tok prescribed essay titles 2023

May 2023 TOK Essay Prompts + SAMPLES and Suggestions

Table of contents

Writing Metier

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. The TOK essay can be quite a challenging one to write for most students. Therefore it’s extremely important to select a TOK essay topic that suits you better.

UPD! November 2023 TOK essay prompts released!

Most students struggle with the idea of writing a TOK essay since it can indeed be very tough owing to its different structure. Most students plan for days on end so that they can see just the proper structure in mind, with suitable examples so that they can give their best to what they are doing.

Btw… ⏩ We can write a ToK essay for you ⏪

To be able to score well, you need to plan accordingly. The idea is to make sure to do a great job and that can only happen when you know what exactly is expected of you and how you get through that. To better understand the TOK essay and have ample considerations, here is the list of TOK essay titles for May 2023 explained by professional IB writers.

You can get a few ideas from here about how you’re supposed to work on these. With these ideas, you are sure to do a sound job with your TOK essay . Furthermore, you will find links for 2 different May 2023 TOK essay samples that were written by our IB experts. Feel free to use them for inspiration.

TOK essay titles and questions for May 2023

Below you will find an updated list of TOK essay prompts for the May 2023. We have also added some suggestions from our expert TOK essay writers for your ease. Enjoy reading 😉

Is replicability necessary in the production of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

In this essay, it is important to focus on the world’s replicability. Next, the distinction between necessary and sufficient requirements need to be made. After that, the focus should be on how objectivity is related to replicability. You can give examples of several experiments that have been done and whether or not they have been replicated.

In line with your thought process, you can further work towards explaining that in further detail and making your point much clearer this way. Based on the examples you give, you can also talk about the different ways of knowing, which can help you explain this in a much better way, in line with the requirements of IB.

For artists and natural scientists, which is more important: what can be explained or what cannot be explained? Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.

With this title, you can see that there are two areas of knowledge already given. This means that you don’t have a free hand to choose topics yourself. You essentially have to differentiate between what can be explained and what cannot. Some things are easier to explain, whereas others aren’t. Using examples from art and natural sciences, you can offer your explanation here.

The examples you choose need to be as such that it makes it much easier for you to make that distinction. Once you do that, select your ways of knowing as well so that you can comply with the IB requirements .

Does it matter if our acquisition of knowledge happens in “bubbles” where some information and voices are excluded? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

In this essay, the main focus is on bubbles. The idea is to explore what bubbles mean in this context. We can see that “bubbles” here refers to knowledge that is subjective in all ways. The idea is to explore whether or not knowledge can be subjective in all ways or whether it can be objective as well. This is important to understand in all contexts first. Subjective and objective knowledge can be explored using different areas of knowledge.

However, the areas of knowledge should be selected based on the fact that it should be very easy to make that switch and understand how these two differ in context. Additionally, you can also shed light on what is required to share another person’s perspective on the situation. It is only once you know you can make that distinction as clear as ever.

Do you agree that it is “astonishing that so little knowledge can give us so much power” (Bertrand Russell)? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

In this essay, the main focus has to be on this quote given. The idea is to see how knowledge can give us power. We have always heard how knowledge can make us powerful. Here, the idea is to see how that can happen using several different examples.

One area of knowledge is already given. The other area of knowledge is up to your choice. So based on that, you need to choose examples that will help you understand this better. You can talk about how these two areas of knowledge have allowed us to make the most of our lives, which is how we have become so powerful.

Below you will find a May 2023 TOK essay sample completed by our IB experts at WritingMetier.com

TOK essay example - APA - Do you agree that it is “astonishing that so little knowledge can give us so much power” (Bertrand Russell)

Are visual representations always helpful in the communication of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and mathematics.

Here, the main focus needs to be on visual representation and how they represent the truth in most situations. The idea is to see what these visual representations are and how they allow for the communication of knowledge to happen in the best way possible. You also have to make the distinction between practical and theoretical knowledge here.

As you can see, two areas of knowledge are already given here: human sciences and mathematics. So you have to make use of these only and use relevant examples to explain this.

To what extent is the knowledge we produce determined by the methodologies we use? Discuss with reference to history and one other area of knowledge.

The main keyword here that you need to focus on is methodologies. You have to speak about what methodologies are and how they allow you to understand things in the best possible way. You need to use history as one area of knowledge, and you can choose the other area of knowledge yourself.

The idea is to help you understand this in the best way possible so that you can make a clear point about how the methodologies employed helped you get to this conclusion.

And again, sharing an example of an APA format IB TOK essay on title #6 that can be used as a guide. Yes, it’s also written by one of our expert IB TOK writers, and if you want, you can get assistance from these writers no matter the urgency of your task.

TOK essay SAMPLE - To what extent is the knowledge we produce determined by the methodologies we use?

If you might have missed some of the previous TOK essay titles with samples or topics for previous years, below I’m sharing the links.

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

Choose IB TOK essay topic wisely, my friend 😉

With these suggestions and explanations for each May 2023 TOK essay topic, you can write a good TOK essay! If you are facing tough deadlines and want someone to lend you a hand – WritingMetier.com is here to help.

You can always buy a custom TOK essay that will be written under your instructions and following one of the May 2023 prompts. Not forgetting about the latest changes in the IB criteria.

We can guarantee this because we have been in the IB writing services business for 4+ years now and have already completed hundreds of different IB papers. Order your essay now and get a 5% discount.

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.

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.

ToK Essay Titles November 2021 | Explained + SAMPLES

In this article, we will be talking about the six Theory of knowledge essay topics students enrolled in the IB diploma need to be aware of. Just like every year, this TOK November’s topics vary in different elements, and in this article, we will share descriptions about each topic which the students need to keep in their minds when selecting the essay topic for their diplomas.

30 Different TOK Presentation Topic Ideas to Succeed in IB

Given that the TOK essay's structure and the presentation are unlike others, students can find it challenging to proceed with it. You can only do well on the TOK presentation if you have an excellent idea.

AOK and WOK in TOK Essays | Detailed Guide

Areas of knowledge and ways of knowing are two essential concepts that you need first to understand before you begin working on these. To find out more about areas of knowledge and ways of knowing, continue reading!

How to Write a Good TOK Essay | Steps & Tips

What is a TOK essay? A TOK essay is also known as a theory of knowledge essay. It is usually written when doing an IB diploma. The essay is a comparative one that discusses problems using various different sources of knowledge. If you’re wondering how to write a TOK essay, then there are a few things that you need to keep in mind for it.

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

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!

