles for November 2023 with you. 

I’m hoping my insights will give you a fresh perspective and help you craft theory of knowledge essays that really stand out. So, are you ready? Let’s get started!

List of IB TOK Essay Prompts November 2023

November prompt 1  – are facts alone enough to prove a claim discuss with reference to any two areas of knowledge..

This question invites us to explore the nature of facts and their role in validating claims. Consider the AOKs of Natural Sciences and Human Sciences. In Natural Sciences, facts are often seen as objective and reliable, but they are also subject to interpretation and can change as new evidence emerges. In Human Sciences, facts can be influenced by personal and cultural perspectives. For WOKs, consider Reason and Language. How do we use reason to interpret facts? How does language influence our understanding of facts? For a real-life situation (RLS), you could discuss a scientific theory that was once accepted as fact but has since been disproven.

November Prompt 2  – If “the mathematician’s patterns, like the painter’s and the poet’s, must be beautiful” (G.H. Hardy), how might this impact the production of knowledge? Discuss with reference to mathematics and the arts.

This prompt is about the intersection of aesthetics and knowledge. Consider the AOKs of Mathematics and The Arts. How does the concept of beauty apply in these areas? For WOKs, consider Intuition and Emotion. How do these ways of knowing contribute to our perception of beauty? For an RLS, you could discuss how the beauty of the Fibonacci sequence has inspired research in various fields.

November Prompt 3  – In the acquisition of knowledge, is following experts unquestioningly as dangerous as ignoring them completely? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and one other area of knowledge.

This question is about the role of authority in knowledge acquisition. Consider the AOKs of Human Sciences and History. How does the authority of experts influence our understanding in these areas? For WOKs, consider Memory and Faith. How do we rely on these ways of knowing when dealing with experts? For an RLS, you could discuss a historical event where the unquestioning acceptance of an expert’s opinion led to negative consequences..

November Prompt 4  – Is it problematic that knowledge is so often shaped by the values of those who produce it? Discuss with reference to any two areas of knowledge .

This question is about the influence of values on knowledge. Consider the AOKs of History and Human Sciences. How do the values of historians or social scientists shape the knowledge they produce? For WOKs, consider Reason and Emotion. How do these ways of knowing interact with our values? For an RLS, you could discuss a historical narrative that has been influenced by the historian’s values.

November Prompt 5  – Is it always the case that “the world isn’t just the way it is, it is how we understand it – and in understanding something, we bring something to it”? Discuss with reference to history and the natural sciences.

This prompt is about the role of interpretation in knowledge acquisition. Consider the AOKs of History and Natural Sciences. How does our interpretation shape our understanding in these areas? For WOKs, consider Imagination and Perception. How do these ways of knowing contribute to our interpretation? For an RLS, you could discuss a historical event and how different interpretations can lead to different understandings.

November Prompt 6  – Faced with a vast amount of information, how do we select what is significant for the acquisition of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

This question is about the process of selecting information. Consider the AOKs of Natural Sciences and Human Sciences. How do we select significant information in these areas? For WOKs, consider Reason and Memory. How do these ways of knowing guide our selection process? For an RLS, you could discuss the process of conducting a literature review for a research project.

Remember, these are just suggestions to get you started. Feel free to explore other AOKs, WOKs, and RLSs that resonate with you. And if you need any help along the way, don’t hesitate to reach out to us at IB Writing Service . We’re here to support you in your TOK essay writing process.

Select Nov 2023 TOK Title Wisely

So, there you have it, folks! The November 2023 TOK essay prompts are a goldmine of ideas waiting to be explored. As you dive into these prompts, remember to think critically, question assumptions, and bring your unique perspective to the table.

WE CAN HELP YOU WRITE A TOK ESSAY ON ANY TOPIC

Calculate the Quote for Custom IB TOK Essay

Now, I know that writing a TOK essay can be a bit daunting, especially when you’re juggling other IB assignments. But guess what? You’re not alone in this.

We at IB Writing Service are here to help. We’re not just experts in writing IB IA and Extended Essays ; we also specialize in helping IB students with other assignments, including TOK essays. 

So, if you need a helping hand, don’t hesitate to reach out to us and buy a TOK essay online from IB experts. We’re here to make your IB writing process a little less stressful and a lot more successful. Let’s do this together!

Get hot offers and discounts for your IB Assignments

Our writing solutions cater to all disciplines within the IB program, and we specialize in crafting academic papers for students of all levels. We follow the IB criteria.

Adhering strictly to the rigorous standards set by the IB, we deploy a methodical approach to our writing process. This ensures that every piece of content we generate not only meets but exceeds the expectations set within the program.

Contact us:

[email protected]

[email protected]

Latest Articles:

Interdisciplinary Topics in Extended Essays

How to Create a Research Question for Your IB Extended Essay?

Using Extended Essay Topics That Are Already on the Internet. Is It Good?

Our services:.

• Buy Internal Assessment
• Buy Math IA
• Buy Extended Essay
• Buy TOK Essay
• Buy TOK Exhibition

IBWritingService.com is an independent academic writing aid with no official ties to the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO). Our use of “IB” in the domain and title is purely for identification, and we neither claim nor imply any endorsement or partnership with the IBO. Our services aim to support students’ educational needs without violating IBO policies. Trademarks mentioned are property of their owners and do not suggest affiliations. By using our services, you acknowledge our non-affiliation with the IBO and that we’re not a substitute for IBO requirements. We deny any liability for use of our services in relation to the IBO.

ALL PAPERS WRITTEN BY OUR EXPERTS AS PART OF THIS WRITING SERVICE ARE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY. WHEN USING CONTENT PURCHASED FROM THIS WEBSITE, IT MUST BE PROPERLY REFERENCED.

• Terms & Conditions
• Revision Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Refund Policy
• Cookie Policy

© 2023. All Rights Reserved.

Theory of Knowledge: An Alternative Approach

Why is an alternative approach necessary?

The November 2023 TOK Essay Prescribed Titles

A few notes of warning and guidance before we begin:

The TOK essay provides  you  with an opportunity to become engaged in thinking and reflection. What are outlined below are strategies and suggestions, questions and possible responses only for deconstructing the TOK titles as they have been given. They should be used alongside the discussions that you will carry out with your peers and teachers during the process of constructing your essay.

The notes here are intended to guide you towards a thoughtful, personal response to the prescribed titles posed.  They are not to be considered as  the  answer and they should only be used to help provide you with another perspective to the ones given to you in the titles and from your own TOK class discussions. You need to remember that most of your examiners have been educated in the logical positivist schools of Anglo-America and this education pre-determines their predilection to view the world as they do and to understand the concepts as they do. The TOK course itself is a product of this logical positivism as are the responses given by artificial intelligence programs such as ChatGPT.

There is no substitute for your own personal thought and reflection, as well as your own experience of being in a TOK course, and these notes are not intended as a cut and paste substitute to the hard work that thinking requires. Some of the comments on one title may be useful to you in the approach you are taking in the title that you have personally chosen, so it may be useful to read all the comments and give them some reflection.

My experience has been that candidates whose examples match those to be found on TOK “help” sites (and this is  another  of those TOK help sites) struggle to demonstrate a mastery of the knowledge claims and knowledge questions contained in the examples.  The best essays carry a trace of a struggle that is the journey on the path to thinking. Many examiners state that in the very best essays they read, they can visualize the individual who has thought through them sitting opposite to them. To reflect the struggle of this journey in your essay is your goal.

Remember to include sufficient TOK content in your essay. When you have completed your essay, ask yourself if it could have been written by someone who had not participated in the TOK course (or by the Chat GPT bot). If the answer to that question is “yes”, then you do not have sufficient TOK content in your essay. It is this TOK content that will distinguish your essay from an AI response. Personal and shared knowledge, the knowledge framework, the ways of knowing and the areas of knowledge are terms that will be useful to you in your discussions.

Here is a link to a PowerPoint that contains recommendations and a flow chart outlining the steps to writing a TOK essay. Some of you may need to get your network administrator to make a few tweaks in order for you to access it. Comments, observations and discussions are most welcome. Contact me at  [email protected]  or directly through this website.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-8nWwYRUyV6bDdXZ01POFFqVlU

A  sine qua non : the opinions expressed here are entirely my own and do not represent any organization or collective of any kind. Now, down to business.

Prescribed Essay Titles

1. Are facts alone enough to prove a claim? Discuss with reference to any two areas of knowledge.

In deconstructing the key terms of this title, we find that we will need to discuss the ‘ facts alone ‘, ‘ enough ‘, ‘ prove ‘, and ‘ claim ‘. We will also have to address the word ‘ are ‘ i.e., the ‘being’ of ‘facts’; for how this ‘being’ is understood and interpreted is the context in which and from which what are called ‘facts’ are derived and upheld, and are the basis in which and from which they will derive their meaning or meaningfulness.

‘Facts’ are considered to be ‘objective’ pieces of information that can be observed, measured, and/or verified. Observation is primarily based on sight and hearing, though the other senses can be involved. The recent discoveries of the James Webb telescope, for instance, are based on observations made of the far reaches of space. They are, and will, revolutionize the theory and thinking in astrophysics; they are an extension of the human eye.

That which is called a ‘fact’ is based on empirical evidence (observation), logical deductions (through the principle of reason), or established truths (axioms and laws that pre-determine how something will be viewed and understood). Facts possess a certain degree of reliability or surety and can be ‘counted on’ to reveal some truths regarding things. These truths are widely accepted within a given framework or area of knowledge, and all that is can be placed (and is placed) one way or another into an area of knowledge. However, facts by themselves do not always guarantee the complete understanding or proof of a claim. They may illuminate the things or situations dimly. The Big Bang Theory of the origin of the universe is being placed into question by the discoveries of the James Webb Telescope, for instance. Evidence and explanations that the theory once provided will now have to be revised. Revisions of the concepts of time and space will need to be provided. Despite this, facts do provide a foundation (but it is only one possible foundation…there could be others); but how they are interpreted and contextualized are crucial in determining their significance and importance.

A knowledge ‘claim ‘ is a statement or assertion, the proffering of a judgement. Statements may be made through words or speech or they can be made through numbers. “1 + 1 = 2” is a statement or assertion in which “=” is the judgement. “2” is not the judgement but the outcome which results from the judgement. It is either correct or incorrect. The judgement “=” derives from how a “1” is viewed, interpreted and understood. The viewing and understanding will determine how judgements are to be made within the context of the field that we call the ‘theory of numbers’. “Theory” comes to us from the Greek word theoria which means ‘to view’, and it was particularly related to the theatre, the ‘viewing place’. The viewing and the understanding (interpretation) are prior to the judgements or knowledge claims that are made or can be made within the context from which they are derived. The philosopher Kant once said: “Judgement is the seat of truth”. It is the judgement which determines whether the things or situations about which they are made will be illuminated or not.

We doubt a claim when we are lacking certainty and reliability regarding those who are making the claim, the sources of the claim, or when the things about which the claim is being made are not sufficiently justified; that is, sufficient reasons have not been supplied for the claim. We cannot “count on” them because they are not “grounded” and the principle of sufficient reason supplies the grounds. When we speak of “grounds”, we are speaking about whether the “evidence” or the “explanation” regarding the thing which is being spoken about is “adequate” or justified. This evidence or explanation will find its “grounds” in  the principle of sufficient reason.  Reasons must be given for the claims being made; that is, we doubt the ‘facts’ of the claim and if sufficient reasons are not given, we doubt the  truth  of the claim being made. The reasons provide both the evidence and the explanation, the ‘proof’ that the ‘facts’ are indeed facts. But as Aristotle once said: “For as the eyes of bats are to the blaze of day, so is the reason in our soul to the things which are by nature most evident of all.”

On a shop which sells Antique Hand Bags near here is a sign which reads: “The Shop is not Open because it is Closed”. Such a sign speaks the truth in that the fact is that the shop is closed. However, it does not supply a  sufficient reason  for the shop’s being closed. The sign is what is referred to as a tautology. No reason is given for the shop’s being closed i.e., is it after hours?, the owner is away on holidays?, the owner is observing a religious festival?, etc. Tautologies are prominent in modern day computer language. We “skip over” knowing the reasons for the things being as they are because we, in fact, believe we already  know  them for being what they are and as they are. (This is evident in ‘artificial intelligence’ and presents one of its gravest dangers.)

The Greeks began their journey to thought by first “trusting” in that which they were seeking, but they also “doubted”. Doubt was a requisite for thought for it inspired “wonder”. Both doubt and skepticism were requirements for beginning thinking. But the end for the Greeks was to demonstrate why their trust was an appropriate response to the things that are and this trust overcame the doubt and skepticism that initiated their search for knowledge. Our doubt and skepticism, on the other hand, is spurred by the requirement of things and situations giving sufficient reasons for that thing’s or situation’s being what and how it is; and should these not be given, then the thing is not . It becomes something “subjective”. Something subjective does not have being for sufficient reasons cannot be supplied for its being.

We distinguish ‘facts’ from ‘values’ in the Human Sciences and the sciences in general. Science is the theory of the real. This is captured in a quote attributed to Einstein: “Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.” ‘Values’ are seen as ‘subjective’ while ‘facts’ are seen as ‘objective’. ‘Facts’ derive from ‘the world’ and the viewing of that world as ‘object’, while ‘values’ derive from personal choices that individuals make regarding the objects present within that world. ‘Facts’ are considered the stuff of thought, while ‘values’ are seen as the stuff of emotion and action. From Einstein’s quote, we can see that there are ‘values’ already embedded in any scientific viewing of the world. The statements or assertions of science already contain within themselves the ‘values’ that will determine whether those statements will be correct or incorrect.

The choice of the pursuit of science is the human response to a certain mode or way in which truth discloses or reveals itself. Science arises as a response to a claim laid upon human beings in the way that the things of nature appear i.e., the ‘facts’. It is Being that makes this claim (but, then, what  is  Being, the ‘are’ of our prescribed title?). The sciences set up certain domains or contexts and then pursue the revealing that is consistent within those domains or contexts. The domain, for example, of chemistry is an abstraction . It is the domain of chemical formulas. To attempt to dwell within the viewing of this domain alone would be akin to madness. Nature is seen as a realm of formulae. Scientists pose this realm by way of a reduction; it is an artificial realm that arises from a very artificial attitude towards things. The ‘fact’ of water has to be posed as H 2 O. Once it is so posed, once things are reduced to chemical formulae, then the domain of chemistry can be exploited for practical ends. We can make fire out of water once water is seen as a compound of hydrogen and oxygen. In the illustration shown here, we have the chemical formula for the physical composition of Van Gogh’s yellow paint in his “Sunflowers”. While interesting in its being a ‘fact’, it tells us absolutely nothing of the painting itself.