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

The November 2023 titles for the IB Theory of Knowledge Essay have been released! Let's face it – the TOK essay can be very intimidating. With so many topics to choose from and so many ideas bouncing around, it can be hard to know where to begin. That's where we come in. In this post, we'll take a closer look at each of the titles and give you some tips for approaching them.

General Tips to Unpacking a Title

Whenever we approach a prompt, we always want to think in terms of perspectives and counter-perspectives (for those who are familiar with the old syllabus, these were previously known as claims and counterclaims). This allows us to structure the essay within the two selected AOKs, creating four paragraphs directly addressing the title and with consideration of varying perspectives on the title. While the final conclusion that we draw will likely lie somewhere in the middle, or argue that each perspective is more/less correct in different circumstances, it is often helpful to think of the two extremes first before trying to come up with a more nuanced conclusion.

So let’s get into unpacking them – here is everything you need to know about each of the November 2023 TOK Essay titles:

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

Recommended AOKs: Natural Sciences, Human Sciences, History

For this title, the perspective and counter-perspective are straightforward – either facts alone are enough to prove a claim, or they are not.

Some ideas to think about which support the first perspective:

Facts are objective – By providing objective evidence for a claim, facts can be a highly reliable form of evidence to support claims made by knowers. This objectivity allows for the same claim to be proven across time, in different cultures and by unique knowers.

Facts allow for conclusions to be drawn through logic – By combining an array of established facts, deductive reasoning can be utilised to draw conclusions about the world and produce new knowledge. Often facts form the premises from which knowledge claims can be made, allowing a knower to prove a claim by first establishing a series of interconnected facts.

Facts can be tested – This is particularly important for science-based AOKs which rely upon falsification as an important method of producing new knowledge. Since facts can be tested, the veracity of a knower’s claim is always available to be disproven by empirical evidence.

For your counter-perspective, you have a far greater degree of freedom in your discussion. This is where you can really differentiate your essay from others, as it is your job to decide which other important elements beyond facts alone may be necessary to prove a claim. Some ideas from us:

Opinions – Whilst opinions lack the objectivity of facts, they are often important to proving knowledge claims, as these claims are often unable to be proven by facts alone. Rather inferences must be drawn to create meaning from facts. This can be illustrated through a very simple claim: Imagine for instance that we were trying to prove the claim that Germany were responsible for World War I. Whilst we could drawn upon facts, such as the fact that they issued a blank cheque to Austria-Hungary or the fact that they invaded Belgium in August 1914, ultimately we rely upon the opinions of historians in making a judgement on how important this was in the context of the war.

Personal Experience – Whilst personal experiences only provide anecdotal evidence and cannot allow us to draw broader conclusions, they may be necessary to prove a claim which involves emotion or personal beliefs.

Creativity – Creative thinking may be necessary to prove claims, particularly in the sciences, where facts alone are insufficient. For instance, scientific theories, whilst based in fact, are often dependent on analogies, comparisons and metaphor to explain abstract concepts for which there may not yet be any measurable or empirical evidence.

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 far more intricate than the others, relying heavily upon the definitions you impose upon key terms. The concept of the “mathematician’s patterns” and the term “beautiful” must be defined in the opening of the essay, as this will restrict the scope of your knowledge exploration. The way in which we would recommend splitting up this topic would be to first discuss the impact upon the production of knowledge in mathematics and then within the Arts. Some ideas for the perspectives and counter-perspectives which you may explore include:

Beauty in Mathematics – You will want to consider the importance of beauty in Mathematics. This is not referring to beauty in the traditional sense but perhaps considering other ways in which Mathematics may be considered beautiful such as in its way of transforming complex real-world problems into simple symbols which can be solved. This can impact the production of knowledge as mathematicians may choose to ignore solutions which are complex and rough – in other words, ‘mathematically ugly’.

Beauty in Art – In discussing this AOK, you may consider the debate between aestheticism and purpose within the Arts – In other words, is Art merely supposed to ‘look good’ or does it have a greater purpose, and how does this relate to the production of knowledge in and through the Arts.

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.

Recommended AOKs: Human Sciences and Natural Sciences/History/Math

This title presents a very contemporary issue which is the questioning of experts and trust in the knowledge produced by experts. Nonetheless, there is a clear perspective and counter-perspective presented by this title – it is either more dangerous to follow experts unquestioningly or more dangerous to ignore them completely.

Some ideas relevant to the first perspective:

Evidence over Experts – By following experts unquestioningly, rather than examining the quality of their evidence and research methods, we fall into the trap of making arguments from authority without confirming that their conclusions are actually correct.

Subjective Experiences – While experts are helpful in drawing general conclusions/findings about the world, they do not account for subjective, individual experiences. This is particularly relevant in the Human Sciences, as theories and claims of human behaviour may not apply to all people due to the uniqueness of humans.

Lack of Progress – It is only by questioning established paradigms and claims made by existing experts that we are able to progress and acquire new knowledge. If all experts are followed unquestioningly, there can be no overhaul of existing knowledge when necessary.

Some ideas relevant to the counter-perspective:

Established Research Systems – Experts are trained in effective research methodologies and have systems to maximise the reliability of the claims they make. By ignoring experts, we are instead relying upon knowledge of laypeople whose claims have not been rigorously assessed for their veracity.

Manipulation and Logical Fallacies – By ignoring the claims of experts and instead acquiring knowledge through prominent figures such as celebrities and the media, we expose ourselves to manipulation and the array of logical fallacies employed by these individuals who have their own agenda beyond the dissemination of knowledge.

Knowledge Framework – Experts develop knowledge frameworks which can guide the production of new knowledge. By ignoring experts, we are often left to deal with problems on a case-by-case basis which can lead to a lack of consistency and structure within the knowledge which is acquired.

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.

Recommended AOKs: History, Arts, Human Sciences

This title has a focus on context and values, integral elements of the knowledge framework within the new syllabus. It also has two clear perspectives to be explored – the claim that it is problematic or the claim that it is not, keeping in mind that across both perspectives, it must be specified how knowledge is shaped by individual values.

Some ideas for the first perspective:

Bias – The shaping of knowledge by one’s individual values can create bias which may impede the reliability of knowledge produced through the lens of these values.

Subjectivity – If subjective beliefs founded in one’s values are imported into the production of knowledge which should be based on facts and evidence, this can be problematic for this knowledge.

Lack of Diversity/One-Sided Knowledge – When entire banks of knowledge are produced by individuals from the same background, culture, beliefs or school of thought, this can lead to the omission of other perspectives on an issue, which can limit the knowledge which is produced.