What are the implications of this? The things investigated by chemistry are not “objects” in the sense that they have an autonomous standing on their own i.e. they are not “the thrown against”, the  jacio , as is understood traditionally. For science, the chemist in our example, nature is composed of formulae, and a formula is not a self-standing object.  It is an abstraction, a product of the mind. (Einstein’s quote again.) A formula is  posed ; it is an abstraction. A formula is  posed ; it is an ob-ject, that is, it does not view nature as composed of objects that are autonomous, self-standing things, but nature as formulae. The viewing of nature as formulae turns the things viewed into posed ob-jects; and in this posing turns the things of nature, ultimately, into dis-posables. The viewing of water as H 2 O is an example of a Rubicon that has been crossed. There is no turning back once this truth has been revealed. That water can be turned into fire has caused restrictions in our bringing liquids onto airplanes, for instance, for they have the capability of destroying those aircraft, but water viewed in such a way cannot be used for baptisms, for instance.

To see Van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” as a ‘painted thing’, an object, is to cease to consider it as a “painting” or work of art that says something more than the mere object itself could possibly say. The “facts” of the painting do not get us closer to what, in fact , the painting is. When art is viewed as an “object”, it ceases to be art; nevertheless, this approach to art as “aesthetics”, or a calculable mode of viewing what is present to the senses, is the prevailing mode of viewing art.

The limitations of facts can be seen in a recent USA Supreme Court decision to strike down Affirmative Action Programs for both corporations and institutions of higher learning citing them as ‘unconstitutional’. The Court viewed affirmative action programs as ‘reverse discrimination’, and that positions on corporate boards or admissions to universities should be based on ‘merit’, since the USA was now (the Court viewed) sufficiently ‘color-blind’ to warrant such a decision in keeping with the ideals presented in the US Constitution. While the Court’s view is a ‘consummation devoutly to be wished’, it ignores ‘the facts’ of the systemic historical racism and oppression of certain ethnic and racial groups that has occurred throughout America’s history. If facts are considered to be objective truths which can be “observed, measured, and verified”, then the Supreme Court’s decision is one that completely ignores ‘the facts’.

The reality of American history can be seen as analogous to the locking of the gates separating 3rd class passengers from 1st class passengers on board the Titanic both before and while the ship was sinking. That most of the survivors were 1st class passengers and most of the dead 3rd class passengers was the inevitable result. The 3rd class passengers did not have access to the too few lifeboats that were available. The building of the USA Interstate Highway system in the 1950s, for example, did not have and still does not have off-ramps to African-American communities in many cases. Examples (evidence) abound of the historical racism that is prevalent in the USA of today. The reality of the USA is that its institutions and infrastructures were, and are, inherently and implicitly racist as was its Constitution. No amount of ‘colorblindness’ will overcome these concrete facts and make them non-racist. Some of the passengers on the Titanic went to their deaths retaining the view that the ship was ‘unsinkable’; the Supreme Court of the USA refuses to recognize and acknowledge (or perhaps it does and would prefer to see the USA as an autocracy) the fact that America has become a ‘failed state’ in its experiment with democracy and that its ship of state is rapidly sinking.

The American Supreme Court example illustrates that interpretation plays a significant role in understanding facts. In our being with others, our politics, our living in communities, different individuals may draw various conclusions or interpretations from the same set of facts that are influenced by their perspectives, biases, and prior knowledge. There are no ‘alternative facts’; there are only alternative interpretations of the facts that are present. Socrates once noted that the opposite of knowledge is not ignorance but madness. In our politics, what is called ‘public opinion’ is shaped by the sources of information that derive from mass media. In considering whether facts are a sufficient foundation for a knowledge claim or assertion, it is crucial to consider the source, methodology, and potential biases when evaluating the validity of the claim based on the presented or selected facts.

Because our understanding of facts is limited in its scope to viewing the world as “object”, their ability to provide a comprehensive understanding of complex contexts and issues is also limited. They often provide only partial information, neglecting the broader context such as was the case in the recent American Supreme Court decision on affirmative action. Facts may answer the “what” and “how” questions, but they often fall short in addressing the “why” and “what then” aspects of a claim. In areas of knowledge like history and the social sciences, facts alone are insufficient to explain phenomena or validate claims, and this is primarily due to the fact that it is human beings who are the creators of these areas of knowledge and are the subject matter of these areas of study. Interpretation, contextualization, and critical analysis are necessary to fill the gaps and establish a coherent understanding in these two areas of knowledge and it is here that errors can occur.

Facts are often misused or misrepresented to support false or misleading claims, particularly in political contexts where power and its maintenance is usually involved and is ultimately the goal. Fraudulent knowledge claims often occur where truth is not what is desired but the power and recognition of social prestige is in operation. Logical fallacies, such as cherry-picking evidence or drawing hasty generalizations (e.g. Fox News’ coverage of the January 6 Capitol riots), can undermine the credibility of an argument, even if it is based on factual information. Therefore, the ability to reason and critically analyze the available facts is crucial to avoid misinformation and reach valid conclusions. (It should be noted that “information” is understood here as “that which is responsible for the form so that that which is generated or produced, perceived and understood can inform” i.e., in-form-ation).

2. If “the mathematician’s patterns, like the painter’s and the poet’s, must be beautiful” (G.H. Hardy), how might this impact the production of knowledge? Discuss with reference to mathematics and the arts.

This is a very challenging title for it asks you to consider what the beautiful is and how the “ patterns ” of mathematics are similar in their beauty to those patterns used by a poet or a painter . The subsequent question is “how this might impact the production of knowledge” . The difficulty arises from the fact that the dominant form and understanding of mathematics today is algebraic calculation which finds its origins in the German philosopher Leibniz’s finite calculus. This calculus is related to our viewing of the world as “object”.

We often hear that ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’, but this begs the question “What then is beholding”? When such an assertion is made, the assumption being made is that beauty is ‘subjective’ and that its recognition and appreciation is in the ‘holding’ or ‘grasping’ of that which is brought forth to presence, to “being” (“be-“) by the ‘subjective’ ego cogito of the French philosopher Descartes. This “bringing forth to presence” is what we mean by “pro-duction”, and this bringing forth may be natural (“produce” e.g., crops) or through human beings in their “works” (i.e., paintings, buildings, etc.) The Greek word for this bringing forth is poiesis from which our word poetry derives. The process of ‘bringing forth’ or production led to ‘perfection’ or completion, since nothing further needed to be added to or subtracted from the thing or work that was brought forth. The completed work was itself “knowledge” of the thing from which it derived its name.

Among the Greeks, the Pythagoreans are said to have discovered the “golden ratio”, which is also sometimes called the “golden section”,  the “golden mean”, or the “divine proportion” (Encyclopedia Britannica). In Greek, the word “mathematics” meant “that which can be learned and that which can be taught”, and it was a much greater and broader concept than what we understand as mathematics today, although the initial meaning still obscurely prevails in what we call technology today. The Greeks more closely aligned what we understand as mathematics with arithmos or ‘counting’ or ‘counting on’, and we have derived our word ‘arithmetic’ from this understanding.

For the Pythagoreans, human beings were considered “irrational numbers”, for they believed that this best described that ‘perfect imperfection’ that is human being, that “work” that was “perfect” in its incompleteness. The irrational number (1 + Square root of√5)/2 approximately equal to 1.618) was , for the Pythagoreans, a mathematical statement illustrating the relation of the human to the divine. It is the ratio of a line segment cut into two pieces of different lengths such that the ratio of the whole segment to that of the longer segment is equal to the ratio of the longer segment to the shorter segment. In terms of present day algebra, letting the length of the shorter segment be one unit and the length of the longer segment be  x  units gives rise to the equation ( x  + 1)/ x  =  x /1; this may be rearranged to form the quadratic equation   x 2  –  x  – 1 = 0, for which the positive solution is  x  = (1 + Square root of√5)/2), the golden ratio. It should be noted that the Greeks rejected Babylonian (Indian) algebra and algebra in general as being ‘unnatural’ due to its abstractness, and they had a much different conception of number than we have today.

The Pythagoreans and their geometry are not how we look upon mathematics and number today. The Pythagoreans were viewed as a religious cult even in their own day. For them, the practice of geometry was no different than a form of prayer or piety. The Greek philosopher Aristotle called his former teacher, the Greek philosopher Plato, a “pure Pythagorean”.

This “pure Pythagoreanism” is demonstrated in Plato’s illustration of the Divided Line which is none other than an application of the golden mean to all the things that are and how we apprehend or behold them. I am going to provide a detailed example from Plato’s Republic because I believe it is crucial to our understanding of the thinking that has occurred in the West.

At Republic, Book VI, 508B-C, Plato makes an analogy between the role of the sun, whose light gives us our vision to see and the visible things to be seen and the role of the Good in that seeing. The sun rules over our vision and the things we see. The Good rules over our knowledge and the (real) objects of our knowledge (the forms, the ideas or that which brings the visible things to appearance and, thus, to being) and also over the things that the sun gives to vision:

“This, then, you must understand that I meant by the offspring of the good that which the good begot to stand in a proportion with itself: as the good is in the intelligible region with respect to intelligence (DE) and to that which is intellected [CD], so the sun is (light) in the visible world to vision [BC] and what is seen [AB].”

If we put the mathematical statement of the golden ratio or the divine proportion into the illustration (1 + Square root of√5)/2), the 1 is the Good, or the whole of things, and the “offspring of the Good” (the “production of knowledge” of our title) is the square root of 5 which is then divided by 2 (the whole of creation plus the Good or the Divine), then we can comprehend the example of the Divided Line in a Greek rather than a Cartesian manner. Plato is attempting to resolve the problem of the One and the Many here.

The ratio or proportion of the division of the visibles (AB:BC) and the division of the intelligibles (CD:DE) are in the same ratio or proportion as the visibles to the intelligibles (AC:CE). Plato has made BC = CD, and Plato at one point identifies the contents of these two sections. He says (510B) that in CD the soul is compelled to investigate by treating as images the things imitated in the former division (BC). In (BC), the things imitated are the ‘shadows’ of the things as they really are. These are the realms of ‘trust’ and ‘belief’ ( pistis ) and of understanding or how we come to be in our world.

There is no “subject/object” separation of realms here, no abstractions or formulae created by the human mind only (the intelligence and that which is intellected), but rather the mathematical description or statement of the beauty of the world. In the Divided Line, one sees three applications of the golden ratio: The Good, the Intelligible, and the Sensible or Visual i.e., the Good in relation to the whole line, The Good in relation to the Intelligible, and the Intelligible in relation to the Visible. (It is from this that I understand the statement of the French philosopher Simone Weil: “Faith is the experience that the intelligence is illuminated by Love .” Love is the light, that which is given which illuminates the things of the intelligence and the things of the world. This illumination is what is called Truth. There is a concrete tripartite unity of Goodness, Beauty and Truth.) This tripartite yoking of the sensible to the intelligible and to the Good corresponds to what Plato says is the tripartite being of the human soul and the tripartite Being of the God who is the Good. The human being in its being is a microcosm of the Whole or the macrocosm. (See William Blake’s lines in “Auguries of Innocence”: “God appears and God is Light/ To those poor souls that dwell in night/ But does the human form display/ To those who dwell in realms of day.”)

The golden ratio occurs in many mathematical contexts today and it may give a sense of what Hardy meant in the quote that is the prompt or substance for this title. The golden ratio is geometrically constructible by straightedge and compass, and it occurs in the investigation of the Archimedean and Platonic solids. It is the limit of the ratios of consecutive terms of the Fibonacci number sequence 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13,…, in which each term beyond the second is the sum of the previous two, and it is also the value of the most basic of continued fractions, namely 1 + 1/(1 + 1/(1 + 1/(1 +⋯. (Encyclopedia Britannica)

In modern mathematics, the golden ratio occurs in the description of fractals, figures that exhibit self-similarity and play an important role in the study of chaos  and  dynamical systems . (Encyclopedia Britannica)

One of the questions raised here is: do we have number after the experience of the physical, objective world or do we have number prior to it and have the physical world because of number? The original meaning of the Greek word mathemata is “what can be learned and what can be taught”. What can be learned and what can be taught are those things that have been brought to presence through language and measured in their form through number. Our understanding of number is what the Greeks called arithmos, “arithmetic”, that which can be counted and that which can be “counted on”. These numbers begin at 4.

The principles of the golden or divine ratio are to be seen in the statue of the Doryphoros seen here. The statue of the Doryphoros, or the Spear Bearer, is around the mid -5 th century BCE.   Its maker, Polycleitus, wrote that the purpose or end of art was to achieve to kallos , “the beautiful” and to eu (the perfect, the complete, or the good) in the work. The secret of achieving to kallos and to eu lay in the mastery of symmetria , the perfect “commensurability” of all parts of the statue to one another and to the whole. This is pure Pythagoreanism. Some scholars relate the ratios of the statue to the shapes of the letters of the Greek alphabet.  

The Egyptian connection to the geometry of the Pythagoreans is of the utmost importance to Western civilization and also to what we are discussing here. The Pythagorean theorem: a 2 +b 2 = c 2 is the formula whereby two incommensurate things are brought into proportion, relation, or harmony with one another and are thus unified and made the Same i.e., symmetria . What is the incommensurate? Human beings and all else that is not human being are incommensurate. For the Pythagoreans, human beings are irrational numbers. Pi, the circumference of a circle, is an irrational number, and the creation itself is an irrational number because it was viewed as circular or spherical. The human being is a microcosm of the whole of the creation (or what is called Nature) itself.

The meanings of the word “incommensurate” are extremely important here. It is said to be “a false belief or opinion of something or someone, the matter or residue that settles to the bottom of a liquid (the dregs), the state of being isolated, kept apart, or withdrawn into solitude.” An incommensurate is something that doesn’t fit. Pythagorean geometry was the attempt to overcome all of these “incommensurables” in human existence, an attempt to make them fit or to show that they are fitted, to yoke them together. “Fittedness” is what the Greeks understood by “justice”; and the concept of justice was tied in with “fairness” (beauty), what was due to someone or something, what was suitable or apt for a human being. From their geometry, the Pythagoreans were said to have invented music based on the relations of the various notes around a mean i.e., the length of the string and how it is divided into suitable lengths as to allow a harmonic to be heard when it was plucked. This harmony found in music by the Pythagoreans was looked for in all human relations between themselves and the things that are.

When we speak of the “production of knowledge” in the modern sense, we are speaking of technology and the finished products that technology brings forth. “Knowledge’ is the finished or completed ‘work’ that is the result of the “production” that technology ‘brings forth’. Technology comes from two Greek words: Techne , which means ‘knowing’ or ‘knowing one’s way about or in something’ in such a way that one can ‘produce’ knowledge and begin to make something; and logos which is that which makes this knowledge at all possible. We confuse the things or works of technology, the produce of technology, with technology itself. This is not surprising given the origin of the word itself. The word is not to be found in Greek.

Since technology rests upon an understanding of the world as object, an understanding of the world as posable , its mathematics are focused on, for the most part, algebraic calculation which turns its objects into disposables. Whatever beauty an object might have is skipped over (since beauty is not calculable as much as we may try to do so) in order to demand that the object give its reasons for being as it is. The end of technology is power and will to power, and this is why artificial intelligence is the flowering of technology at its height of its realization. It is a great closing down of thinking for it is, ultimately, an anti-logos . There is no question that there is some beauty involved in technology, but it is a beauty that is more akin to a tsunami or a volcanic eruption. It is a terrible beauty and it may lead to our extinction as a species.

3. In the acquisition of knowledge, is following experts unquestioningly as dangerous as ignoring them completely? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Title #3 will, undoubtedly, be one of the more popular choices among students this November. Its key terms and phrases are “ acquisition of knowledge “, “ following experts unquestioningly “, “ dangerous “, and “ ignoring them completely “. In fact, titles #1, #3, #4, #5, and #6 are all connected and related to each other in a number of crucial ways and this is one of the reasons why I would suggest that the attentive student give consideration to all the thoughts and responses to the titles given here.

“Acquisition” means to ‘get’, ‘to grasp’, to take hold of something and take possession of it. It means ‘that which is responsible for the acquiring or getting of something’. Our wonderful phrase in English, “I get it”, is an example of this grasping and taking possession of something. Usually it is our beginning understanding of something, our “shared knowledge” (historical knowledge) of something. What we grasp or take hold of from others in our discourses with them is “opinion” not knowledge, whether it be from those in our communities who are called ‘experts’ or from those who dwell in the murky communities of QAnon. (The communities are ‘murky’ because they are ‘a-nonymous’ i.e., they have ‘no name’; and, thus, they have no desire to be brought to light, to be brought out into the open. The Ring of Gyges from Republic Bk II and the Ring of Power from Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings illustrate the essence of such groups and the desires of such groups. Both rings provide invisibility (anonymity), immortality (or “the desire for long life”), and power, control or domination. The same elements are shown in the three “deathly hallows” of Harry Potter, but Rowling has mistakenly seen these powers as somehow conducive of good i.e., that Harry is capable of destroying the elder wand after the destruction of Voldemort in not something human beings are capable of without the assistance of outside help, or Chance, according to Plato and Tolkien). This acquiring of what we think is knowledge becomes part of ourselves and who we think we are; and this, in turn, will determine the actions that we will choose to take.

An ‘expert’ is one who demonstrates an ‘expertise’, a ‘know how’, someone who knows their way in, around, or about something. This kind of knowledge was called techne by the Greeks. An expert demonstrates a skill which is particular and singular. If I require an appendectomy, I would not ask my next door neighbour to perform it. I would seek out a surgeon, an expert, someone with ‘know how’. Such common sense rules in matters concerning our health. Why does it not also rule in the health of our living with others in our communities i.e., our politics? (Human Sciences) This is a question which the philosopher Plato asked, and this ‘health’ was considered with regard to our souls. Since the number of us who believe we have a ‘soul’ diminishes with technology’s ever increasing impact on our reflection, contemplation and thinking, we look to the Human Science Psychology (from the Greek psyche meaning ‘soul’ and logos understood as ‘the study of…’) which focuses on the human mind and brain (which are both considered to be the same object of research in some areas of this field). We all believe we are ‘experts’ in politics, and we can find the roots of such belief as having stemmed from the thinking of the French philosopher Rousseau.

It would obviously be ‘dangerous’ for me and to me if I tried to perform the surgery myself or looked to someone who did not have expertise in the field to perform it. We take great caution and are very circumspect when we deal with such matters. Why is such circumspection and caution not exercised in our politics?

In the political realm, the great danger coeval with living in communities is tyranny, and it behooves us to try to find experts on tyranny in order to understand the phenomenon. Such an expert was the Greek philosopher Plato. In Plato’s view, the tyrant is someone who is incapable of recognizing the ‘otherness’ of human beings and is, thus, incapable of giving other human beings ‘their due’. Plato considered them the most unhappy of human beings. The best example we have in the English literature on tyranny is Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Giving others what is ‘owed’ to them, ‘their due’, is what we understand as “justice”. Tyrants see nothing due to other human beings, and they themselves expect a ‘loyalty’ which, if it is not received, will be enforced through fear and the exercise of power. Tyranny is a great danger because when tyranny takes hold, the human beings living in that community are not able to realize their full being as human beings, their full potentialities and possibilities, because they are not rendered their ‘due’. Not being rendered one’s due is what we call oppression.

For the human beings who are subject to tyranny, the danger facing them is that, because their humanity is not recognized, they themselves will cease to be fully human beings. The curious fact is that, within the tyranny, many will be satisfied with this condition. In the analogy we have been using here, they will perform the surgery upon themselves.

The “ignoring of expertise” in the matter of politics carries grave consequences. Socrates once said: “The opposite of knowledge is not ignorance but madness”. Madness is rare in individuals but it is the rule in social collectives. The German philosopher Nietzsche once wrote: “Power makes stupid” and politics is the realm of power. Stupidity is a form of madness. Stupidity is a moral phenomenon, not an intellectual phenomenon. It has to do with actions, not thinking. In my 40 years of teaching, I never came across a ‘stupid’ student; I did come across a few stupid parents, though.

The German priest Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was hanged by the tyrant Adolf Hitler in 1945, once wrote: “Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than evil”. He continued: “Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed- in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.”

The ignoring of the opinions of ‘experts’ does not grant freedom and independence. As Bonhoeffer wrote before he was hanged: “The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.” As was stated under Title #1, the ability to reason and critically analyze the available facts provided by experts is crucial to avoid misinformation and reach valid conclusions, and this is particularly so in the political realm.

Plato identified five different political regimes which he ordered from best to worst: 1. monarchy; 2. aristocracy; 3. oligarchy; 4. democracy; and 5. tyranny. Democracy was placed next to tyranny because under democratic regimes, human beings will be ruled by their selfish passions and appetites. Such a rule would not be conducive to human beings’ achieving their best potentials and possibilities with regard to their souls, in Plato’s opinion. A legitimate monarchy was the opposite of an illegitimate tyranny. A legitimate monarch would, if he were a good king, exercise the royal techne of statesmanship. His recognition of others would render, as best as possible, to each what was their due. In the regimes ruled by aristocracies, the ‘aristocrats’ would presumably be the ‘experts’ within that society for they would be the ‘best’ that the society had to offer (which is what the word ‘aristocracy’ originally meant). History shows us many ‘aristocratic’ regimes which were not ruled by the ‘best’. With the arrival of capitalism in the post-Renaissance world, the propertied classes were seen as the best to rule and establish the regime. With the advancement of technology, these propertied classes have taken the form of the military-industrial complex and the bureaucracies related to them.

I have focused on the AOK of the Human Sciences in these notes to this title. This is because the greatest danger to life is war, and war is a matter of politics. In the Arts, we can develop our tastes and opinions based on the opinions of experts (critics) or we can ignore those opinions and formulate our own. The worst that can happen is a heated discussion with family members or with those in a bar once we are too far into our cups. Our nation will not go to war over them. The “culture wars” going on in the USA and elsewhere are over politics and power and who gets to eat what, not over truth and beauty in the Arts.

4. Is it problematic that knowledge is so often shaped by the values of those who produce it? Discuss with reference to any two areas of knowledge.

Title #4 exhibits a number of the same concepts and characteristics as titles #1, #3, #5 and #6. Here, ‘ problematic ‘, ‘knowledge ‘, ‘ shaped ‘, ‘ values ‘, and ‘ who produce it ‘ are key concepts and terms. Of course, ‘is’ and how it is understood is problematic in itself!

What is ‘problematic’ when ‘knowledge’ is considered ‘information’? What values are present when ‘information’ is considered knowledge? As mentioned in an earlier title (#1), ‘information’ means that which is responsible for the ‘form’ so that the data or substance of a statement can ‘inform’ (in – form – ation: 1. -ation from the Greek aitia “that which is responsible for”; that which is the “cause of”; 2. -form: the “shape” or outward appearance of something, in Greek, the eidos of something; 3. in-form: that which makes possible the ‘knowledge’ in the form of a statement that is to be passed over to someone because of the ‘form’ in which it has been placed.) From the question of our title, it is the ‘values’ of those who are putting forth the statement that is responsible for the ‘form’, the ‘shape’ or the outward appearance of the thing (knowledge) that is brought forward or ‘produced’.

What, for example, may be problematic about artificial intelligence? What ‘values’ are inherent in its roots that we should be concerned about? To begin with, historically, the fact that the chief funding for artificial intelligence research in the USA was provided by the Department of Defense should make us wary. What might the values of the DOD be in that it would provide funding for AI? How do those values relate to the essence of artificial intelligence itself? What is the essence of artificial intelligence?

If the apex of technology is cybernetics and cybernetics is the unlimited mastery of human beings by other human beings, then artificial intelligence will be the chief equipment or tool in “the technology of the helmsman” to be used by these helmsmen in their mastery and control of other human beings who will be viewed as ‘resources’ and ‘disposables’. The ‘values’ rooted in technology itself have provided the “open region” to allow artificial intelligence to come into being, just as those ‘values’ have allowed handphones and computers to come into being.

The common instrumental view of technology sees technology as a ‘tool’ or ‘equipment’ like any other and that it can be used for good or ill, and this view persists with regard to artificial intelligence which is also seen as an instrument or tool.  As is discussed in this blog, we have seen that technology is more of a “fate”; it is a mode (way or manner) of being in the world that has arisen from particular historical conditions (Western European sciences) and social circumstances (contexts). The view of artificial intelligence examined here arrives from the view of reason (the principle of reason, logic, logistics) and nature (the environment as object) that came from those mastering Western sciences. Such a view cuts human beings off from any notion of a transcendent good (the Sun in Plato’s allegory of the Cave, the discussion in Title #2) and from any notion of a transcendent justice (a standard of justice other than that of our own making). One might say that artificial intelligence and its creation of its virtual worlds is a further degree from the truth and the light of the sun that Plato speaks about in his allegory of the Cave.

The situation in which we find ourselves currently seems obvious: we are faced with calamities concerning the environment, population, resources, and pollution if we continue to pursue the policies that we have pursued over the last few centuries. The attempts to deal with these interlocking emergencies will require a vast array of skills and knowledge; and that is what most of you are being educated towards. Technological mastery will need to be used to solve the problems that technology has created. Artificial intelligence will be used in the solution of these problems, so we can say that the primary mode of artificial intelligence will be action , the performance or doing of some task. The thinking involved in it will already have been completed, even the ‘thinking’ that originates from within itself. Its focus will be on applications.

The realization of the cybernetic future will find its place most securely in the medical profession, particularly the bio-medical field where the practical applications of artificial intelligence are being emphasized. What has been called “late stage capitalism” increasingly attempts to establish itself as “the mental health state” with the necessary array of dependent arts and sciences. The difficult choices which will be necessary in the future are discussed within the assumptions of the ‘values’ and ‘ideals’ which shall direct our creating of history, i.e., our actions .  If we are to deal with the future “humanely” (that is, in a “human” fashion), our acts of ‘free’ mastery in creating history must be decided within the light of certain ‘ideals’ so that we can preserve certain human ‘values’ and see that ‘quality of life’ and quantity (economic prosperity) is safeguarded and extended. Clearly, the problem of dealing with these future crises involves great possibilities of tyranny [1] and we must be careful that in meeting these choices and decisions we maintain the ‘values’ of free government.

The way we put the questions/themes that relate to the task of the future, the future of our students (your futures) as the leaders of that future, involves the use of concepts such as ‘values’, ‘ideals’, ‘persons’ or ‘our creating of history’. The use of these concepts obscures the fact that these very concepts have come forth from within the ‘technological world-view’ to give us an image of ourselves from within that within. These terms are used “unthinkingly” from within this “world-view” and do not allow us to gain the openness necessary to be able to discuss the questions in any meaningful way.

To carry out this questioning we have to look at “artificial intelligence as a fate” or a destining of human beings. In expressing the instrumental view of technology, we can see that artificial intelligence and the machines to which it is related are obviously instruments because their capacities have been built into them by human beings; and it is human beings who must set up the operating of those capacities for the purposes that they have determined. Artificial intelligence is the next step in that the machines themselves will develop their capacities from the programs installed within them, but those programs were initially written by human beings based on their ‘values’. All instruments or tools can potentially be used for wicked purposes and the more complex the instrument, the more complex the possible evils. But if we apprehend artificial intelligence as a neutral instrument or tool, can we be better able to determine rationally its potential dangers? That is clearly the first step in coping with these dangers. This view comes from those who uphold an instrumental view of technology. We can see that these dangers lie in the potential decisions human beings make about how and where to use artificial intelligence, and not to the inherent capacities of the machines that have artificial intelligence encoded within them. The research and creation of the machines and the creation of the programs for them is expensive; so it will, undoubtably, be the ‘values’ of the wealthy and powerful which will determine the ends for those machines.

This view is the instrumental view of most of us regarding technology and it is so strongly given to us that it seems like common sense itself. It is the box that we are given and which we must think outside of. We are given an historical situation which includes certain objective technological facts. It is up to us as human beings in our freedom to meet that situation and to shape it with our ‘values’ and ‘ideals’.

Despite the decency and common sense inherent in the instrumental view of technology, when we try to think about what is being said in this view, it becomes clear that that the products of technology such as computers, handphones, artificial intelligence and the various other machines and manifestations of technology are not being allowed to appear before us for what they really are.