Individual Perspective are Important – It is often important for a knower to incorporate their own personal perspective in the production of knowledge as this is ultimately the only way in which interpretations and opinions beyond mere facts can be drawn.

Knowledge about the Knower – We can often learn more about a knower, their values and the social norms of their time when evaluating knowledge claims which are shaped by individual values, providing a second layer of ‘knowledge within knowledge’.

Specific Knowledge – Whilst not broadly applicable to people or contexts with different values, knowledge produced by those with particular individual values can be more specific and applicable to knowers within the same value system. This form of ‘insider knowledge’ may be shaped by the personal experiences of an individual, which is an asset to the production of knowledge rather than a hinderance.

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.

This title touches upon the debate between objective and relativistic views of knowledge and the world. The phrase ‘is it always the case’ allows us to derive two perspectives to explore – it either is always the case or it is not. The first perspective requires arguments which explain why this may always be the case, whereas the second only requires you to provide some exceptions/circumstances in which this would not be the case.

Interpretation creates Meaning – It may be argued that all elements of the world must be interpreted and doing so involves the unique lens of each individual knower. In this way, what we bring to the production of knowledge is our own distinct interpretation of the world around us.

Questioning creates Meaning – We could also consider how the questions which knowers ask are unique and based upon our own individual understanding of the world. This means that something new is created each time a new knower attempts to understand the world, as the questions asked and curiosity of each individual provides a distinct approach to knowledge.

Some ideas for the counter-perspective:

Objectivity Exists – It may be argued that there are some elements of the world which are fixed, unquestionable and objective. These components of knowledge are not dependent upon the interpretation of the individual, as there should be objective standards from which everyone should draw the same conclusion.

Repeatability – Particularly in the Natural Sciences, there are some elements of knowledge which are repeatable and not reliant upon the interpretation of the individual knower. This concept of repeatability is a foundational tenet of the sciences and the production of new knowledge of the world around us.

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.

Recommended AOKs: Natural Sciences and Human Sciences/History/Arts

This title questions the way in which we determine whether a piece of information is significant for knowledge. Since this is a ‘how’ question, there are many perspectives which can be explored, rather than a clear binary of perspectives. Some ideas from us:

Selection through Merit – This concept is particularly relevant to the Natural Sciences, as the theories which are ultimately deemed as significant are those which are not falsified. This merit-based approach pits scientific theories against each other to determine which are significant for the acquisition of knowledge.

Selection through Structure and Processes – By establishing set systems and procedures for filtering the vast amount of information available within an AOK, we can make selections as to which knowledge is significant.

Selection through Applicability – When judging what is significant for the acquisition of knowledge, a knower may have to consider the vast amount of information and decipher which piece of information is most applicable to their context, values or specific circumstances.

So there you have it! By now, you should have a better idea about which TOK essay title stands out the most to you and maybe even a few ideas about what to write. But where do you begin? Don't worry, we understand that writing a Theory of Knowledge essay can be a daunting task, but with the help of our expert IB tutors, you'll be on your way to success in no time. Plus, with online IB tutoring available, you can get the help you need from anywhere in the world. Don't let the TOK essay stress you out – contact us today to learn more about our IB tutoring services and how we can help you succeed in your IB studies.

IB Solved: Achieve Your IB Dreams and Secure Your Future!

Internal Assessment Guides

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

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:

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.

Author: John R. Butler

Retired Teacher View all posts by John R. Butler

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 .

EXPLAINED: May 2024 TOK Essay Prescribed Titles

What happened to this post? HackIB has been acquired by MyIBTutor . All content is now available on the MyIBTutor Blog with more exciting IB content to come! Click here to see it for yourself!

Looking for November 2024 Session TOK Essay titles? Click here.

TOK Essay Titles – May 2024 Examination Session

The titles for May 2024 are released! Here they are below:

Make sure to bookmark this page as I explain and provide examples for each of these titles in depth! UPDATE: Title 1, 2, 5 and 6 are now available. Stay tuned for more! For general guidance on how to write a good TOK essay, check out my TOK Essay advice collection .

Is subjectivity overly celebrated in the arts but unfairly condemned in history? Discuss with reference to the arts and history.

How can we reconcile the opposing demands for specialization and generalization in the production of knowledge? Discuss with reference to mathematics and one other area of knowledge.

Nothing is more exciting than fresh ideas, so why are areas of knowledge often so slow to adopt them? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Do we underestimate the challenges of taking knowledge out of its original context and transferring it to a different context? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Do we need custodians of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Are we too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

This title attempts to challenge students on the main school of thought that you learn over the TOK course. The gist of your TOK teaching on both of these AOKs probably boiled down to something like: everything is art and it’s just whatever the artist wants to create, while history is always biased because the winners always write all of history. However, this eliminates much of the nuance in each of these AOKs that are worth exploring. That’s what makes this prompt interesting.

Is subjectivity overly celebrated in the arts? I will be honest, I never thought we really ‘celebrated’ subjectivity. It just, was. Inherently, art is a subjective exercise – you can think about this point a little further. You will find some heated discussion on whether art is subjective or could it be objective on the internet and I won’t delve into that here, because it isn’t the point of this title. The key here is to focus on the EXTENT of subjectivity and is it to the detriment of the area of knowledge itself. Then, we have to consider, whose subjectivity are we talking about: is it the artist’s subjectivity, or the audience’s subjectivity. For example, the Mona Lisa wasn’t that well known when it was first painted. I’m sure the Da Vinci thought it was quite a nice piece, but it seems like we didn’t really celebrate his subjectivity. It wasn’t until a certain audience found it subjectively good, that we accepted it as one of the greatest pieces of art in the world! That is an example of how subjectivity is relevant in the dissemination of artistic knowledge. For a more modern example, what about your favourite YouTuber? Do they truly make what they want? NO! They are often beholden to sponsors, and you – the audience! What you want to see, is what they will make! So it is YOUR subjectivity that drives their decision to produce art, not necessarily purely their subjectivity. Subjectivity by definition is just a person’s opinions, emotions, thoughts. This connects well with the TOK concept of values. What VALUES and WHOSE values are determining what art is created (in a variety of contexts), how art is perceived, and how art changes in its reception over time? These are all good questions to ponder. For more unconventional examples about art, think about how museums choose what art to display, what constitutes good art for prizes like the Nobel Prize for Literature, or why some art is considered more expensive than others? Are there systematic ways to think about our subjectivity and how we apply it to art? Is it really overly celebrating subjectivity or simply a necessity to make sense of the abundance of artistic knowledge in a sea of information today?

History gets a bad rep in the TOK classroom. Students like to trash on History calling it biased and unreliable. In this prompt, I don’t want you to refute these claims, but just think about how they aren’t necessarily catastrophic as we might think. We aren’t denying that biases in history could be problematic. I would be suspicious too, if the only accounts of the Rohingya Genocide came from the Myanmar military. However, the word condemned in the title suggests that we might be too harsh on historians when they get things wrong. We should focus on how the historical method recovers itself from failures in biases from its sources. Yes, it might be biased, but is it better than no history? Furthermore, does subjectivity actually ADD value to the way we produce, and interpret historical knowledge? While I’m sure a completely objective, news story like report of what happened in 1886 would be a historian’s dream, that isn’t the case! No matter how objective we try to be, we colour the events we experience by our own opinions, feelings and emotions. But isn’t that history in itself? In an almost cliched way, history’s subjectivity tells us more about what happened in the past and their beliefs and values more than words could ever say.

In both the historical and artistic discussions, you should focus more on the methodologies of these AOKs and how they achieve their AOK’s purpose. Subjectivity manifests in different ways in these AOKs and their methodology reflects that. In the overt awareness of subjectivity in the Arts, its method to produce knowledge is characteristically defined by subjectivity. In History, the method is to identify the covert influences of subjectivity, then to produce the most truthful knowledge possible. You can see that the goals of these two are different, and hence they deal with subjectivity differently. Don’t fall in the trap of focusing your discussion too much on your examples, but generalise to the patterns of how subjectivity manifest in your AOKs and whether their treatment of it is problematic.

It is crucial, when writing the essay for this prompt, to clearly define in your introduction what specialisation and generalisation means. DO NOT use the dictionary definitions here – since this is a TOK Essay, you want to make a TOK version of specialisation and generalisation, in terms of how these two things differ in the production of knowledge. Clearly defining the two in this way will form a solid foundation for you to have a nuanced discussion on this process of reconciliation between the two. The prompt hints at the competing demands on knowledge of specialisation and generalisation – i.e. you might not be able to produce knowledge in the same way if you were aiming for specialisation versus generalisation. So, this provides a point of contrast for you to choose examples and frame your discussion. Remember, the idea of competing demands is an ASSUMPTION, not an argument posed by the question. You should focus on how your chosen examples demonstrate a way to balance the interests of both and reach a ‘middle-ground’ rather than arguing that specialisation or generalisation are compatible with each other. TLDR: Don’t challenge the assumption.

For the first AOK of Mathematics, you should have encountered many personal examples just from your study of IB Maths. Most of your learning has been on generalisation, and the application of such generalisations. For instance, you learn about Calculus, a general topic within Mathematics, and then apply it in various contexts. Mathematicians love generalisations – that Calculus you learned? Well, the definition of a derivative generalised for all functions could be summarised by the first principles of derivatives function that HL AA students learn. You would have less interaction with specialisation of Mathematical knowledge. In a broader sense, the specific components of mathematics, cannot be separated from the general. You can’t solve calculus problems without the fundamental theorem of calculus. However, you could argue that the fundamental theorem of calculus didn’t need calculus problems to exist. Thus, an interesting dilemma arises in Mathematics – the generalisation could be produced, without a particular need for specialisation, but specialisation often calls for generalisation to first exist.

Looking at the latest mathematics research, you will find that applied mathematics is most common. Rarely do you see people get excited by new discoveries of solutions to elliptical curves, but more do when you tell them a new mathematical model to improve our prediction of the weather. We may place greater value on specialisation of knowledge, because we could see its usefulness more immediately, but, the Area of Knowledge does not require such specialisation to produce knowledge. So, do we encourage people to produce knowledge with the goal of specialisation in mind, or do we tell them to produce whatever theoretical generalised mathematical knowledge they can? Look to how mathematics is applied to Quantitative Finance, Econometrics, and Actuarial Science. They specialise mathematical knowledge and provide for some of the most lucrative careers. Does that speak to our preference and demand for specialised knowledge? But then again, what of the interdependence between generalisation and specialisation? How do we balance the two and how does the methodologies of the AOK contribute to this balancing act?

For the second, complimentary AOK, you could have discussions with all of the AOKs. For the Sciences, you could present a similar argument about needing to have some general theories before you could specialise. The scientific method is essentially one big generalisation process – you take specific observations and you make inferences so that you can generalise about some natural process. However, the knowledge that produces need not be general, it can still be specific. If we take specialisation as the goal, then we could pose narrow hypotheses to test. If we take generalisation as the goal, then we might need multiple of these narrow hypotheses to form a full picture, testing each individual case. Thus, specialisation could lead to specialisation alone, but more often, generalisation is the result of many specialisations.

One last question you might want to consider and attempt to answer in your essay is, do you want to know something about everything or everything about something? The answer to that will depend on your AOK. While we want to know about everything on everything, that is simply not reality. So, what trade offs do we make in each AOK, and how does each AOK decide on what we need to know more on?

You might be able to appreciate how long it takes ideas to actually be implemented in reality by looking at the recent Nobel Prize winners for Economic Sciences. The winner of the 2017 prize was Richard H. Thaler, for his contributions to behavioural economics. He explored the impacts of limited rationality, social preferences and the lack of individual self-control on economic decision making on an individual and market level. He started these findings from the 1980s, but it is only recently, in the 2022 revision of the IB syllabus that Economics students learn about the field of Behavioural economics in any detail! So why is it so?

To some extent, it is hard to criticise things for moving slowly. After all, new discoveries like behavioural economics represents a fundamental paradigm shift towards the way research is conducted in the particular AOK. Often times, fresh ideas are left to “ferment” so that their truthfulness can be tested with time. Nothing is more embarrassing than going down a rabbit hole only to find that your assumptions turned out to be monumentally incorrect. Even if we are making a big shift in light of new ideas towards the way we produce knowledge, doing so takes time! For many years and still now, we rely on strong assumptions of rationality to make economic models function. While the psychology of such behaviours are well researched, applying them to an Economic setting may not be. That is to say, it is important to consider how these new ideas arise, and what effect it has on existing knowledge, and the way we produce future knowledge. New ideas is simply new knowledge, but with the added implication that it has some effect on the existing knowledge within an AOK. It could potentially change how we view current knowledge, or how we conduct research given a particular discovery.