Clearly, artificial intelligence and computers are more than their capacities or capabilities. Computers, for example, are put together from a variety of materials, beautifully fashioned by a vast apparatus of fashioners. Their existence has required generations of sustained efforts by chemists, metallurgists, and workers in mines and factories. They require a highly developed electronics industry and what lies behind that industry in the history of science and technique and their reciprocal relations. They have required that human beings wanted to understand nature, and thought the best way to do so was by putting it to the question as object so that it could reveal itself. They have required the discovery of modern algebra and the development of complex institutions for developing and applying algebra. Nor should this be seen as a one-sided relationship in which the institutions necessary to the development of the machines were left unchanged by the discovery of algebra

The existence of artificial intelligence has required that the clever of our society be trained within the massive assumptions about knowing and being and making (the values) which have made that algebra actual. Learning and education within such assumptions is not directed towards a “leading out” but towards “organizing within” (“education” from the Lat. educare “to lead out”; and the Gr. aitia “that which is responsible for or occasions” the “leading out”). This means and entails that those who rule any modern society (the helmsmen) will take the purposes of ruling increasingly to be congruent with this account of knowing. The requirements for the existence of computers and artificial intelligence is but part of the total historical situation which is given to us as modern human beings. The conditions of that historical situation are never to be conceived as static determinants (as something which cannot be changed), but as a dynamic interrelation of tightening determinations (the box gets smaller in terms of choices).

Human freedom is conceived in the strong sense of human beings as autonomous—the makers of our own laws and our own selves from out of our ‘values’. This is also a quite new conception. It is first thought systematically in the writings of the German philosopher Kant. It is also a conception without which the coming to be of our modern civilization would not and could not have been. But it is a conception the truth of which needs to be thought because it was not considered true by the wise men of many civilizations before our own.

In our Cartesian view of the world, we hold a view of the world with neutral instruments on one side and human autonomy on the other. But it is just this view that needs to be thought if we are concerned with understanding the essence of technology, and of understanding the essence of artificial intelligence and of modern instrumentality if we are to see these as being a ‘fate’ or ‘destiny’. When one thinks of ‘values’ and ‘ideals’ from within technology, one cannot ignore the continued homogenization of the central corporations in our everyday lives and the tremendous growth in their power over our lives, including the ability of driving us into wars. (The social media and tech giants and their reciprocal relations to the DOD are examples of this.)

Aristotle has pointed out that human beings are the ‘religious animal’, and the religion for most human beings who have lost any kind of transcendental faith in a god is the ‘belief in progress’. This belief can be described as the good progress of the race in the direction of the universal society of free and equal human beings, that is, towards the universal and homogeneous state. They assert that the technology, which comes out of the account of reason given in the modern European sciences, is the necessary and good means to that end. That account of reason assumes that there is something which we call ‘history’ over against nature, and that it is in that ‘history’ that human beings have acquired their rationality and their values. In the thought of the French philosopher Rousseau about the origins of human beings, the concept of reason as historical makes its extraordinary public arrival. Darwin’s Origin of Species is not possible without, first, the thought of Rousseau. Rousseau is the philosopher of the political Left at the moment.

The modern ‘physical’ sciences and the modern ‘human sciences’ have developed in mutual interpenetration, and we can only begin to understand that mutual interpenetration in terms of some common source from which both sciences found their grounding. That common source is “technology”.

To think ‘reasonably’ about the modern account of reason is of such difficulty because that account has structured our very thinking over the last centuries. Artificial intelligence has its roots in this account of reason (logic as logistics ). Because we are trying to understand reason in the very form of how we understand reason is what makes it so difficult. The very idea that ‘reason’ is that reason which allows us to conquer objective human and non-human nature controls our thinking about everything. The root of modern history lies in our experience of ‘reason’ and the interpenetration of the human and non-human sciences that grew from that root. It is an occurrence that has not yet been understood, and it is an event that must come to be thought.

The instrumental understanding of technology simply presents us with neutral instruments that we in our freedom can shape to our ‘values’ and ‘ideals’. But the very concepts of ‘values’ and ‘ideals’ come from the same form of reasoning that created artificial intelligence and built the computers upon which it is based. ‘Artificial intelligence’ and ‘values’ both come from that stance which summoned the world before it to show its reasons and bestowed ‘values’ on the world. Those ‘values’ are supposed to be the creations of human beings and have, linguistically, taken the place of the traditional concept of ‘good’ which was not created but recognized (See the discussion in title #2). Artificial intelligence does not present us with the neutral means for building any kind of society. All their alternative ‘ways’ lead towards the universal, homogeneous state. Our use of them is exercised within that mysterious modern participation in what we call ‘reason’, and it is this participation that is most difficult to think in its origins.

[1] Martin Heidegger in 1935 defined the political movement of National Socialism in Nazi Germany as “the meeting of modern man with a global technology”. Today, we define this coming together of human beings and technology as ‘globalization’. Having an opportunity to change this definition of National Socialism in 1953 with the publication of An Introduction to Metaphysics, Heidegger chose not to do so. This should be a warning to us.

(Note: While the thoughts presented here focus on artificial intelligence, consideration of Titles #1, #3, #5 and #6 will help provide a focus on the particular areas of knowledge that you might choose to examine using the principles in operation here.)

5. Is it always the case that “the world isn’t just the way I is, it is how we understand it – and in understanding something, we bring something to it” (adapted from Life of Pi by Yann Martel)? Discuss with reference to history and the natural sciences .

Title #5 is somewhat tricky in its wording so this response will be directed towards how I interpret the title. We are directed to examine two specific areas of knowledge: history and the natural sciences. From the title, these two areas are to be examined from the role the “I is” plays in “how we understand the world” and what “we bring” to that world so that it may be interpreted and understood. The corollary question asked is “is it always the case?”. This corollary question invites us to examine the paradox or contradiction that is historicism and the nature of truth. Historicism is a way of viewing the world that sees what we call knowledge and any other social and cultural phenomenon as products of human activity in history. It is what we sometimes call “relativism”. Since knowledge is a product of the social and cultural forces at work at a certain period in history, nothing is ever “always the case”. The paradox or contradiction of historicism is whether or not historicism itself is “always the case” and thus the truth of the way and the how that things are including the “I is”.

In the wording of the title, the “I is” is contrasted with the “we are” with regard to what “ we understand” and what “ we bring” to the world in which we live. How we come to understand and interpret ourselves, the “I is”, is determined by the cultures and societies in which we happen to be born into i.e., the “we”. How we have come to understand what truth is and how we interpret and understand the world around us brings us to our own self-understanding and the questioning of that self-understanding. Our understanding and interpretation of the world will determine what we look up to and what we bow down to. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus once said: “Everything is full of gods”. Here in Bali, this statement is perfectly understandable. In the West, only a few people would have any comprehension of the statement. If there are no gods in things in the West, what has taken their place? A preliminary answer is: “we” have i.e., human beings as a species for it is “we” who create the things and bring them into being. To illustrate this, let’s look more closely at the areas of knowledge of history and the physical sciences or natural sciences.

We will begin our discussion of the natural sciences with two quotes from two of its greatest representatives: Albert Einstein, the founder of relativity physics, and Werner Heisenberg, the founder of the indeterminacy principle and quantum physics.

“Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.” -Albert Einstein

“What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning.  Our scientific work in physics consists in asking questions about nature in the language that we possess and trying to get an answer from experiment by the means that are at our disposal.”–Werner Heisenberg

How we have come to understand and interpret the external world (predominantly in the West, but now worldwide) is through technology. To characterize what modern technology is, we can say that it is the disclosive looking that  disposes  of the things which it looks at. Technology is the framework that arranges things in a certain way, sees things in a certain way, and assigns things to a certain order: what we call  mathematical projection . This is what Einstein means by stating that “physical concepts are free creations of the human mind”. This is what we “bring” to the things. It is a viewing of things in a certain way i.e., within the framework of the mathematical projection.

The looking (the  theory ) is our way of knowing which  corresponds  to the self-disclosure of things as belonging to a certain order that is determined from within the framework or mathematical projecting itself. From this looking, human beings see in things a certain disposition; the things belong to a certain order that is seen as appropriate to the things i.e. our areas of knowledge. The seeing of things within this frame provides the impetus to investigate the things in a certain manner.  That manner is the  calculable.  Things are revealed as the calculable. (This is Heisenberg’s ‘manner of questioning’.) Modern technology is the disclosure of things in the natural sciences as subject to calculation. Modern technology sets science going; it is not a subsequent application of science and mathematics, the ‘equipment’ and ‘tools’ of technology.  “Technology” is the outlook on things that science needs to get started, the manner of “questioning” that Heisenberg speaks of. Modern technology is the viewing/insight into the essence of things of our world as coherently calculable. Science disposes of the things into a certain calculable order . Again, it is what we ‘bring’ to the things.   Science is the theory of the real, where the truth of the things that  are , views and reveals those things as disposables.

Technology as our way of being in the world (for both the “I is” and the “we are”) has been accomplished by the determination of what is as ‘object’ and the judgement regarding what we conceive to be the essence of truth, or how things reveal themselves when understood as objects. This is the same for both natural science and history, as well as the human sciences. This technology grounds our age in that through a specific interpretation and understanding of what is (beings/things as objects) and through a specific comprehension of truth (as correspondence, correctness), it gives to our age the basis or ground (its history) upon which it has been and is essentially formed. This basis or grounding holds complete domination over all the things/beings that come to distinguish our age in that it provides the interpretations of what those things/beings are. It is our metaphysics as technology that forms the paradigm that determines how we perceive things/beings in our age and, thus, the methodologies of our sciences as well as our understanding of history. This paradigm is the understanding of the environment, including our whole being-in-the-world (shared knowledge, history) as object. Technology is the meta-physic of the age, the modern age.

History is different from the other Human Sciences, or indeed other sciences in general, in that the knowers or researchers cannot directly observe the past in the same way that the object of research can be observed and studied in the Natural and Human Sciences. We “bring” more of ourselves to our interpretations and understandings of history and its narratives than we do to the narratives of physics, chemistry, and biology, for instance.

“Historiology” is the study of history in general, the search for what its essence is, what its purpose is. It is said by some that the purpose of history is “prophecy”, the ability to predict the future and to prepare for that future. “Historiography”, that is, a study of the writings of history, is not a study of all of the past, but rather a study of those traces or artifacts that have been deemed relevant and meaningful by historians; and this choosing of artifacts and evidence is the most important aspect of the study of history as it attempts to aspire to “scientific research”. This “selection process” is primarily determined and driven by how the “I is” has been previously determined prior to the selection and classifying of artifacts, and it determines what will be “brought” to those artifacts. This is where the importance of “shared knowledge” or “historical knowledge” comes into play; what we call our “shared knowledge” is “history” or “historical knowledge”, and what we choose to select is determined beforehand by our  culture .

In the USA, for example, the attempt to give its historical narrative from only a “white selection process” will not shed much light on the truth of that history, particularly its Civil War where more Americans died than in all the wars in which it has since become involved up to the present day. This denial of the history of African-Americans as part of its American history in itself is another indicator of the current American descent towards fascism and tyranny, which begins with the denial of the “otherness” to other human beings, the failure to give other human beings their “due”. (See the discussion in Title #3.)

In the modern, the distinction between the personal or the “I is” knowledge and understanding and our shared or historical knowledge (what we understand and bring to what is called ‘knowledge’) tends to lose its crucial significance due to our belief in progress. It appears that we tacitly assign the same cognitive status to both historical and personal knowledge and this impacts how we understand history and what we feel its importance is to our futures. What we deem to be “historical” first appears and coincides with  ratio, calculation,  and  thought  understood as ratio and calculation. What is chosen to be called “history” arises with a pre-determined understanding and definition of what human being is (the  animale rationale ) and this, in turn, determines what “will be held to account” in the selection of what is deemed to be important in relation to that understanding of human being.

The question of whether history is an art or a science is as old as “historiography” itself. Aristotle in his  Poetics  distinguishes between the poet and the historian, and the philosopher and the historian. The historian presents what has happened while the poet is concerned with the kind of things that might, or could, happen: “therefore poetry is more philosophic and more serious than history, for poetry states rather the universals, history however states the particulars”. ( Poetics  1451a36-b11) The poet aspires to “prophecy”. But isn’t History’s chief purpose to provide guidance for future actions? History might be called pre-philosophic in that it concerns itself with particular human beings, particular cities, individual kingdoms, or empires, etc. The historian must choose between what she has determined to be the important and the unimportant things when writing her report, and in her choices illuminate the universal in the individual event so that the purpose of her recording is meant to be a possession for all times. The acquisition of knowledge is acquired through the universal. You have done much the same in your Exhibition (if you have done it correctly). The presentation is analogical.

The spirit of  historicism  (the understanding of  time  as history) permeates every aspect of every text and every approach to the study of and knowledge of the things of our world, and it is particularly present in the IB program. Plato viewed time as “the moving image of eternity”, an infinite accretion of “nows”; we tend to view time as the “progress” of the species towards ever greater perfection, much like how we view the latest models of our technological devices and gadgets as being more “fitted” towards accomplishing our ends and purposes. Our “evolution” and “adaptation”, we believe, are signs of our progress and growth as a species as we move towards ever greater “perfection”, both moral and physical. It is sometimes called “the ascent of man”, but such a concept of human being, as an “ascending” creature, is only possible within the technological world-view.

When we speak of History as an area of knowledge, we are speaking of “human history” not the history of rocks or plants or other objects that are also part of our world. These are covered in the Group 4 subjects as part of the Natural Sciences. History as an area of knowledge deals with human actions in time whether by individuals or communities so it is considered a “human science” for the most part, and the approach to the study of it is a “scientific” one. This attempted approach to the study of history is the same as that carried out in the Natural Sciences wherein history is looked at “objectively” and demands are made of it to give us its reasons. We seek for the “causes” of events. This approach has given rise to one of the complaints against history and how it is studied nowadays: we can only learn  about  the past; we cannot learn  from  it. Nor do we today feel that we need to. This dearth of knowledge of history is most in evidence in America, and this is not surprising as America is the heartland of technological dynamism.