In the AOK of the human sciences, which broadly follows the scientific method, you could drawn some inspiration from the philosopher Thomas Kuhn’s view of scientific progress. He argues that within a period of “normal science” where we make incremental progress under the assumption of an overarching model, but there comes a point where we notice accumulation of imperfections with such a model that leads to new paradigms – new ideas, that fundamentally change how we do science. Then we undergo a sort of scientific revolution, where there are debates and decisions made over what sort of model we need to follow, until everyone eventually accepts the new paradigm and returns to a normal science period so that continual small improvements are made to knowledge, until another paradigm shift happens again. While you are not expected to demonstrate such strong philosophy knowledge within the TOK Essay, it is helpful to consider how each AOK handles such ‘revolutions’. For instance, it is harder to irrefutably find falsities in human sciences given the difficulty in replicability and corroborative studies compared to natural sciences.

As for complimentary AOKs, any would suit here, as each AOK has a very different way to handle new ideas. Many factors influence the way new ideas is accepted. For this title, we need to take the assumption that their acceptance is slow, not argue with it. Instead, you should consider what factors influence this slowness, and how different AOKs have different factors in mind when deciding how to accept new ideas. This relates to the nature of the AOK (what is its purpose) and the methodology guiding knowledge production in them.

Have you ever said something that sounds very weird out of context? That might have just been something silly with no real consequences, but in the realm of knowledge, we need to be careful about the consequences of knowledge taken out of their original context. This article highlights how the context of medical treatment matters a lot! As you can imagine, something that works in one field, doesn’t always apply in a straightforward manner to another. This is why there are whole research teams dedicated to what we call “translational research”. That is, trying to “translate” what you get from something like a lab setting, into actual products, like life-saving medications.

The obvious links to AOKs here are the Natural and Human Sciences. For Natural Sciences, we often start off knowledge production in a lab setting, or in a controlled environment. However, the application of such knowledge is rarely as controlled! So an interesting point to consider is how natural scientists have to account for the fact that their findings won’t ever be used in as perfect a setting as their research. Sure, you might have developed bullet proof wood , but how is that going to work in practically when it comes to mass manufacturing it for the army or the police? This is one of the biggest challenges that natural scientists face. It’s not that we aren’t trying to produce exciting knowledge, but that the application of such knowledge in a practical and appreciable context is often very difficult. Something like the mRNA technology (which recently was awarded a Nobel) took a long time to be developed into actual vaccines. The question then is, do we underestimate this process? Often it depends on the goal of the scientist. If the knowledge producer set out with an idea to commercialise in mind, then they would often consider the practical implications of findings. However, people studying theoretical physics for example, would struggle to immediately find very accessible real life implications. That doesn’t mean the knowledge is worthless, but certainly, the challenges are there.

What about non-scientific disciplines? Recently, I went to an art exhibition that trend Van Gough’s paintings into a 3D digital display. There was a Banksy exhibition that took the original murals he painted on the street, into this museum environment. Does changing the context of how art work is shown, and the manipulation of artistic knowledge change its meaning? What is the goal of transforming art into a different context? There are many reasons. Sometimes, it is to create satire (have a look at the parodies of the Mona Lisa), bringing old art onto a new audience (like VR exhibitions of Da Vinci), or simply making it more accessible to people (by making art works digitally available). The producers of these adapted forms of knowledge take great care in considering how this impacts the meaning of the art in its changed form. When artwork is so subjective, the context of art is often required to understand the artist’s meaning and intention, to ‘interpret’ works accordingly. At the same time, as we know art is quite subjective, is a ‘correct interpretation’ always required? If we are to remain artistic purists, then many of the joys of art could be lost! Imagine if you were admonished for listening to Taylor Swift through Spotify on your AirPods because it isn’t the original uncompressed music file with all the details, and you aren’t listening to it on the exact set of thousand dollar speakers it was created with? It would be ludicrous to assume that artistic knowledge is always going to be disseminated in the same context. Thus, this must be a consideration of artists. Is this consideration more or less difficult for different types of art? How is this consideration different to science considering there is no ‘right’ answer to interpreting art?

When thinking about this title, we aren’t arguing whether it is difficult. I think we all agree it is. However, it is about whether we underestimate just how difficult it is! Center your focus on how each AOK’s methodology highlights the consideration of being able to change contexts, and whether that affects the interpretation of the knowledge in question.

The term ‘custodians of knowledge’ is not something TOK students have likely heard of before, but this concept is relatively simple to understand. If you think positively about it, it could be protectors of knowledge, people who preserve knowledge, keeping it for generations to come – for example, some people might consider the Indigenous Peoples’ in Australia to be custodians of their unique cultural knowledge and what they call dreamtime stories. In this way, they keep culture alive, even if most people nowadays speak English and don’t readily tell their history. However, thought about negatively, it could also mean “gatekeepers’ (pardon the Gen Z language) of knowledge. The idealogical “protection” of knowledge could also be seen as a way to prevent some forms of knowledge from becoming knowledge in the first place. Talk to any university academic, and they will tell you how many times their research papers have been rejected. That’s why there is a bias towards statistically significant results, while research that showed that nothing significant has happened doesn’t often get published. Thus, these two contrasts provide for interesting discussion, particularly when considering how each AOK has different forms of custodians of knowledge and how they “gatekeep” or “protect” knowledge in different ways.

Take the AOK of the arts as an example. The career of artists are laughed upon because it is so hard to “break in” to the fine world of art. Many artists aren’t acclaimed until they are long dead. Perhaps most famously, the Mona Lisa wasn’t very well known until several hundred years after it was made. Thus, artists are often at the mercy of custodians of artistic knowledge like art curators and critics, who decide what merits acknowledgement as knowledge. After all, knowledge is only knowledge when there is consensus it is. And if the big wigs in the art industry doesn’t think it’s worth a mention, your art, however brilliant it seems to you, would not reach the consensus required to be considered knowledge. Of course, there are debates on the necessity of custodians in such a subjective AOK. After all, there were many times I questioned how some “artworks” even made it into the modern art museum when it’s literally splashes of paint on a canvas. I digress. However, there is something to be said about maintaining some form of standard to art. We judge whether some art is good or bad, but not in a very rigorous way. Custodians of knowledge supposedly have a framework to make such judgement in a way which preserves the nature of the AOK, and the knowledge within it. Therefore, discussion about the necessity of the custodians should focus on how they contribute to the purpose of the AOK, and whether it is compatible with the nature and methodologies of the AOK.

To further illustrate what I mean, you could see that Natural Sciences might present a stronger argument to the necessity of such custodians. We implicitly “trust” science, for better or for worse, because we know that there is a level of credibility imbued by the scientific method. It is the custodians’ role to maintain the standard of adherence to the scientific method that keeps this credibility alive. This is why, when flat earthers argue that they can’t see the curvature of the earth from the horizon, that it doesn’t get published in a scientific journal as fact! This is why, when research emerges that denies the existence of climate change, custodians have a responsibility to retract such research . However, at the same time, it also places much pressure on producers of such knowledge to create something worthy in the eyes of custodians. You might have heard of the data manipulation scandal that forced Stanford’s president to resign. Thus, custodians do appear quite important in this AOK, when we value the truthfulness of knowledge so much, but that isn’t without its consequences.