6. Faced with a vast amount of information, how do we select what is significant for the acquisition of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Title #6 is very similar to title #5, but it differs from that title in that it focuses on the “selection” process involved in the Natural Sciences and another area of knowledge in “the acquisition of knowledge”. In title #5 we noted that the selection process deals with the general or universal and from it comes the acquisition of knowledge i.e., an explanation is provided for the particular object under scrutiny through the application of the categories that correspond with the object.

In Title # 3 we discussed the meaning of acquisition. “Acquisition” means to ‘get’, ‘to grasp’, to take hold of something and take possession of it, to make it one’s own. It means ‘that which is responsible for the acquiring or getting and taking possession of something’. Our wonderful phrase in English, “I get it”, is an example of this grasping and taking possession of something. Usually it is the beginning of our understanding of something, our “shared knowledge” (historical knowledge) of something, and in the sciences this might be the theoretical knowledge that gets the research started. What we grasp or take hold of from others in our discourses with them is “opinion” not knowledge, whether it be from those in our communities who are called ‘experts’ or from those who dwell in the murky communities of QAnon. (The communities are ‘murky’ because they are ‘a-nonymous’ i.e., they have ‘no name’; and, thus, they have no desire to be brought to light, to be brought out into the open which the naming of things does by nature.) This acquiring of what we think is knowledge becomes part of ourselves and who we think we are; and this, in turn, will determine the actions that we will choose to take i.e., the ethics.

Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders of quantum physics, made the following statement regarding the current position of modern physics and the natural sciences in general:

“What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning.  Our scientific work in physics consists in asking questions about nature in the language that we possess and trying to get an answer from experiment by the means that are at our disposal.”

In the natural sciences, the method of questioning which Heisenberg speaks of is determined by the mathematical projection which disposes of nature in itself. Because numbers don’t lie (or so we believe), they are projected towards nature in such a way that an “experiment” can be devised wherein results or outcomes can be determined in mathematical statements and the correctness of the numerical applications can be determined. If the results correspond to the mathematical projections, we believe we have acquired knowledge.

Physics constrains nature in its very way of posing nature, in its theoretical stance. Nature is required to report in a certain way and can only report in this way, and the way is determined by the principle of reason expressed in the mathematical projection. In modern atomic physics, unfortunately, Nature is not reporting according to our expectations and so we speak of the crisis of science as to what it conceives knowledge to be. We cannot have knowledge of nature in the way that we have traditionally understood knowledge and in the way that we have traditionally understood Nature. (See the quote from Heisenberg above).

The rigor of mathematical physical science is exactitude. Science cannot proceed randomly. All events, if they are at all to enter into representation as events of nature, must be defined beforehand as spatio-temporal magnitudes of motion. Such defining is accomplished through measuring, with the help of number and calculation. Mathematical research into nature is not exact because it calculates with precision; it must calculate in this way because its adherence to its object-sphere (the objects which it investigates, its selection process) has the character of exactitude.  This is the heart of the selection process. In contrast, the Group 3 subjects, the Human Sciences, must be inexact in order to remain rigorous.  A living thing can be grasped as a mass in motion, but then it is no longer apprehended as living. The projecting and securing of the object of study in the Human Sciences is of another kind and is much more difficult to execute than is the achieving of rigor in the “exact sciences” of the Group 4 subjects.

While there are some scientists who are genuinely motivated by the search for truth and the acquisition of knowledge in their “selection process” of what object they will study in their research, many are motivated by “vested interests” (where they will find the greatest source of funding) or social recognition and prestige, what may be called “Nobel Prize-itis”. In Book VI of his Republic , the Greek philosopher Plato stated that those who would receive the highest recognition in the Cave would be those who could predict what shadows would follow in the order that they were displayed on the walls of the Cave. On the other hand, some scientists often select their objects of study based on their personal curiosity and passion. They may be drawn to specific topics or phenomena that intrigue them intellectually or align with their expertise. Such curiosity and passion, however, is rarer in the sciences than it is in the Arts.

There are some scientists who consider the relevance and significance of the object of study within their field and the broader scientific community in general, and thus in their societies. They seek topics that address important questions, fill gaps in knowledge, or have practical applications and such scientists are usually looking at the recognition and prestige which could come from such studies. Researchers review existing scientific literature to understand the current state of knowledge in their field. They look for areas where further investigation is needed, unresolved questions, or opportunities for advancement.

The Human Sciences could be called “The Science of Humans”, the knowledge that we have already grounded with regard to what human being is and what human beings are, the starting points from which we can begin our journey towards understanding Human Being and human beings. This “science” originates in, has its grounds in, what we now call “biology”, “the science of” (“ logy ”) “life” ( bios ) or living things. The Human Sciences, Individuals and Societies, must take as their starting point the findings of the Natural Sciences. In order for the Human Sciences to begin their study,  what  human beings are and  how  they are must already be defined in some preliminary way through the findings of the Natural Sciences. This way of viewing is Western European in origin. Traditionally, it was known as “psychology”. Human beings, as the selected object of study of the Human Sciences, have been defined as animale rationale, the animal that is capable of reason which is demonstrated in its ability to give reasons . We believe our knowledge, and thus our being, comes from the “rendering of an account” of some thing based on the principle of reason: “I know be-cause”, the cause “is”, the cause “being”. We believe we attain the truth of some thing, knowledge of it, through the principle of reason, primarily through one of its sub-principles, cause and effect, and the  logic  upon which the principle of causality is based.

Two opposing views are present today and are related to the religions or faiths of both camps and determine the “selection process” of what aspect of human being will be the object of consideration: human beings are either the products of modification and chance (evolution) or human beings are “created” beings that have a purpose and destiny for their being. i.e. they have an  essence.  This clash shows itself in the views of human beings in the evolutionary camp as “ids” (“things”, “it”s) or “Selves”, or in the “created camp” in the view that human beings are not “their own”, as Socrates expresses so beautifully in the Platonic dialogue  Phaedo  and elsewhere.

Given the vast possibilities and potentialities of possible objects of study in the Human Sciences, practical considerations, such as the availability of resources, funding, time, and expertise, play a role in selecting the object of study among the many products of human activities. In the work environment, human beings are looked upon as “human resources”, for instance, an innocuous sounding term until thought is given to it.

Since the ultimate goal of the technological viewing of the world is cybernetics , the Human Sciences of most interest to the powerful will be those that aid in the unlimited mastery of human beings over other human beings. These will receive the funding and the ability to assess the necessary tools, equipment, or access to specific environments or specimens to conduct their research in the human sciences. It is this viewing, rooted in the technological, that causes me grave concerns about the advent and outcomes of artificial intelligence.

The saying “One mind is enough for a million hands” indicates what has become of the collaborative function that predominates within the bureaucracies and institutions created through technology and determines what the choice of object of study will be (if it can be said to be a choice) in the Human Sciences. Because scientists and researchers need to eat, funding agencies or institutions will also have specific priorities or grant programs that steer scientists towards particular areas of research.

In many instances, scientists will look to solve the many problems that technology itself has created, and so doing may consider the potential societal impact of their research that will give them the recognition and prestige that they desire. They may choose to study objects or phenomena that have practical implications, such as improving human mental health, since technology has resulted in mass meaninglessness for so many human beings (and the sense of “victimhood” which goes along with it). They may address environmental challenges such as the climate change caused primarily by the applications of technology’s equipment and techniques. In doing so, they may become involved in informing policy decisions through their knowledge and understanding of political science.

Share this:

Author: John R. Butler

Retired Teacher View all posts by John R. Butler

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

November 2023 TOK Essay Prompts Explained + SAMPLES

Table of contents

• Writing Metier

The TOK essay prescribed titles for November 2023 are finally out. Since many students struggle with TOK essays, it’s quite good news that IB students have a lot of time to check those TOK prompts.

Psssss…it’s time to check November 2024 TOK essay titles .

No more general words, and dry theory, I’m sharing a list of the TOK titles. I will start with a general list and move further to detailed explanations of each and give you examples. This can help you understand which one you will go for.

Moreover, I believe this can help you get started so that you know what exactly is required of you to work. 

November 2023 ToK essay titles list

• Are facts alone enough to prove a claim? Discuss with reference to any two areas of knowledge.
• If “the mathematician’s patterns, like the painter’s and the poet’s, must be beautiful” (G.H. Hardy), how might this impact the production of knowledge? Discuss with reference to mathematics and the arts.
• In the acquisition of knowledge, is following experts unquestioningly as dangerous as ignoring them completely? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and one other area of knowledge.
• Is it problematic that knowledge is so often shaped by the values of those who produce it? Discuss with reference to any two areas of knowledge.
• Is it always the case that “the world isn’t just the way I is, it is how we understand it – and in understanding something, we bring something to it” (adapted from Life of Pi by Yann Martel)? Discuss with reference to history and the natural sciences.
• Faced with a vast amount of information, how do we select what is significant for the acquisition of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

If you need assistance with your IB ToK essay , press on the picture above and order your paper. Now let’s move to the explanation part.

Title 1: Are facts alone enough to prove a claim? Discuss with reference to any two areas of knowledge.

This seems to be one of the easiest prompts to work on. But in some cases, when things seem too simple, there is a lot that has to go behind that. The keyword in this case is ‘facts.’ The title asks if facts alone are enough to help prove a claim. Another word that also needs to be focused on is ‘alone.’ The idea is to explore if only facts can help you prove a claim or if there are other factors that are needed as well. 

 A lot of us think that we know what ‘facts’ stand for. In some fields of interest, like math, it is very easy to chalk out what facts are. Say one plus one is two, is a fact in mathematics. But how does one decide what facts are in areas of knowledge like arts and human sciences?

These areas of knowledge are subjective in nature, which means that it can be very hard to differentiate facts in these areas of knowledge. Every area of knowledge that we talk about has a different way of classifying facts.

For example, when we talk about math, we can see that the Pythagorean theorem is based on hard facts, where we talk about how the summation of the square of the base and the perpendicular equals to the sum of the hypotenuse. So we can see that while facts are indeed sufficient in some areas of knowledge , there is indeed more probing needed in other areas of knowledge to help understand things better.

Sample of November 2023 TOK Essay Title 1

Below you can find an example of the November 2023 TOK essay sample on Prompt 1: Are facts alone enough to prove a claim?

To understand this better, it is highly advised that you also go through the different stages of knowledge that exist to help you understand how knowledge is produced here. Does it come solely from facts, or do you also need other types of evidence to help you reach a reasonable conclusion about things? 

Title 2: If “the mathematician’s patterns, like the painter’s and the poet’s, must be beautiful” (G.H. Hardy), how might this impact the production of knowledge? Discuss with reference to mathematics and the arts.

This title is very specific. Actually, I’m finding it super confusing and I guess it will be one of the less-selected November 2023 TOK prompts. Agree? Leave your comments below 😉

It is one that talks about the importance of math and how contrary to popular belief, it shares characteristics that are very similar to arts. Many a time, you must have heard that math is a very creative discipline on the whole. The idea behind this concept is that while the subject is highly objective, it does take into account many different factors, and all of these factors are ones that need to be taken into consideration when we talk about this.

One interesting example that we can see here is the concept of fractals. If you read up more about this, then you will find out that this has a lot to do with the artistic representation of mathematics. This raises a very valid question, which is whether art has only to do with how beautiful something is or is there more to it as well. 

On the contrary, we can also see that there is a lot of evidence that shows that art is not all about being pretty. There is a lot more to it as well. An example can be seen in terms of the paintings and photographs that depict famous wars that happened in the world. While these aren’t pretty pictures, they are pretty much valid and prevalent, and they really help us understand more about different situations in terms of what we think or believe about them.

So the idea is to explore that does mathematics really have any value is the knowledge is produced but does not add any value? So if you go for this prompt, then you have to dispute the notion of this quote, giving your own two cents to the situation to actually explore what this is all about and how you can work your way toward things in the best possible way. 

Title 3: In the acquisition of knowledge, is following experts unquestioningly as dangerous as ignoring them completely? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Many students would find this title very appealing. The idea here is to explore to what extent exactly can we trust experts in any field to give us information about things so that we can base our behavior on them. The best way we can look at this is with the help of the Coronavirus pandemic that took the world over by storm.

Health experts told us that we have to get ourselves vaccinated and stay at home for our own safety and the safety of our loved ones. We did exactly so because we realized that this was the best thing to do for people because we trust experts in terms of the knowledge that they have and the advice that they give us about things. 

But what is also important to note here is that experts are not always right. They can also go wrong based on what they think and also have it in them to make mistakes. So this raises a very important question, which is what makes an expert?

So the idea is to explore this in a lot of detail. It would be very interesting to explore this with reference to human sciences, because the nature of the subject is highly subjective, which means that it can help understand what all it constitutes. You can explore this better by looking at what economists have to say about different situations and how that seems to be wise or not.

This is a very interesting prompt if you choose to go about it wisely and have sound examples to support your viewpoint about things. 

Title 4: Is it problematic that knowledge is so often shaped by the values of those who produce it? Discuss with reference to any two areas of knowledge.

This is a very interesting prompt to work on if you take into account the fact that knowledge is produced according to the values of producers. We need to work toward understanding what the main problem is and how knowledge is influenced by different values.

Let’s look at this with the example of slavery. There was a point in time when people didn’t see anything wrong with slavery. They knew that slavery is prevalent and at that time, it was also very common to have slaves. But if we look at how problematic this is today, then you can see that no one takes into account slavery today. In fact, it is looked upon as something that is extremely bad.

So what we can see here is that the knowledge that we have is greatly influenced by different thought processes that make us understand things a certain way. The value system that we rely on here is something very important that we have to take into account if we wish to work a certain way. 

At the end of the day, the knowledge that you have is dependent on what all you have learned so far and what this has taught you. Your lens might become outdated in the future,  but the idea is to help you understand all of this in a much better way. An accurate depiction of things can only happen when you take all of that into account and try to understand things for the better. For some areas of knowledge, the issue of values is not very prominent, while for others, that is not the case.

So it depends entirely on what you choose to work with and how you think that affects the way that you think and work toward things. 

Title 5: Is it always the case that “the world isn’t just the way it is, it is how we understand it – and in understanding something, we bring something to it” (adapted from Life of Pi by Yann Martel)? Discuss with reference to history and the natural sciences.

While this prompt may seem to be a little complicated at first, it is not really that hard to understand. In simple words, you are expected to work toward bringing your own perspective and interpretation of knowledge. It asks you how you understand things and how your interpretation of things makes you add value to the world. The idea here is that all of us have our own thoughts and ideas about things. The knowledge that we acquire is very different, and our value systems are very different as well. So this is something that we have to explore and try to understand in all ways. There is also a very wide spectrum that makes you understand what it means to bring something to the things that you learn. 