I recommend picking two contrasting AOKs that value much different things when writing the essay. While comparison is not a requirement for the essay, it gives you a more nuanced understanding of the question and thus a more reflective piece. For instance, we have just demonstrated that art is relatively subjective, while the sciences are less so. Thus, this influences the role which custodians need to play in each AOK.

The framework to answering this title for many students will follow a similar structure: an example of when novel evidence was accepted and had groundbreaking impacts, and another example where such evidence was problematic and disputed. Repeat this for the second AOK you choose and you’ll have 4 contrasting examples. This is not the only way to approach this title, but is my personal preference considering the structure I suggest to most students that ensures firstly, you will pass the basic criteria of a TOK Essay, and secondly, you will have a strong foundation to succeed. However, since everyone will have a similar style and collection of examples, it is even more important for this title, that you tease out the meaning and the effect on each area of knowledge, and knowledge in general, that your examples represent.

To demonstrate what I mean, let’s focus on two natural sciences examples. First, consider the case of “Cold Fusion”, a theory that you could supposedly have nuclear fusion at room temperature, discovered and subsequently debunked in 1989. A contrasting example, could be recent Nobel Prize winner of Medicine and Physiology, for the research on mRNA vaccines. Immediately, it is obvious that one shows where recent evidence isn’t the strongest, while the latter shows that it could be. But the focus should be on are we TOO QUICK in assuming so, not whether we should or not. Well, what are the reactions and timelines for each example? While Cold Fusion was met with excitement from the general public for the potential it holds for energy production, I wouldn’t say we ‘assumed’ it to be strong. Looking at the news reports from that time, you can see that there was great anticipation about the discovery, leading to lots of sudden funding and interest to investigate it and replicate it. As for mRNA, that discovery took a long time! First the technology, and the getting it to not appear foreign to the human body was very tricky. Even after it was discovered, we waited quite a while, with many people’s first experience with mRNA to be their COVID 19 vaccine. What you need to draw from these two examples is the methodological similarities and differences which reflect the NATURE of Science, and thus, the purpose of science. You see in both how there is an emphasis on replication which corroborates or falsifies, and only after doing so for a long time do we accept it to be true, otherwise it is debunked. So yes, there are moments where Natural Sciences provides strong compelling evidence that ends up false, there are many hurdles with in the methodology of the Natural Science that prevents us from being TOO QUICK to assume it to be true.

For this prompt, it is too easy to fall into the debate of why something was true or why something was false and tricked the population. This is not the point of the essay. You should avoid talking about the specifics of your examples at length. You need to demonstrate how your examples reflect the wider methodologies of the Natural Sciences (and similarly, for your second AOK) that either encourages or discourages our assumptions that novel evidence is always best. As you can see from my examples above, I focused on how such assumption does not happen too quickly because there are many ways we verify scientific knowledge to be true. I don’t discuss the specifics of the actual science behind Cold Fusion or mRNA as that isn’t required. You are better off focusing on the methodologies behind the AOKs themselves and answering the question.

Some interesting complements to the Natural Science AOK could be History (particularly focusing on revisionism and how historical events could be interpreted differently over time), Mathematics (how could the methodologies differ and are there ‘mistakes’ in Maths), or even Human Sciences (replication is a bit more difficult with that!).

How To Write A ToK Essay - Updated 2023

Ace your ToK Essay with our expert tips & tricks! Get the latest and greatest techniques on "How To Write A ToK Essay" and impress the IB examiners.📝💡

Table of content

Introduction

Purpose Of ToK

Assessment of tok, the game plan, execution of the gameplan, planning for tok essay, structure of tok essay, conclusions, bibliography.

Introduce your topic accurately and state your thesis statement for the essay carefully. A thesis statement is like a teaser to your entire essay wherein you define your key terms and introduce your interpretation of the question. Make sure that you do not reword the prescribed title in your thesis. Instead, it needs to, as the word says, INTRODUCE your readers to what your essay is about. A strong introduction allows the reader to deduce what knowledge question(s) you are trying to answer.

So, in a nutshell

Write interesting things about the given TOK essay title .
Define key terms
Narrow in on the particularly interesting aspect
State your thesis statement . This will be your short answer to your given title if you don't know how to write a killer thesis statement check out this blog from SparkNotes .
State your Roadmap. This will help the readers in understanding the direction of your essay.

How to write a TOK Essay?

To answer that, you must familiarise yourself with what a TOK Essay is about.

Before you start reading this article, Amanda has some excellent TOK tips for you!

Theory of Knowledge is one of the most meta subjects that IB offers. Despite its complexity, TOK helps in providing a base for holistic learning and allows students to have a multidisciplinary experience.

To understand TOK is to understand the essence of IB, a task that most people consider unattainable.

But not for you!

Thank your lucky stars who made you land on Nail IB. How exactly will Nail IB help you?

Well, nailing International Baccalaureate is something we will discuss later.

Let's focus on cracking your TOK essay, shall we?

TOK demonstrates how students can apply their knowledge with greater awareness and credibility .

Big words, huh?

Now that we know that we cannot just slide through the Theory of Knowledge, let's understand how we can conquer this battle all guns blazing.

ToK essay’s primary objective is to answer the why behind our studies.

It makes one aware of the real-life implications of their subjects. The students gain greater awareness of their personal and ideological assumptions and appreciate the diversity of different perspectives. It helps the students find their unique perception, a prerequisite for excelling in the IB TOK essays.

Before we dive into our gameplan, let’s overview the rules of the game.

There are two assessment tasks in the TOK: an essay and a presentation . While a presentation encourages students to explore a real-life situation through the lens of TOK, an essay is written on the basis of the various questions provided by the International Baccalaureate Organisation.

The presentation is to assess a student’s ability to apply TOK thinking to a real-life situation whereas IB TOK essay is more conceptual.
The essay is externally assessed by IB and must be on any one of the prescribed TOK essay titles issued by the IB for each examination session.
Word limit of a TOK essay is 1600 words ( excludes extended notes, footnotes, bibliography).

Now that we have unleashed the game, let’s move ahead towards the gameplan of acing both, your presentation and your essay.

One of the fundamental tasks of TOK is to examine different areas of knowledge and find out their similarities and differences.

The TOK essay requires the students to investigate two Areas of Knowledge (AOK) and two Ways of Knowing (WOK) . AOKs and WOKs are investigated via questions such as:

How do we know what we know? (WOK)
What counts as evidence for X? (AOK)
How do we judge which is the best model of Y? (WOK)
What does theory Z mean in the real world? (AOK + WOK)

The aforementioned are Knowledge Questions which help combine the Areas of Knowledge and the Ways of Knowing that they are using. This eliminates the superficial way of learning and makes an individual sensitive to the nature of the information. Our acquisition of Knowledge can be broadly divided into Shared Knowledge and Personal Knowledge.

Shared knowledge: What WE know It is the product of more than one individual. Although individuals contribute to it, shared knowledge does not solely depend upon the contributions of a particular individual—there are possibilities for others to check and amend individual contributions and add to the body of knowledge that already exists.

Personal knowledge: What I know It is essentially dependent on the experiences of a particular individual. Also known as procedural knowledge, it is gained through experience, practice and personal involvement and is intimately bound up with the particular local circumstances of the individual such as biography, interests, values, and so on.

The best hack to ace TOK essay is to develop a habit of making connections between the construction of knowledge, its acquisition and its relevance in the real world.

After that one needs to develop an interest in understanding the difference between diversity and cultural perspectives and personal assumptions.

One also needs to critically reflect on their own beliefs and assumptions, leading to more thoughtful, responsible and purposeful lives.

Yes, this is what you signed up for. It may sound a little intimidating but once you get the hang of it you will be able to see the matrix and understand this beautiful world a little better.

Understand that to provide the best version of your writing, it will take you more than one or two drafts. First and foremost, you need to pick your essay topic diligently. Try to choose an essay topic that best interests you. The topic should also allow you to explore the Areas of Knowledge towards which you are naturally inclined. Here are a few sample questions:

a) 'Ways of knowing are a check on our instinctive judgments.' To what extend do you agree with this statement?

b) With reference to two areas of knowledge discuss the way in which shared knowledge can shape their personal knowledge.

c) How can we know if knowledge is produced more through 'Passive Observation' or 'Active-Experiment' within the Human and Natural-sciences under a Mathematical-Perspective?

d) "The whole point of knowledge is to produce both meaning and purpose in our personal lives". Assess the validity of this statement.

Great things take time. It took me more than a couple of weeks to finalize this TOK essay guide. It is completely okay if the first few drafts may not look pleasing or award-winning to you. You will require sharpening your perspective towards the topic each time you polish your draft. Your writing journey from a dull draft to a masterpiece will be a whole process that you will have to be patient with. Have faith in yourself and proceed stepwise.

You need to consider the opinions of others who have devoted hours of research and a lifetime of dedicated studying the topic that surrounds your writing. Unravelling the realms of your mind palace is so Sherlock but let’s not deny the fact that at times, Watson is the one whose expertise helps Sherlock through pretty difficult times. I mean even Batman needs a Robin. In support of my awesome sauce examples, the point I am trying to make is that finding support for our claims and counterclaims through research is a good thing .

Use real-life examples to support your claims and counterclaims. These examples need to be documented researched examples like studies, experiments, articles, presentations by well-known people, etc. Examples that stem from your diploma subjects are highly encouraged, but those will need to be supported by research as well.

It is suggested that you choose a title, stick to it, tackle it and not be afraid. Do not change your mind unless there is a good reason. Also, try choosing Areas of knowledge that you truly enjoy. You know slaying a known devil is much easier than an unknown one. Allot a TIMELINE to your essay. Start with creating an outline of your essay. This will help you to track your progress and accomplish your goals

You can use tools like Trello to organize your ideas and plan your TOK essay.

Areas of Knowledge (AOKs): TOK distinguishes between eight areas of knowledge. They are mathematics, the natural sciences, the human sciences, the arts, history, ethics, religious knowledge systems, and indigenous knowledge systems. It is suggested that students study and explore six of these eight.

Ways of knowing (WOKs): TOK identifies eight specific WOKs- language, sense perception, emotion, reason, imagination, faith, intuition, and memory. It is suggested that studying four of these eight in-depth would be appropriate. WOKs underlie the methodology of the areas of knowledge and provide a basis for personal knowledge.

Moving ahead, let us discuss the structure of your TOK essay.

Your essay will consist of 4 broad segregations

Before breaking down further on the pillars, keep the following in mind

Please note what the TOK essay title is asking you. (Read it a couple of times. We highly recommend that you brainstorm ideas with your TOK coordinator)
Make sure you understand the command term and the question it is asking.
What kind of knowledge is being elicited?
When choosing your areas of knowledge (AoK) and ways of knowing (WoK) make sure that you are able to draw contrasts and comparisons, that is, you are able to find evidence that supports as well as challenges your claims.
Identify key terms in your TOK essay title. Make sure you define them. Your essay will gravitate around them. Key terms/words in your titles are your essay anchors. Your response should be built around them.
Your writing skills come in handy while you work on your IB TOK essay. Like any other essay make sure you have proper thesis statements and topic sentences to guide the evaluator through your work.
Respect the TOK essay title. Rephrasing the topic is not encouraged . Your main job is to address the title.

The body can be mainly divided into 3 segments.

Body (1st Segment)

AoK Claim: Here you investigate your first Area of Knowledge and draw parallels between your AoK and the question. This is done by stating your claim. Claims can be general in nature and need not reference a particular area of knowledge. They help you shape your essay and investigate the question further.
Evidence: Example of a real-life situation, describe thoroughly and accurately, which supports your stated claim. (AoK)
Counter-Claim: State your counter-claim: like claims, those can be general and need not reference a particular area of knowledge. Counterclaim helps you show the other side the coin and gives your essay a holistic nature.
Evidence: A referenced real-life situation/example. Describe thoroughly and accurately, show how this supports your counterclaim (AoK ).
Don’t forget to weave in your WoKs: You need to take into account the source of your knowledge. Here you can also investigate if your nature of acquiring the knowledge has, in any way, affected it. It is good practice to question if your knowledge would be different had it been acquired through a different source/method
Mini-conclusion: Here you analyze your examples in reference to your claims and counterclaims. You must connect to your thesis statement and the prescribed title. How does your proposed argument, in this particular part of the body, connect to the prescribed title and the knowledge questions you are trying to answer?

Body (2): Follow the above process for your second AOK.

Use this part of your essay to compare and contrast your varying AoKs. You need to connect them to your thesis and your prescribed title clearly showing how your arguments respond to the PT.