With some areas of knowledge, this can be very easy to explain. Say if you talk about art, you can see how artists have their own thought processes when they paint a picture. Even if we talk about an abstract painting, we can see that there is a lot that goes behind all of that, and the main reason for that is that they have a specific thought process that they follow. But how we interpret that painting depends entirely on what our lookout toward things is.

So this is what we need to understand very well. So basically, how well you explore this prompt depends on the type of examples that you come through with and what all you help explain in the best way. So this is something that is very important and is something that you need to pay a lot of attention to, when working. 

Title 6: Faced with a vast amount of information, how do we select what is significant for the acquisition of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

This title basically talks about big data and how there is so much information in the world that we actually find very hard to understand. You might have experienced a lot of this in your entire student life. When there is too much that you have to understand and study, it becomes really hard for you to retain all of that.

So the idea is to understand what information you will actually understand and retain, and what you will not. The idea is to know that some information is more valuable than others, so you have to be very mindful about what you think and do in this situation. 

Similarly, in the real work, there is a lot of information that we have in front of us. It depends entirely on us what we choose to pick out as more important, depending on what our world view is and what we think is important for the acquisition of knowledge. Search engines have also given us access to so much information that it actually becomes very hard for us to pick and choose what we want to pay the most attention to.

TOK Essay Title 6 Example

Below you will find a link to the November 2023 TOK essay prompt 6 – Faced with a vast amount of information, how do we select what is significant for the acquisition of knowledge?

When we choose some knowledge, and we miss out on some other, it gives us a feeling of whether we are missing out on something important. So the idea is to understand this best and think about what interests us the most so that we can pick and choose very wisely. 

Other TOK essay prompts from previous years with samples

In case you have overlooked any of the past TOK essay titles, along with their examples or topics from previous years, I am providing the links below.

The year 2023:

• May 2023 TOK essay titles

The year 2022:

• November 2022 TOK essay prompts
• May 2022 ToK essay titles

Previous years’ prompts:

• November 2021 ToK Essay titles
• May 2021 Theory of Knowledge essay prompts

Ready to select your 2023 November TOK essay prompt?

With a better idea of what you have to touch upon in each of these, it will become much easier for you to choose things so that you understand all of it better and make a very wise choice. 

You can always count on our service if you need assistance writing your TOK essay. Simply get in touch with our support team or place your order directly to buy TOK essay using our online order form.

Free topic suggestions

Vasy kafidoff.

Vasyl Kafidoff is a co-founder and CEO at WritingMetier. He is interested in education and how modern technology makes it more accessible. He wants to bring awareness about new learning possibilities as an educational specialist. When Vasy is not working, he’s found behind a drum kit.

Similar posts

Ib tok ppd form. a guide to achieving success.

Discover the power of IB TK PPD and how it can help you succeed in the IBDP. This comprehensive guide covers everything you need to know about IB TK PPD and how it can help you unlock your full potential. Learn how to apply these powerful strategies to improve your performance and reach your goals. Read now and start your journey to success with IB TK PPD

IB ToK Essay Prompts for November 2022

Every year, students who started IBDP are waiting for IB to share the list of specific prescribed titles for Theory of Knowledge essays. Like in all the previous years, IB opened a list of six topics for TOK essays for the next semester.

May 2023 TOK Essay Prompts + SAMPLES and Suggestions

Every year, students anxiously wait for the IB to announce the TOK essay topics. So this year is not an exception; IBO has also announced 2023 May titles for IB TOK essay. In this article, we have provided the list of prompts with short directions and suggestions for each topic. Enjoy reading ;)

Real-Life Situation in IB TOK Essay | Choosing a RLS

One of the very important parts of the IB TOK essay is the real-life situation (also known as RLS). In this guide, you will learn about a real-life situation and how to choose one. This is a crucial part of a TOK essay, which means you must learn all about it before you start writing your essay!

TOK Essay PPF: The Insider's Guide to Acing Your Assessment

Get the inside scoop on how to ace your TOK (Theory of Knowledge) essay Planning and Progress Form (PPF) with our comprehensive guide. Our expert tips and tricks will help you craft a compelling and persuasive document that demonstrates your understanding of knowledge and its relationship to the real world.

TOK Exhibition Objects | List of 20+ Interesting Ideas

In the Theory of Knowledge exhibition, selecting the right object is crucial. Our curated list provides a diverse range of ideas, from historical artifacts to contemporary art and everyday items, all designed to spark deep reflection and meaningful connections.

We rely on cookies to give you the best experince on our website. By browsing, you agree to it. Read more

IB TOK Essay Titles

The International Baccalaureate Organization releases six TOK essay titles, twice a year for submission either in May or November. So you need to know which cohort you're submitting with. The essay titles for submission in May are released in the previous September. The essay titles for submission in November are released the previous March.

• November 2023 topics
• May 2023 topics
• November 2022 topics
• May 2022 topics
• November 2021 topics
• May 2021 topics
• November 2020 topics
• May 2020 topics
• November 2019 topics
• May 2019 topics
• November 2018 topics
• May 2018 topics
• November 2017 topics

• About Dr Phil Joyce
• Standard of Service
• Terms of Engagement

• Philosophy Degrees by Distance Learning
• Critical Thinking Tutor
• Oxbridge Application Tutor
• Logic Tutor
• University Philosophy Application Advice

• Jul 10, 2023
• 12 min read

November 2023 TOK Essay Titles Explained with Examples

The prescribed titles for the November 2023 TOK Essay has been released! Here are all the titles with detailed explanation and examples to get you started:

Are facts alone enough to prove a claim? Discuss with reference to any two areas of knowledge.

If "the mathematician's patterns, like the painter's and the poet's, must be beautiful" (G.H. Hardy), how might this impact the production of knowledge? Discuss with reference to mathematics and the arts.

In the acquisition of knowledge, is following experts unquestioningly as dangerous as ignoring them completely? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Is it problematic that knowledge is so often shaped by the values of those who produce it? Discuss with reference to any two areas of knowledge.

Is it always the case that "the world isn't just the way I is, it is how we understand it - and in understanding something, we bring something to it" (adapted from Life of Pi by Yann Martel)? Discuss with reference to history and the natural sciences.

Faced with a vast amount of information, how do we select what is significant for the acquisition of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Below are the explanations. If you need help with TOK concepts and how to write a good essay, check out the resources in the TOK subject page!

While an initially simple prompt, sometimes the simplest statements are also the hardest to prove. I definitely feel that this is the case here. This prompt hinges on how you would personally define facts. In the TOK course, we know that knowledge is produced when someone proposes a knowledge claim, which is subsequently justified or disproven by suitable evidence. This title essentially asks of you to decide whether "facts" by themselves are sufficient evidence for us to prove a claim to be true, and hence consider it knowledge.

You may think that you have a good understanding of what 'facts' are. You have seen quick facts, cold facts, fun facts, etc... all pointing to little nuggets of information which we consider true. The question is though, how did they become true in the first place? In some areas of knowledge, 'facts' are pretty obvious. 1 + 1 = 2 is a true fact within the area of Mathematics. A Helium atom has 2 protons is a fact within the Natural Sciences. However, what constitutes facts in the Arts, History or Human Sciences?

Every single AOK has a different way of producing and dealing with 'facts'. Mathematics has their foundational axioms, the most basic set of facts that sets out how the whole AOK itself works so that things like 1 + 2 = 2 + 1 is true without us having to prove it. From there, mathematical knowledge builds upon these axioms and into a variety of sub disciplines within the AOK, developing into things like the Pythagoras Theorem or the triangle inequality, etc. Natural Science research nowadays builds upon the research done in the past. So knowledge we know to be true from before is applied to further what is to be known within the AOK to verify new claims. So it seems that perhaps facts play an important role at least in some AOKs, but is it the only requirement to produce new knowledge and justify claims? We know that in natural sciences, we tend to experiment and observe to ultimately prove or disprove a hypothesis. Without experimentation, and only using the facts we already know, it seems a bit tricky to further what we know!

I encourage you to revisit the TOK 101 page and find out more about the different stages of knowledge. Consider how facts are important in each stage of knowledge, but focusing primarily on how knowledge is produced in each AOK. How does knowledge evolve in each AOK? Can it develop organically solely from the facts we have now or does it require some additional input from other types of evidence?

The title is very specific, requiring discussion of mathematics and arts inline with the quote. It seems to propose that mathematics shares similar artistic properties with the arts (with examples such as paintings and poetry). You may have heard of the saying that Mathematics is a beautiful language or something to that effect. There have been discussions on the internet that beyond high school mathematics, mathematics can develop into quite a creative and artistic discipline. Mathematics has been used to creatively construct art! One obvious example (thus one that you probably shouldn't use in your essay) is fractals :

You can read more about the mathematical patterns behind fractals, but it is one artistic representation of mathematics.

While this prompt seems quite abstract at first, it does raise a good question about the intentions of producing knowledge in each AOK. Is it the purpose of the Arts to 'look pretty' and make us go "WOW that's so beautiful"? Conversely, is mathematics meant to be function first, form second or vice versa?

There are plenty of examples where art isn't meant to be pretty. There is a famous photograph of the chaos and brutality of the Vietnam war that is pretty infamous (do a quick google search!). Even if it isn't beautiful in the traditional sense, can it be considered beautiful in another perspective, especially considering the intention of why this was produced and what knowledge this produced? Similarly, mathematics tends to have the association that it is practical to real life and helps us solve some problems. Does mathematics have value if mathematical knowledge is produced without an immediate benefit or application? This is the world that pure mathematicians live in. While applied mathematicians can directly show their relevance and practicality of produced knowledge, it might not always be 'beautiful' in the artistic sense, but it can be 'beautiful' in its ability to capture the complex world. At the same time, if mathematics is purely beautiful in a satisfying sense (think when you factorise a quadratic and how it simplifies down to something solvable), but with no immediate practicality, is it still worth producing?

The key to this prompt is not to dispute the notion of the given quote. Yes, I know it's probably not the best quote, but think about the variations of how you can interpret the quote, rather than being either for or against the quote.

This title might be very appealing to students. I'm sure we have all experienced the importance of good scientific communication from trusted experts during the pandemic. We based our behaviour on them. When they told us to stay home, we (mostly) did, and we followed advice to get vaccinated, etc. At the other end of the spectrum, there are some that are completely ignorant of expert advice, calling this pandemic a hoax, and the vaccine a conspiracy. While there is common consensus that this ignorance is very dangerous, this prompt is quite interesting in prompting us to think about whether we should be trusting these experts completely, especially when the stakes are so high!

Experts often get things wrong, and when they do, we hope they will admit it readily even if it hurts their credibility. Credibility is key for us to accept expert advice. So this raises an important point - what makes an expert? Is it truly a person with the most knowledge about a topic or who is PERCEIVED to be so? Ideally, experts fit both of those criteria, but sometimes it is one or the other. At the same time, are experts immune from bias and other common human failures? NO! Then again, even if they have their failings, we can think about what is our level of tolerance for expert opinions and 'going at it alone' by not trusting them at all.

The prescribed AOK of human sciences is quite interesting. As you know, we are some complex people. Economists are either praised or blasted for their predictions about the economy all the time! Do you listen to economists about their market predictions? There is a joke that there will always be an economist somewhere in the world saying a recession is imminent no matter how the actual economy is doing. Can we really capture something as complex as humanity and let some experts give us advice that we trust to be 100%, unfailingly true? That doesn't seem to be wise. At the same time, it also doesn't seem wise that when 99% of economists warn us that inflation is getting out of hand for us to do nothing about it. So is it a numbers game? As more 'experts' say the same thing, and corroborate each other, we have a confidence to trust them unquestionably?

Ultimately, the conclusion seems pretty clear from the get go for this prompt. It is almost always unwise to just trust something or someone 100% and also unwise to go to the other extreme. While we can be tempted to do so, it is important we maintain a critical lens. If you are tackling this title, focus on the nuance between these two extremes presented, and show that both share common flaws in their approach to how knowledge is considered and acquired.

This prompt starts with the assumption that knowledge is produced according to the values of the producers. To what extent this is a problem is the issue here at hand here. First think of how knowledge is influenced by values. There was once a time when slavery was considered acceptable, and if you look all literary works around that time, it wouldn't be unusual to see examples of such and the use of what we now consider inappropriate language when referring to African-Americans, for example. Social values do change over time, examples including gay marriage, sexualisation and nudity of the body, dealing with minorities and racism, and even climate change. In some AOKs, this may be more apparent (i.e. History and the Arts) but what of something like mathematics? Can societal values influence them too?

When discussing whether this is problematic, other than considering the extent that values influence knowledge, also consider the implications this has on the perspectives of knowledge that are made available. Who determines these values is also of contention. This brings to mind propaganda and the various ways the 'values' of some power behind knowledge creation can greatly distort the knowledge that is produced. You may have some ideas on the problems that arise when we bring our values into the knowledge we produce, but to some extent this is inevitable. After all, the knowledge we produce simply reflects what we are interested in learning about, and willing to discover more of. The question is, how does each AOK handle changing values over time?

Every AOK has a different way of handling changing values. Long ago, we believed that we were the centre of the earth. How did the Natural Sciences overcome this long held belief? Conversely, how do we ensure that history remains accurate and isolated from the potential bias that could be introduced due to the values of the people that first wrote it? In History, revisionism describes the process of how we reevaluate history consistently to ensure that we always have the most accurate depiction of the past according to our current lens. There will be a time when our lens becomes outdated in the future, so what is the role of the Historian? Remember, knowledge is rarely ever fixed or 'done'. There is always more to know and more to discover, so how WE view knowledge in the past, and how someone in the future views the knowledge we make now will have large implications on the approach we take when producing knowledge. How can you ensure that someone interpreting knowledge in the future won't misconstrue what we are trying to say now? Could having differing interpretations according to different values be a benefit?

For some AOKs, the issue of values isn't that prominent. Why is that the case? It is good to explore in this title, the reasoning behind why values often influence the knowledge we produce, how we decide to mitigate or deal with this reality and how these approaches to do so differ between AOKs according to the nature that the knowledge is initially produced and then now consumed.

Is it always the case that "the world isn't just the way it is, it is how we understand it - and in understanding something, we bring something to it" (adapted from Life of Pi by Yann Martel)? Discuss with reference to history and the natural sciences.

In some less convoluted English, this prompt essentially asks whether we colour the knowledge we acquire and bring our own perspectives and interpretation to knowledge. If you think this is quite abstract, think about this example: you have likely done a book report before. It will almost always ask you what you thought of the book and people will have different thoughts. This demonstrates the essence of this title! We all have our own thoughts and ideas about the knowledge we acquire. When we learn new things, we might put our own spin to it, and try and explain it to ourselves and our friends in our own unique way. So, it is likely that there are some cases where this idea of us bringing our own ideas into the knowledge we acquire is valid, but there maybe other times that this doesn't happen. As with most things in TOK, there is a spectrum of the extent in which we 'bring something' to the things we learn.

Some AOKs actively encourage this sort of self-inquisition. While artists probably created their art to have a specific meaning, you are often encouraged to come up with your own interpretation of the art, as it may mean something very personal to you according to your background and life experiences. No one person would interpret a work the same way as you, and that is how the AOK of Art intends it. So clearly, some AOKs encourage this sort of interpretation, why might they do so? On the other hand, some AOKs require some very exact and objective interpretation of evidence and knowledge, so it might be that this sort of malleability when we acquire it is undesired. What issues do you foresee might arise when we bring our own interpretation to knowledge acquired? How each AOK deals with the idea of bring our own perspectives into acquired knowledge speaks a lot about its intention and purpose.

The prompt also asks us to consider whether we are really getting the knowledge of the 'true world as it is' or just the way we perceive the world. This is most prominent in the natural sciences where we try to observe the natural world by attempting to minimise our effects on it. We are effective at doing so to various extents, but can we ever really observe something as they are? Similarly, and perhaps even more difficult for the Human Sciences, how can you observe a human being's behaviour knowing that they are being watched, or that they are participating in an experiment? Does this invalidate any findings within the human sciences because we know we might be involved in it? In most cases, knowledge is generated from the lens of humanity - individuals like us! And for the most part, it is consumed by individuals like us as well. Can we ever have knowledge that is independent of humanity so that we are really watching the world as it is, rather than having our own input on it?

Big data and data science is a hot field right now because of exactly this problem - we have too much data and we don't really know how to handle it! You might have experienced this personally during your studies in the IB. Out of a 500 page textbook, what will you choose to learn? You likely won't know every exact detail within that textbook for your exams, but you will understand the key points as it pertains to the syllabus and the key techniques that you need to answer exam problems. In a similar way, people select knowledge they wish to acquire all the time. With the advent of search engines and wikipedias, there are limitless amounts of knowledge to be known, but only so much that we want to know. So it makes sense to ask ourselves, what criteria do we use to select what information we choose to get, what knowledge to acquire? That is the essence of the title.

When we choose some knowledge and leave out others, does this create any risk? What if we were missing out on some important perspectives? We must all have experienced a familiar feeling of thinking we are prepared for an exam, but it turns out that we missed a crucial part of the topic and subsequently bombed the exam. Now imagine this effect magnified to more important applications - in the medical context, how can medical professionals make the most informed decision for their patients? It is not like they can consider all possible available scenarios and knowledge about their condition! Again, it goes to what we consider to be important for us to acquire and so let's think deeply about why we learn some things over other things. Is it interest that is driving us? Practicality?

Finally, one last thing to consider for this topic is what is the point of having more knowledge if most are going to be selected away?

So hopefully these explanations have helped you in deconstructing what initially might appear to be some intimidating prompts! Before you write your essay, make sure you plan it out and select good examples to back up your points. Check out some 10/10 TOK essay examples and identify their strengths will help a lot as well!

Recent Posts

November 2024 TOK Essay Prescribed Titles with Examples and Detailed Explanation

How to learn TOK

TOK 101: Areas of Knowledge Explained

• 3813 Point Street, Chicago
• [email protected]

School Of Sdirectory

Online school teachers' conference

November 2023 TOK Essay Titles and Short Guide

You’re probably gearing up to tackle the Theory of Knowledge essay if you’re reading this. The TOK essay is a cornerstone of the IB program, challenging students to reflect on the nature of knowledge and how we come to know what we claim to know. The essay prompts, or titles as they’re often called, play a pivotal role in guiding your reflections and shaping your essay. 

So, let’s get a grip on the TOK essay titles for November 2023 and break down how you can approach each one.

Before we jump into the specifics, let’s first get a bird’s-eye view of the upcoming TOK essay titles. These TOK prompts are designed to make you think, question, and reflect. 

And if you ever feel like you need a bit of guidance or support, don’t hesitate to seek TOK essay writing help . Ready to dive in? Let’s go!

List of November 2023 TOK Essay Titles

• Are facts alone enough to prove a claim? Discuss with reference to any two areas of knowledge.
• If “the mathematician’s patterns, like the painter’s and the poet’s, must be beautiful” (G.H. Hardy), how might this impact the production of knowledge? Discuss with reference to mathematics and the arts.
• In the acquisition of knowledge, is following experts unquestioningly as dangerous as ignoring them completely? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and one other area of knowledge.
• Is it problematic that knowledge is so often shaped by the values of those who produce it? Discuss with reference to any two areas of knowledge.
• Is it always the case that “the world isn’t just the way it is, it is how we understand it – and in understanding something, we bring something to it” (adapted from Life of Pi by Yann Martel)? Discuss with reference to history and the natural sciences.
• Faced with a vast amount of information, how do we select what is significant for the acquisition of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Now that we’ve got our IB TOK essay titles lined up, let’s roll up our sleeves and dissect each one. 

We’ll explore potential approaches, relevant AOKs, WOKs, and even sprinkle in some real-life situations to get those creative juices flowing

Breaking Down the November 2023 TOK Prompts

Let us explain to you, in short, what is the best way to work on each TOK essay title from November 2023 list.

Prompt 1 – Are facts alone enough to prove a claim? 

This question pushes us to consider the role of facts in areas like Natural Sciences and Human Sciences. While facts are crucial, their interpretation can vary. 

Think about a controversial scientific study where the facts were clear, but interpretations differed wildly.

Prompt 2 – If “the mathematician’s patterns, like the painter’s and the poet’s, must be beautiful” (G.H. Hardy), how might this impact the production of knowledge? 

This is all about the beauty in Mathematics and The Arts. Consider how a beautiful mathematical theorem can inspire art or how art can be mathematically structured. Ever seen those mesmerizing geometric art pieces?

Prompt 3 – In the acquisition of knowledge, is following experts unquestioningly as dangerous as ignoring them completely?

Here, we’re looking at the weight we give to expert opinions in Human Sciences and, let’s say, Ethics. Remember that time when a renowned expert’s opinion was later challenged by new findings?

Prompt 4 – Is it problematic that knowledge is shaped by values? 

Dive into how values influence our understanding in History and Human Sciences. Think about how historical events are portrayed differently based on the values of the historian.

Prompt 5 – Is it always the case that “the world isn’t just the way it is, it is how we understand it – and in understanding something, we bring something to it” (adapted from Life of Pi by Yann Martel)?

This prompt asks us to reflect on interpretation in History and Natural Sciences. Consider how two historians might interpret the same event differently or how a scientific phenomenon can be understood in multiple ways.

Prompt 6 – Faced with a vast amount of information, how do we select what is significant for the acquisition of knowledge?

This is about discerning valuable information in Natural Sciences and Human Sciences. Think about the challenge scientists face in sifting through mountains of data to find meaningful patterns.

With a clearer understanding of each prompt, you’re well on your way to crafting a standout TOK essay. 

But before we wrap up, let’s touch on a few final thoughts to remember.

Wrapping Up

The TOK essay is more than just an academic exercise; it’s a deep dive into knowledge, understanding, and perspective complexities. Each TOK essay prompt offers a unique lens through which you can explore and challenge your own beliefs, biases, and assumptions.

Drawing on real-life situations and weaving in relevant AOKs and WOKs will strengthen your essay and enrich your understanding of the world around you. It’s an opportunity to grow, to question, and to engage with knowledge in a meaningful way.

And remember, you’re not alone in this. Whether it’s teachers, peers, or external resources, there’s a wealth of support available to you. 

If you ever feel stuck, overwhelmed, or just in need of a fresh perspective, don’t hesitate to seek TOK essay writing help. Every writer, no matter how experienced, benefits from guidance and feedback.

EXPLAINED: May 2024 TOK Essay Prescribed Titles

May 2024 session IB TOK Essay Prescribed Titles with Explanations and detailed examples for a 10/10 essay.

Key Concept in Economics IA

The Key Concept is a new addition to the Economics Syllabus for first examination in 2022. Compared to the previous IB Economics syllabus, students are now expected to write each of their three IAs based on a different key concept intergrated throughout the course. These are scarcity, choice, economic well-being, efficiency, change, interdependence, intervention, equity, and…

November 2023 TOK Essay Titles Explained with Examples

The prescribed titles for the November 2023 TOK Essay has been released! Here are all the titles with detailed explanation and examples to get you started: Below are the explanations. If you need help with TOK concepts and how to write a good essay, check out the resources in the TOK subject page! To see…

TOK 101: The knowledge framework explained with examples

The knowledge framework serves as the foundational underpinnings for you to unpack the nature of knowledge in each Area of Knowledge. This is essential for the TOK Essay and can be very helpful for the TOK Exhibition as well. This article serves as a quick summary of each part of the framework to allow for…

Deconstructing a 10/10 TOK Exhibition: How to score full marks!

The TOK Exhibition is a new assessment in the revised TOK syllabus for first examination in 2022. Since it is a new format, there is quite a bit of confusion on how to do well on it. The best way to learn is to look at what the IB considers to be a 10/10 full…

Essential Glossary Terms for IB English

Whether it is for your Internal Oral or Paper 1 and 2 exams in the IB English Language and Literature course, having a good grasp of the right terminology is essential to score well in reflection of your understanding of texts. Here are some essential techniques you should know. Most are populated with examples, but…

TOK 101: Areas of Knowledge Explained

See the full article on MyIBTutor The Theory of Knowledge (TOK) course is split into two parts. Themes, and Areas of Knowledge. For the exhibition, students focus on the themes learned during the first year of the IB Diploma Programme, while the TOK Essay focuses on the Areas of Knowledge (AOK) primarily introduced in the…

New Topics within the revised Economics HL Syllabus

New content in the new Economics Syllabus not found in the Old One. Most likely to be examined so IB can ‘test the waters’ with their new content. Topic What’s new? Potential Exam Question types 2.4 Critique of Maximising Behaviours Entire new topic: behavioural economics and consumer and firm rationality P1 (a), P1 (b), P2…

How to plan and structure your TOK Exhibition

The TOK Exhibition is a new assessement task for the revised Theory of Knowledge syllabus replacing the group presentations prior. You are required to write a maximum of 950 words on three objects of your choice that show how TOK manifests in the world around us by answering one out of a list of question…

Choosing Objects for the TOK Exhibition

The TOK Exhibition is the first assessment task to be completed by students in the TOK course. Students need to choose three objects to comment on and discuss with respect to a chosen prompt out of the prescribed list of questions. Being a new assessment introduced in the current syllabus, there is still lots of…

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Report this content
• View site in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Unpacking the 2024 November TOK Titles: A Comprehensive IB Solved Guide

The November 2024 IB Theory of Knowledge (TOK) Essay Titles are out!

Let's be honest – tackling the TOK essay can be a daunting task. With so many ideas, concepts and topics at our disposal and a myriad of ideas swirling around, it's easy to feel overwhelmed at the outset.

That's where we come in.

In this article, we'll delve into each title and offer some strategic advice on how to approach them.

General Tips to Unpacking a Title

When we first encounter a prompt, we want to think in terms of perspectives and counter-perspectives (formerly known as claims and counterclaims). This framework allows for a structured essay, exploring the title through the lens of two chosen Areas of Knowledge (AOKs) and weaving in different arguments. While the ultimate conclusion you draw may often reside somewhere between these extremes or on a conditional basis (e.g. perspective 1 is correct in certain circumstances, while perspective 2 is a better approach in other), starting with opposing arguments can facilitate the development of a more nuanced exploration and argument.

So let's get to it – here is everything you need to know about the November 2024 TOK Essay titles:

Title 1:  Does our responsibility to acquire knowledge vary according to the area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to history and one other area of knowledge.

Recommended AOKs: History (Mandatory) and Natural Sciences/The Arts/Human Sciences

This title prompts an assessment of whether we have different levels of responsibility to acquire knowledge across different AOKs. While you are open to argue against the title directly, suggesting that the responsibility is the same across AOKs, this would be unwise. It would be better to reflect on each AOK and perhaps present one perspective in support of the responsibility and one perspective against it, drawing a conclusion on which argument is stronger in each AOK.

Also consider the difference between the acquisition and production of knowledge – perhaps we have a broader responsibility to produce new knowledge in some areas of knowledge but not necessarily to acquire it as individual knowers.

Some perspectives you may consider:

Perspective: We have a responsibility to acquire knowledge to ensure that we construct an accurate record of the past. It is our responsibility to know our History and learn from the past.

Counter-Perspective: Historical knowledge is limited by subjectivity and collective memory, hence it is not essential to acquire knowledge of our past to build a successful future.

Perspective: We have a responsibility to acquire artistic knowledge to understand cultures and societies.

Counter-Perspective: The acquisition of knowledge in the Arts is for aesthetic purposes and enjoyment, not the fulfilment of a responsibility.

Natural Sciences/Human Sciences

Perspective: We have a responsibility to acquire new scientific knowledge for the continual development of mankind.

Counter-Perspective: Understanding how the world/humans work is not necessary knowledge for knowers to acquire.

Title 2:  In the production of knowledge, is ingenuity always needed but never enough? Discuss with reference to mathematics and one other area of knowledge.

Recommended AOKs: Mathematics (Mandatory) and Natural Sciences/The Arts/Human Sciences

This is a super interesting title – ensure you define 'ingenuity' from the outset. The essay almost structures itself – your first paragraph in each AOK can consider how/whether ingenuity is 'always needed', exploring how this plays out in each AOK, while the second paragraph can explore whether or not it is 'never enough'.

Some ideas you may consider:

Paradigm Shifts – To revolutionise an AOK, often ingenuity is needed to enact a paradigm shift (a new way of thinking which changes the entire knowledge structure of an AOK) and to ensure progress.

Creativity – Creative thinking is important not only for AOKs such as the Arts, but even in Mathematics and the Sciences. Discovering innovative ways of devising experiments or utilising clever analogies to explain incredibly complex concepts is integral to these AOKs.

Structure – Ingenuity is only valuable within a framework for knowledge production, whether this be an artistic process or the scientific method.

Title 3:  How might it benefit an area of knowledge to sever ties with its past? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Recommended AOKs: History, Natural Sciences, The Arts and Human Sciences

The 'How' of this title restricts the scope to discussing different 'benefits' rather than a standard 'perspective-counter' analysis. It will also be important to define exactly what 'severing ties' involves – does this mean completely ignoring all past knowledge or simply becoming less attached to existing ways of thinking?

Some ideas for this title:

Fresh Ideas and Paradigm Shifts – By severing ties, you open up the possibility of acquiring knowledge which can overhaul an entire AOK, drastically accelerating progress.

Bias – By severing past ties, knowers can free themselves of the biases of their predecessors.

Innovation – Since existing frameworks of thinking often lead to similar conclusions, you can expand the possibilities of new knowledge by severing past ties.

However, you may interestingly conclude that these benefits are only reaped when ties to the past are severed to an extent, as it may be detrimental to an AOK to entirely negate past knowledge.

Title 4:  To what extent do you agree that there is no significant difference between hypothesis and speculation? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Recommended AOKs: Human Sciences and History/Natural Sciences

This prompt is very focused on your definitions. I would suggest defining these terms distinctly and precisely from the outset. The primary question which this title is asking is whether hypotheses are mere "speculation" or "guesses", or if there is a significant difference.

Also, if selecting the Human and Natural Sciences, please ensure that your perspectives aren't repetitious and highlight the differences between these AOKs.

Development – Speculation and hypothesis differ in the fact that the development of a hypothesis generally requires significant prior research and an understanding of existing knowledge

Experimentation – Hypotheses are developed purposefully and then empirical experimentation are conducted to provide evidence either in support or against them

Emotion – Speculation tends to come from 'feelings' or 'impressions', whereas the development of a hypothesis is far more methodical

Title 5:  In the production of knowledge, are we too quick to dismiss anomalies? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Recommended AOKs: Human Sciences/History/Natural Sciences

This title allows you to reflect on whether or not we dismiss 'anomalies' (a key term to be defined) too quickly when producing knowledge.

Paradigm Shift – Anomalies are often the prompt for a paradigm shift in the sciences, causing us to challenge existing beliefs and ideas

Exceptions – Often rather than investigating anomalies further and considering an overhaul of existing knowledge, anomalies are dismissed as 'exceptions' to the rule, rather than a justification to question the rule itself

Generalisation – There is often a focus on generating 'general' rules and theories which can lead anomalies to be dismissed (think of the Human Sciences – how often do we produce a rule about human behaviour but ignore those who behave contrary to the rule)

Title 6:  In the pursuit of knowledge, what is gained by the artist adopting the lens of the scientist and the scientist adopting the lens of the artist? Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.

Recommended AOKs: The Arts and the Natural Sciences

This title requires you to define the 'lens' of each of these AOKs from the outset. It will be better to define them quite opposingly – the scientist is more methodical, experimental and structured, whilst the artist is more free-flowing and creative. You will then be able to take these attributes and argue which elements would be better across the two disciplines.

Creativity – Scientists can benefit from the creativity of artists when developing innovative ways of experimenting, presenting results and constructing abstract theories

Structure – Artists can often benefit from a methodical approach to constructing art, particularly when aiming to convey a specific message or purpose through their art

Flexibility – Artists are often quite flexible when constructing an artwork, always willing to change and adapt to their free-flowing thoughts, an attribute which is highly beneficial for scientists who at times may become rigid in their thinking and fixed to pre-existing scientific beliefs.

And that's it - our comprehensive guide to the 2024 November TOK Titles! If you're still racking your brain as to how to begin the writing process for your TOK essay, why not check out our post on The Complete IB TOK Essay Guide . Or check out one of our Grade A Exemplar TOK Essays ! Or better yet, if you are looking for some more personal assistance with your IB TOK Essay, click below to reach out to us and we can work with you through the entire writing process, from title selection to the best structure for success!

• Internal Assessment Guides

Recent Posts

The Secrets to Success in the Theory of Knowledge (TOK) Essay

Unpacking the 2023 November TOK Titles: A Comprehensive IB Solved Guide

TOK DISCUSSIONS

Theory of knowledge prescribed titles

November 2024 examination session

Does our responsibility to acquire knowledge vary according to the area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to history and one other area of knowledge.

In the production of knowledge, is ingenuity always needed but never enough? Discuss with reference to mathematics and one other area of knowledge.

How might it benefit an area of knowledge to sever ties with its past? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

To what extent do you agree that there is no significant difference between hypothesis and speculation? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and one other area of knowledge.

In the production of knowledge, are we too quick to dismiss anomalies? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

In the pursuit of knowledge, what is gained by the artist adopting the lens of the scientist and the scientist adopting the lens of the artist? Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.

November 2024 Title #1

Does our responsibility to acquire knowledge vary according to the area of knowledge?

Discuss with reference to history and one other area of knowledge.

This title reminds me of a knowledge question (KQ) from the TOK guide, categorized under the framework of “ethics.” The KQ asks: “Is there knowledge that a person or society has a responsibility to acquire or not to acquire?” The key words here are “responsibility” and “acquire.” It’s easy to mistake the intent of this title with the responsibility of historians and scientists in “producing” knowledge, but that’s not the focus here. So, I want to emphasize that “our responsibility” refers to us, the consumers of knowledge, both as individuals and as a society.

History is already selected as one area of knowledge for comparison. What historical knowledge are we, as individuals, nations, or humanity in general, responsible for acquiring? Should we know about the history of other countries or ethnic groups? Is knowledge about events like WWII necessary for a nation?

Develop your guiding knowledge question with ethics and the scope of knowledge in mind. Find real-life examples from history, one crucial to the survival of a nation or humanity, and perhaps one less relevant. Repeat this process for another area of knowledge, such as natural or human sciences, and develop your arguments accordingly.

Demonstrate your awareness of different viewpoints by exploring real-life examples illustrating our responsibility toward each area of knowledge.

Some might believe: “I must know everything about my nation’s history. Biology, however, doesn’t interest me.” Others might disagree: “I prioritize knowledge related to engineering for my country’s advancement, but I don’t see the importance of history.”

Where do you stand on this topic?

November 2024 Title #2

In the production of knowledge, is ingenuity always needed but never enough?

Discuss with reference to mathematics and one other area of knowledge.

Is it “always” needed but “never” enough? These are too strict words to be used in the theory of knowledge. Considering this, we can understand that the answer to this title question is “No!”

Clearly, this essay demands four real-life examples to explore all four corners of this title. The level of imagination and ingenuity required in mathematics can vary depending on the specific subfield and the problem being addressed. For example, applied mathematics fields such as numerical analysis and certain areas of statistics often involve a more straightforward application of mathematical techniques to solve practical problems. On the other hand, more abstract areas of mathematics, such as pure mathematics, theoretical computer science, and certain branches of algebra and topology, often require a higher level of imagination and ingenuity.

Obviously, you’ll want to choose arts as the opposing area of knowledge to mathematics. Some art forms might rely more heavily on technical skill or adherence to established conventions rather than radical innovation or imaginative exploration. For example, in disciplines like classical portraiture, certain forms of folk art, or crafts like quilting or woodcarving, the emphasis may be more on skillful execution within established parameters rather than pushing boundaries of imagination. In more abstract forms of art, however, ingenuity is paramount, as imagination and creativity are what drive artistic creation and the production of artistic knowledge.

It is important to introduce and explain the keywords “ingenuity,” “always,” and “never,” and to highlight that while ingenuity is necessary, it is not the sole factor contributing to knowledge production. Real-life examples should showcase different degrees of necessity for ingenuity, imagination, and creativity in the production of knowledge, compared to the role of other factors such as the application of established methods and tools, utilization of skills, or expanding existing knowledge parameters. As I mentioned above, the short answer to this title question is “no,” but you should show your total awareness of different points of view on this matter by exploring these real-life examples within the areas of knowledge of mathematics and one other.

November 2024 Title #3

How might it benefit an area of knowledge to sever ties with its past?

Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

If you think of it, resetting human knowledge has no benefit, so how could severing ties with the past benefit an area of knowledge? Well, here you should first define “severing ties” in the context of knowledge. It may be a bit different from severing ties with relatives or organizations. Knowledge is to be built upon foundations that have been placed by earlier knowledge producers; however, it doesn’t mean that it should be “tied” to past knowledge. “Severing ties with the past” in the context of knowledge means not being bound to follow earlier knowledge at all costs. And that’s what knowledge is all about – to progress and produce newer, better knowledge.

On the other hand, blindly denying the past and trying to start from scratch can cost an area of knowledge and humanity a great deal.

In history, historians shouldn’t believe every single narrative that has been told and rely solely on them. Reevaluating evidence, trying to find new evidence, and forming more accurate narratives is how history can benefit from “severing ties” with its past as an area of knowledge. However, swiftly denying the history of a nation, a group, or the world, and forming whole new narratives is a dark path that won’t benefit history or humans in any possible way.

In human and natural sciences, paradigm shifts were instances when these areas of knowledge “severed ties” with their past in the context of knowledge production. There existed something called the mind and consciousness that could be studied, and its illnesses cured. Earth was no longer considered flat and the center of the universe. Copying nature in the most accurate way is not the only form of painting to be considered art, and literature can be more understandable to commoners and more friendly to read. These are the changes that happened in arts as a result of “severing ties” with the past and innovating new forms and methods.

Mathematics has seen many changes, much progress in its lifetime. Non-Euclidean geometries exist today because mathematicians like Carl Friedrich Gauss, Bernhard Riemann, and Nikolai Lobachevsky decided not to stick to the past and bring about new mathematical knowledge.

However, don’t forget that not everything went well when we decided to sever ties with the past, and even disasters happened that today we are still dealing with many of them. I abstain from bringing examples of what went wrong for two reasons: first of all, you can write your own essays without fear of plagiarism, and secondly, not to offend anyone or any group, which is indeed one of the disastrous results of severing ties with the past!

You will probably be safe to choose real-life examples in arts and mathematics. However, I warn you to be very careful in choosing your real-life examples from history and sciences as the examiner might not share the same degree of progressivism with you; they may be too progressive or too old-fashioned!

November 2024 Title #4

To what extent do you agree that there is no significant difference between hypothesis and speculation?

Discuss with reference to the human sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Well, I do not agree with this statement at all!

There’s a significant difference between a hypothesis and speculation in both the human and natural sciences. Speculation, which some consider forbidden, can lead to the formation of a hypothesis when done properly. While a hypothesis involves theorizing based on empirical evidence or potentially verifiable observations.

You might want to choose the human sciences as the area of knowledge mostly based on speculation, as opposed to the natural sciences, which are largely based on hypotheses. This could be a way to write a TOK essay in response to the given title. You may also want to consider exploring other titles for your essay.

November 2024 Title #5

In the production of knowledge, are we too quick to dismiss anomalies?

What’s an “anomaly” in the production of knowledge?

Archaeological findings that don’t match the popular historical narrative of a region, the jump of a stock in the stock market that goes against all economic theories, a fish that is older than the sea it’s found in, and many more events that disturb the widely accepted knowledge are all considered anomalies.

But, are we too quick to dismiss these anomalies? Sometimes, we are, and sometimes we are not.

You can find real-life examples where historians, scientists, and even mathematicians reacted to anomalies in a rejective way for the sake of “old knowledge” or due to the fear of the unknown. You can also find numerous real-life examples where anomalies were thoroughly inspected and investigated and caused a rewriting of historical narratives or reevaluation of scientific beliefs. Keep in mind that this title should be explored considering the production of knowledge, which means you should analyze how scientists, historians, and mathematicians reacted to anomalies, not ordinary citizens, also known as the consumers of knowledge.

Obviously, “anomaly” and “too quick to dismiss” are the keywords needing defining and explanation. You are supposed to examine through your real-life examples how quick “too quick” is to dismiss anomalies. You’ll reach the conclusion that sometimes anomalies were swiftly dismissed for the sake of favorability bias, fear of the unknown, or any other reason, and at times they were dismissed after thorough examination or accepted as a result of it. In doing so, you’ll show your full awareness of different points of view about this matter.

November 2024 Title #6

In the pursuit of knowledge, what is gained by the artist adopting the lens of the scientist and the scientist adopting the lens of the artist?

Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.

When we face a lot of information, it can be hard to know what is important for us to learn. One way to handle this is to think critically about what we want to learn and what we already know. We can then look at different sources of information and decide which ones are reliable and helpful. We must question the accuracy, trustworthiness, and recentness of the information.

There is also another hidden point in this title prompt – “what is significant for the acquisition” can refer to the type or delivery of the information compared to knowledge as a whole.

In natural sciences, when choosing between two nutrition apps, such as App A and App B, a person should research each app’s information, reviews, and endorsements from reputable organizations. Based on their findings, they can make an informed decision about which app to use. For example, if App A has positive reviews from users and nutrition experts, as well as personalized meal plans and progress tracking, it may be the better choice. However, the person may also want to compare both apps firsthand before deciding. Additionally, seeking out other sources of reliable nutrition information, such as reputable websites, books, or consulting with a registered dietitian, can help them make informed decisions about their health and nutrition goals.

In human sciences, when faced with two investment options, such as Option A and Option B, an investor must conduct research to determine which option offers the best return on investment. The investor should look for reviews and endorsements from reputable organizations, as well as any ratings from other investors. After researching both options, the investor might discover that Option A has a proven track record of delivering consistent returns, diversification of portfolio, and low fees, while Option B has a higher risk profile and mixed reviews. Based on this information, the investor might choose Option A for more reliable and consistent returns, or they may test both options firsthand before making a decision. Additionally, the investor might seek out other reliable sources of financial information, such as financial news websites, books, or a consultation with a financial advisor, to make informed decisions about their investments that align with their investment goals and risk tolerance.

You can find your own scenarios and real-life example and develop your argument in similar ways.

Be the first to receive Titles Explanations and Tips by subscribing to our newsletter below and read full explanations and study examples and sample texts in the Ultimate Guide .