Your conclusion section will make your essay come together. It is the glue that will make your essay stick together. Herein, you need to

Reiterate your thesis (initial response).
Use your mini conclusions to write a final conclusion.
Tell the reader what the significance is for knowing what we know in this particular PT.
Discuss implications as well.
Offer another perspective, how will the perspective of a different person affect the claims/counterclaims you make in the essay?
Don’t forget to make the end strong.

We recommend all the ib students use the citation machine (It's FREE) to organize or generate a bibliography for your TOK essay. Please go through this extensive guide provided by the IB before you start working on your citations.

If you are still struggling heaps with your TOK essay feel free to subscribe to our tok notes bundles or get access to more than 500+ IBDP notes and past papers here .

Nail IB is your virtual companion that helps you hustle through your diploma and provide you with the right resources at the right time. To know more about acing IB, click here .

I hope this article will become the foundation for figuring out how to write a TOK Essay.

Remember to have faith in yourself.

I hope you NAIL your TOK essay!

Quoting the great Napolean Hill

"Whatever the mind of a man can conceive and believe, it can achieve."

IB Resources you will love!

55234 + free ib flashcards, 136 + free ia samples, 3962 + ib videos by experts, 20099 + ib sample practice questions, ib resources for 30 + subjects.

May 2023 TOK essay prescribed title #3 – key terms

Published by author on september 25, 2022 september 25, 2022.

Once you get the set of prescribed titles for your cohort, the first step is going through each one and analyzing the key terms.

3. Does it matter if our acquisition of knowledge happens in “bubbles” where some information and voices are excluded? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

“ Does it matter ” – Make sure that your essay clearly answers this question. Your investigation of different AOKs and different specific examples throughout your answer may lead to multiple answers to the question which is perfectly fine. Your essay does not have to have one definitive answer to this question – in fact an essay that has one definitive answer to this question is likely flawed.

“ Acquisition of knowledge ” – This phrase shows up quite frequently in TOK essay prescribed titles. (FYI another phrase that shows up often is “production of knowledge”). Consider how knowledge is acquired in different AOKs and in different specific examples.

“ bubbles ” – Consider different ways that different AOKs can operate in “bubbles” and exclude “some information and voices.” For example, some traditional arts may try and set up barriers to prevent the traditional art from changing. This can act in a positive way and the knowledge of traditional art may be passed on relatively unchanged. From a negative point of view though, a traditional art that sets up barriers may prevent it from evolving along with other aspects of culture and it may be viewed as stagnant and out of date.

In other examples, criminology (the human sciences) has been making more use of mathematics and statistics and has been trying to include more information and ideas. More and more police forces are using mathematical / statistical models to learn more about crime to better prevent and solve crimes.

“ some information and voices are excluded ” – If you are considering May 2023 TOK Prescribed Titles #3 for your TOK essay may sure to examine a number of relevant specific examples that show how where “some information and voices are excluded.” You will need examples that show both that it matters and does not matter if the information and voices are excluded.

May 2023 TOK Prescribed Titles #3 and #1 are the only two where students have freedom to choose any two areas of knowledge.

May 2023 tok essay prescribed title #3 specific example – indigenous people of northern japan.

Article: “Japan’s forgotten indigenous people” http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20200519-japans-forgotten-indigenous-people In the Japanese school curriculum (set by the central government in Tokyo) there is very little time and space spent on the Ainu, an indigenous group that has almost Read more…

May 2023 Prescribed Title #1

May 2023 tok essay prescribed title #1 specific example – japanese myth on the birth of japan..

The extract below is a translated Japanese creation myth in an ancient text named Kojiki. The original text is written in an type of writing that the vast majority of modern Japanese people cannot read. Read more…

May 2023 TOK essay prescribed title #4 specific example – photo of an execution during the Vietnam War.

Eddie Adams’ iconic Vietnam War photo: What happened next https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42864421 Consider the different aspects where is there “a little knowledge” regarding the photo and the actual incident. Then look into the larger question that is Read more…

Privacy Overview

Mastering ToK Essay Structure: A Comprehensive Guide

December 5, 2023
Student Support , ToK Essay

Introduction to ToK Essay Structure

December is the busy essay writing season for May session schools! I’ve been reading ToK Essays from students all over the world in which I am frequently seeing problems of structuring the ToK Essay effectively. This post aims to address the often-asked question, “ How do I structure my ToK Essay? “

The International Baccalaureate (IB) doesn’t prescribe a single structure for the ToK Essay. They require that you “ provide a clear, coherent and critical exploration of the essay title ” (IB ToK Essay Assessment Instrument, 2020) Achieving this requires a well-thought-out structure that fosters clarity, coherence, and critical exploration. Let’s break down the essentials that every ToK Essay should include, regardless of the chosen title or structure.

Essential Elements of ToK Essays

Knowledge Arguments (or Knowledge Claims): For each Area of Knowledge (AoK) considered, formulate at least one main knowledge argument or claim.
Real World Examples: Illustrate your knowledge arguments with real-world examples, which may also include evaluation points.
Evaluation Points: Consider alternative viewpoints to your knowledge claims. These are crucial for a balanced and critical exploration.
Implications: Reflect on the implications of your arguments and any conclusions you reach.

These four elements are non-negotiable in any ToK Essay.

Essential & Useful components of a ToK Essay

Additional Components for Enhanced Essays

Definitions of Key Concepts: Best integrated within your knowledge arguments.
Thesis Statement: A sentence summarizing the essay’s main argument. Typically found in the introduction, it helps organise your arguments and maintains coherence.
Unpacking the Prescribed Title (PT) in the Introduction: Offer your interpretation and explanation of the essay question here.

For a more detailed exploration, refer to my e-book, “ How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps ” linked here

Common ToK Essay Structure

A widely used structure, found in about 75-80% of ToK Essays, looks like this:

This structure is effective for most Prescribed Titles and can lead to high scores.

Alternative Structure for Deeper Analysis

Some students opt for a different approach:

Alternative ToK Essay Structure for deeper analysis

This structure cleverly uses the Knowledge Argument against PT in AoK 2 as evaluation points for the argument supporting PT in AoK 1. This method allows for a more in-depth comparative analysis and potentially higher scores.

Remember, the optimal structure for your ToK Essay is one that enables you to “provide a clear, coherent and critical exploration of the essay title”. For further assistance with essay structures and content, consult my e-book “How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps” or detailed notes for each ToK Essay this season (links in the video description).

Embarking on your ToK Essay journey with a clear understanding of its structure is key to success. Happy writing, and remember, the path to knowledge is as much about the journey as the destination!

Stay TokTastic,

Daniel, Lisbon, Dec 23

Watch the YouTube video: