TOK: Love or Hate?

[dessskris]

do you like TOK? or do you hate it? or are you just okay with it? and WHY?

I myself hate TOK very much. maybe it's because I have a bad teacher, or because I am naturally bad at it. or maybe even because the prescribed titles are all not interesting IMO.

what about you guys? how do you feel towards TOK?

[TurtleR]

TOK itself seems pretty interesting, and I would normally like it, but I voted OK because I personally feel it's a waste of a course...I could easily use that time for another subject, or, better yet, a spare!

[MR.AHM]

I hate TOK and I agree with TurtleR because I prefer using that time to study another subject and worse than that I have physics HL before TOK and Math HL level. So before I get into the maths class my mind is already ****ed up by TOK.

And in TOK they teach you things that you know but you are not aware of. like paradoxes and paradigm shift. They just fill you up with new big words that you can't even read. and concepts that you will not use after you graduate. maybe just in philosophy or something related...

I wish I can do this as my TOK presentation

[TurtleR]

I hate TOK and I agree with TurtleR because I prefer using that time to study another subject and worse than that I have physics HL before TOK and Math HL level. So before I get into the maths class my mind is already ****ed up by TOK.

And in TOK they teach you things that you know but you are not aware of. like paradoxes and paradigm shift. They just fill you up with new big words that you can't even read. and concepts that you will not use after you graduate. maybe just in philosophy or something related...

I wish I can do this as my TOK presentation

^^^That's one thing I forgot about. For a subject like TOK, which is so involved in "breaking definitions" (e.g. How do we know what we know, what is true, blah blah blah), the subject itself involves a lot of definitions and words used that are just more stuff to memorize...

[MR.AHM]

The first lesson I got into the TOK class, we were just looking at the teacher as she says "TOK will help you know how to know and what to know?"

we were like huh... and I said how do we know that TOK will help us? She said common sense... From the first lesson we were scr***ed badly...

The worst problem is the teacher is always right even if we bring solid proofs to contradict with her. And she always say we have to debate, what is the point of the debate if we are always wrong even if we didn't say anything.

But I like one thing about the TOK lesson is that we make fun of the teacher when she start talking about mathematics and other sciences. And we always contradict with her. And make funny presentations

[CkyBlue]

LOL, I'm a bit surprised that I'm the only person so far that is in love with the course.

I myself hate TOK very much. maybe it's because I have a bad teacher, or because I am naturally bad at it. or maybe even because the prescribed titles are all not interesting IMO.

Having a bad teacher or being bad at the course isn't really a good reason for hating TOK! Well, if you aren't interested by nature then I have nothing to say against that. We all have our preferences. But doesn't that go against one of those weird IB learner profile qualities?

I personally feel it's a waste of a course...I could easily use that time for another subject, or, better yet, a spare!

I appreciate TOK, since it is like an easy english class. You're just speaking your mind and arguing about tri-not trivial, but things that people take for granted in life. TOK is here because we learn to acknowledge some of the things people ignore. When IB students take TOK, they will develop something apart from kids that don't take the philosophy course, the openness of the mind, and the ability to look at things from the origin, and from different perspectives. We analyze knowledge itself, its strengths and limitations, and the ways of knowing. We adapt a better sense of what is true or false, and sometimes this makes all the difference in some point of our lives.

Then again, Kelso, my TOK teacher, will let us sleep in class and her angry spazzing is my taken form of amusement. All we do is make some stuff up in our essays and discussions and she'll leave us be. It is the only course in which I feel comfortable, and actually catch a breath.

I'm one of those people that actually thinks about life whenever I have a chance. I believe the more I do this, the more insights will be developed by me and I can come to some conclusion about some important, general truths in life. So the TOK classroom is sort of like a second home to me.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Pickles

[TurtleR]

LOL, I'm a bit surprised that I'm the only person so far that is in love with the course.

I myself hate TOK very much. maybe it's because I have a bad teacher, or because I am naturally bad at it. or maybe even because the prescribed titles are all not interesting IMO.

Having a bad teacher or being bad at the course isn't really a good reason for hating TOK! Well, if you aren't interested by nature then I have nothing to say against that. We all have our preferences. But doesn't that go against one of those weird IB learner profile qualities?

I personally feel it's a waste of a course...I could easily use that time for another subject, or, better yet, a spare!

I appreciate TOK, since it is like an easy english class. You're just speaking your mind and arguing about tri-not trivial, but things that people take for granted in life. TOK is here because we learn to acknowledge some of the things people ignore. When IB students take TOK, they will develop something apart from kids that don't take the philosophy course, the openness of the mind, and the ability to look at things from the origin, and from different perspectives. We analyze knowledge itself, its strengths and limitations, and the ways of knowing. We adapt a better sense of what is true or false, and sometimes this makes all the difference in some point of our lives.

Then again, Kelso will let us sleep in class and her angry spazzing is my taken form of amusement. All we do is make some stuff up in our essays and discussions and she'll leave us be. It is the only course in which I feel comfortable, and actually catch a breath.

I'm one of those people that actually thinks about life whenever I have a chance. I believe the more I do this, the more insights will be developed by me and I can come to some conclusion about some important, general truths in life. So the TOK classroom is sort of like a second home to me.

The reason I think its a waste of a course is because I'm going to a class to do stuff that I already do in my free time. I do think about things and frequently reflect, but I fail to see why I should give up potential education for a course that doesnt even get marked and yet still requires written work. If TOK is all about questioning and developing oneself and others, then doesnt putting TOK content into an organized classroom format defeat the purpose?

As MR.AHM said, TOK, as a class, can easily have people who don't truly appreciate TOK, including the teacher. With this, I don't think TOK can be fully enjoyed.

[MR.AHM]

Tell me one truth that you learned from TOK... everything is common sense. Why on earth you need to learn how to learn or know what to know?

You just learn the thing and you will know why you want to learn... You don't have to learn it in depths how to know that something is true or not using emotions or reason.

To what extent is something ethical? you are in a shop and there was a fire and you grabbed something... It is stealing thus it is unethical... Common sense, you don't have to stick with your teacher as she say it depends we need to use logic blah blah. We used our logic already before you tell us. We are aware of that before she teaches that

and another thing is this: If there was a tree in the forest and it falls and there was no there that were to hear it or see it, is there any sound?

First of all. How on earth do you know it falls. and in physics it was proved that there will because sound is vibration and something falling must vibrate the air and the ground when it falls...

TOK sometimes tries to make us be prejudice and make us suspect on theories that are solidly proven and experimented and works well. But yet they want to say is it totally correct.. Its like they seek for perfection which doesn't exist

[CkyBlue]

The reason I think its a waste of a course is because I'm going to a class to do stuff that I already do in my free time. I do think about things and frequently reflect, but I fail to see why I should give up potential education for a course that doesnt even get marked and yet still requires written work. If TOK is all about questioning and developing oneself and others, then doesnt putting TOK content into an organized classroom format defeat the purpose?

As MR.AHM said, TOK, as a class, can easily have people who don't truly appreciate TOK, including the teacher. With this, I don't think TOK can be fully enjoyed.

TOK puts that reflective exercise is a formal course. Your reflections and thinking will be even sharper and what you learn is by the experience of professionals (at least I hope), who have come to legitimate concepts that you will be learning. I never knew TOK doesn't get marked... are you sure about that?

O.o Yes I still think you can develop yourself in a classroom, why not?

Seeing people that hate TOK, and being surrounded by an environment that hates TOK is a bad excuse for hating the course yourself, and not appreciating the true qualities of philosophy. Such reasons for not liking something is giving in to peer pressure, making yourself a weak-willed person.

[TurtleR]

The reason I think its a waste of a course is because I'm going to a class to do stuff that I already do in my free time. I do think about things and frequently reflect, but I fail to see why I should give up potential education for a course that doesnt even get marked and yet still requires written work. If TOK is all about questioning and developing oneself and others, then doesnt putting TOK content into an organized classroom format defeat the purpose?

As MR.AHM said, TOK, as a class, can easily have people who don't truly appreciate TOK, including the teacher. With this, I don't think TOK can be fully enjoyed.

TOK puts that reflective exercise is a formal course. Your reflections and thinking will be even sharper and what you learn is by the experience of professionals (at least I hope), who have come to legitimate concepts that you will be learning. I never knew TOK doesn't get marked... are you sure about that?

O.o Yes I still think you can develop yourself in a classroom, why not?

Seeing people that hate TOK, and being surrounded by an environment that hates TOK is a bad excuse for hating the course yourself, and not appreciating the true qualities of philosophy. Such reasons for not liking something is giving in to peer pressure, making yourself a weak-willed person.

Well, it DOES get marked, but what I meant is that it isnt a course that you can get a 1-7 in like the others, theres only the possibility of getting an extra point on the diploma, which would be useless if TOK didn't exist as an IB requirement.

My point is that, I personally don't think I'll be able to develop myself in a classroom because TOK in a classroom format is so centered around defining things while simultaneously challenging definitions. As I said before, for a course in which you keep questioning, how does it make sense to keep creating definitions when I already question things in my own way of thinking?

I don't hate the philosophies and concepts behind TOK; actually, I love them. However, I hate the fact that TOK is a requirement of the IB, meaning that we have to take it in a class along with other students that either don't contribute to an active learning environment, or are overly enthusiastic yet misunderstand the actual point of the course, thereby resulting in circular debates that go nowhere.

As I said, I already do many things similar to what TOK claims to teach, so why should I be forced to take the class? And for the record, "being surrounded by an environment that hates TOK is a bad excuse for hating the course" isnt true. If the class and environment is bad, hating the course makes a lot of sense. Hating the SUBJECT itself on the other hand, doesnt.

[MR.AHM]

TOK puts that reflective exercise is a formal course. Your reflections and thinking will be even sharper and what you learn is by the experience of professionals (at least I hope), who have come to legitimate concepts that you will be learning. I never knew TOK doesn't get marked... are you sure about that?

O.o Yes I still think you can develop yourself in a classroom, why not?

Seeing people that hate TOK, and being surrounded by an environment that hates TOK is a bad excuse for hating the course yourself, and not appreciating the true qualities of philosophy. Such reasons for not liking something is giving in to peer pressure, making yourself a weak-willed person.

I can't believe I am saying this but TOK told us that to an extent we are shaped by other people...

But if you are in a classroom were they all hate TOK, the probability of you hating it is very high and most likely.

I appreciate philosophy and thinking but TOK isn't what we expect. It is not very good and as I explained they teach you stuff you already know but unaware of. I mean you use deductive reasoning always before you learned it in a TOK class... They should teach us new things... Maybe techniques of how to study well or something like that that enhances us academically or socially. Like teach us we need to benefit from what is around us. We need to pick the good things and then by reasoning we can know. But they just tell us that this is inductive and this deductive and give us example and make us evaluate things like the one I said.

Edited September 2, 2011 by MR.AHM

[CkyBlue]

Tell me one truth that you learned from TOK... everything is common sense. Why on earth you need to learn how to learn or know what to know?

You just learn the thing and you will know why you want to learn... You don't have to learn it in depths how to know that something is true or not using emotions or reason.

To what extent is something ethical? you are in a shop and there was a fire and you grabbed something... It is stealing thus it is unethical... Common sense, you don't have to stick with your teacher as she say it depends we need to use logic blah blah. We used our logic already before you tell us. We are aware of that before she teaches that

and another thing is this: If there was a tree in the forest and it falls and there was no there that were to hear it or see it, is there any sound?

First of all. How on earth do you know it falls. and in physics it was proved that there will because sound is vibration and something falling must vibrate the air and the ground when it falls...

TOK sometimes tries to make us be prejudice and make us suspect on theories that are solidly proven and experimented and works well. But yet they want to say is it totally correct.. Its like they seek for perfection which doesn't exist

Geez, I don't like the fact that I'm defending TOK against three people. Someone help me. Not that I need help

I don't learn truths about the world from TOK. TOK teaches me to be more of an analytical thinker. It helps me make more reflective thoughts that ultimately make me come to what I conclude about things.

And if what you are saying is true, why would IB even introduce a "common-sense" course. Your examples of "what is ethical" and "is there any sound" are only what we talk about in an introduction. When TOK goes hardcore, we go into sources of knowledge, how to conclude what is ethics, what is truth. Even if that seems simple for you, TOK goes even further, as the learner becomes more open, and more aware and appreciative of different perspectives of different people, even considering their background, gender, and personal experiences; they all could play a role in a person's final argument and view of a matter. The classroom experience provide this for the IB candidate, as simply thinking things on your own gives leeway to personal bias. On the contrary, TOK does not make us prejudiced.

[TurtleR]

Tell me one truth that you learned from TOK... everything is common sense. Why on earth you need to learn how to learn or know what to know?

You just learn the thing and you will know why you want to learn... You don't have to learn it in depths how to know that something is true or not using emotions or reason.

To what extent is something ethical? you are in a shop and there was a fire and you grabbed something... It is stealing thus it is unethical... Common sense, you don't have to stick with your teacher as she say it depends we need to use logic blah blah. We used our logic already before you tell us. We are aware of that before she teaches that

and another thing is this: If there was a tree in the forest and it falls and there was no there that were to hear it or see it, is there any sound?

First of all. How on earth do you know it falls. and in physics it was proved that there will because sound is vibration and something falling must vibrate the air and the ground when it falls...

TOK sometimes tries to make us be prejudice and make us suspect on theories that are solidly proven and experimented and works well. But yet they want to say is it totally correct.. Its like they seek for perfection which doesn't exist

Geez, I don't like the fact that I'm defending TOK against three people. Someone help me. Not that I need help

I don't learn truths about the world from TOK. TOK teaches me to be more of an analytical thinker. It helps me make more reflective thoughts that ultimately make me come to what I conclude about things.

And if what you are saying is true, why would IB even introduce a "common-sense" course. Your examples of "what is ethical" and "is there any sound" are only what we talk about in an introduction. When TOK goes hardcore, we go into sources of knowledge, how to conclude what is ethics, what is truth. Even if that seems simple for you, TOK goes even further, as the learner becomes more open, and more aware and appreciative of different perspectives of different people, even considering their background, gender, and personal experiences; they all could play a role in a person's final argument and view of a matter. The classroom experience provide this for the IB candidate, as simply thinking things on your own gives leeway to personal bias. On the contrary, TOK does not make us prejudiced.

Three people?

You mentioned that TOK teaches you to be more of an analytical thinker, but thats only for you. One could easily argue that instead of making an effort to become an analytical thinker on your own, you're using TOK as an excuse to do it while wasting what could have been valuable class time, no?

And as for personal bias, that can occur even in a TOK environment if you still refuse to accept ideas. TOK is not an instant "become open and analytical" course. Furthermore, I try to avoid personal bias as much as I can on my own by discussing ideas and concepts with people I consider to be equally analytical, which is why I consider a classroom environment for TOK to be impractical because the chances of me discussing concepts and ideas with someone as open-minded and analytical as I would like is very unlikely.

[CkyBlue]

TOK puts that reflective exercise is a formal course. Your reflections and thinking will be even sharper and what you learn is by the experience of professionals (at least I hope), who have come to legitimate concepts that you will be learning. I never knew TOK doesn't get marked... are you sure about that?

O.o Yes I still think you can develop yourself in a classroom, why not?

Seeing people that hate TOK, and being surrounded by an environment that hates TOK is a bad excuse for hating the course yourself, and not appreciating the true qualities of philosophy. Such reasons for not liking something is giving in to peer pressure, making yourself a weak-willed person.

I can't believe I am saying this but TOK told us that to an extent we are shaped by other people...

But if you are in a classroom were they all hate TOK, the probability of you hating it is very high and most likely.

I appreciate philosophy and thinking but TOK isn't what we expect. It is not very good and as I explained they teach you stuff you already know but unaware of. I mean you use deductive reasoning always before you learned it in a TOK class... They should teach us new things... Maybe techniques of how to study well or something like that that enhances us academically or socially. Like teach us we need to benefit from what is around us. We need to pick the good things and then by reasoning we can know. But they just tell us that this is inductive and this deductive and give us example and make us evaluate things like the one I said.

Again, WEAK-WILLED. I am not going to stop liking a school course because my peer hate it. I would not stop loving my mother even if the whole world hates her.

Yes, TOK teaches us things we already use but take for granted. Is developing an appreciation of something as useful as that bad? When we become more aware of things that play an important part of our lives we never realize we will become even more efficient in it.

Studying well? Is that something we all don't know how to do? Your social life is up to you. If you want things to change, change things in your life. Is that common-sense enough for you?

And what you said up there is by no means "just" what TOK does.

[MR.AHM]

Geez, I don't like the fact that I'm defending TOK against three people. Someone help me. Not that I need help

I don't learn truths about the world from TOK. TOK teaches me to be more of an analytical thinker. It helps me make more reflective thoughts that ultimately make me come to what I conclude about things.

And if what you are saying is true, why would IB even introduce a "common-sense" course. Your examples of "what is ethical" and "is there any sound" are only what we talk about in an introduction. When TOK goes hardcore, we go into sources of knowledge, how to conclude what is ethics, what is truth. Even if that seems simple for you, TOK goes even further, as the learner becomes more open, and more aware and appreciative of different perspectives of different people, even considering their background, gender, and personal experiences; they all could play a role in a person's final argument and view of a matter. The classroom experience provide this for the IB candidate, as simply thinking things on your own gives leeway to personal bias. On the contrary, TOK does not make us prejudiced.

Well, I am not generalising for all TOK content. There are good things in TOK that you learn as you said like the sources of knowledge. However, is it a requirement, aren't you able to think or comprehend things around without TOK. What I mean TOK is not essential and most of it common sense. and you know, just few things maybe. If you removed TOK from IB, it wouldn't matter if it never existed. But Maths or physics and any other subject you can't replace. Because they teach you things new and make you think more about it and makes you excited more.

However, if TOK was replaced with Philosophy would've been much better as a subject but harder. Yet you will start to learn something sensible.

I always ask my teacher is maths invented or discovered? She doesn't know actually, but how can you answer this question or even comment on it as a TOK student... I tried to use my TOK, but didn't help. You may say reason, but reason comes with everything.

[CkyBlue]

Tell me one truth that you learned from TOK... everything is common sense. Why on earth you need to learn how to learn or know what to know?

You just learn the thing and you will know why you want to learn... You don't have to learn it in depths how to know that something is true or not using emotions or reason.

To what extent is something ethical? you are in a shop and there was a fire and you grabbed something... It is stealing thus it is unethical... Common sense, you don't have to stick with your teacher as she say it depends we need to use logic blah blah. We used our logic already before you tell us. We are aware of that before she teaches that

and another thing is this: If there was a tree in the forest and it falls and there was no there that were to hear it or see it, is there any sound?

First of all. How on earth do you know it falls. and in physics it was proved that there will because sound is vibration and something falling must vibrate the air and the ground when it falls...

TOK sometimes tries to make us be prejudice and make us suspect on theories that are solidly proven and experimented and works well. But yet they want to say is it totally correct.. Its like they seek for perfection which doesn't exist

Geez, I don't like the fact that I'm defending TOK against three people. Someone help me. Not that I need help

I don't learn truths about the world from TOK. TOK teaches me to be more of an analytical thinker. It helps me make more reflective thoughts that ultimately make me come to what I conclude about things.

And if what you are saying is true, why would IB even introduce a "common-sense" course. Your examples of "what is ethical" and "is there any sound" are only what we talk about in an introduction. When TOK goes hardcore, we go into sources of knowledge, how to conclude what is ethics, what is truth. Even if that seems simple for you, TOK goes even further, as the learner becomes more open, and more aware and appreciative of different perspectives of different people, even considering their background, gender, and personal experiences; they all could play a role in a person's final argument and view of a matter. The classroom experience provide this for the IB candidate, as simply thinking things on your own gives leeway to personal bias. On the contrary, TOK does not make us prejudiced.

Three people?

You mentioned that TOK teaches you to be more of an analytical thinker, but thats only for you. One could easily argue that instead of making an effort to become an analytical thinker on your own, you're using TOK as an excuse to do it while wasting what could have been valuable class time, no?

And as for personal bias, that can occur even in a TOK environment if you still refuse to accept ideas. TOK is not an instant "become open and analytical" course. Furthermore, I try to avoid personal bias as much as I can on my own by discussing ideas and concepts with people I consider to be equally analytical, which is why I consider a classroom environment for TOK to be impractical because the chances of me discussing concepts and ideas with someone as open-minded and analytical as I would like is very unlikely.

You, Mr.Ahm, and Desy.

TOK as a waste of time? Would a world wide recognized academic organization really induce something like that?

Yes, perhaps that is only for me. The people who don't appreciate TOK, well that's their loss. They are choosing to remain closed and to themselves. TOK is valuable class time to me. I am benefiting from TOK. More than people who choose to hate TOK, who are the ones that are truly wasting their time in the course.

Personal bias can occur in ANY environment. I could refuse to accept 1+1=2.

As for the peers in a classroom, people in general set their personal filters, using their built system of logic and morality to do that. You take in what is seems good, and reject what you deem bad. I am not going to listen with much intent regarding those who put up weak arguments. Even if you are exposed to that, you have the good logic to ignore it. I am sure there is at least a few people in that class that are as open-minded and as analytical as you, or even better. So if you think discussing concepts in the TOK classroom effectively is unlikely, it tells me you cannot even filter out what is good information, and what isn't.

[MR.AHM]

Well you are kinda right about the classroom mates. They are open minded but we hate the subject because when we talk about it looks a bit weird and the is a problem because when we argue. We argue not as TOK-ist, but we rather argue as mathematicians or physicist. Something that we learned and stuck in our head. But in our Class TOK start to make us feel like what if what we learned is not true. Well it got to be true because we use them in daily life like one apple + one apple is definitely two apples. so 1+1=0.

The other problem is that in every proposition they always use the word "if". what if? extra. Well we don't want to think what if it was wrong when we prove to the teacher and TOK it is true. And they say how is it true? and we give them details like experiments or things that we say in our daily life.

However, I am not a complete of hater of TOK, sometimes their "if"s are good because they don't suspect things that we have solid proof on them.

For example. Fermat last theorem was proved in the last century by an English mathematician. Fermat wrote on the margin of the book that he proposed the theorem that he can prove it but the margin doesn't fit. Here we can debate whether he didn't know the answer or chose to mislead us by pretending that the margin doesn't fit. Or that he really does have a proof

If he does have a proof, then there must be another way of proving Fermat last theorem. Because the English mathematician proved it by theories and conjectures that are proposed in the mid 20th century. So he don't know about them as it is a new field in mathematics. So that only type of TOK I liked, but generally TOK is not beneficial. And I would've been able to deduce and come out with this without going to a TOK class

[dessskris]

I don't hate the philosophies and concepts behind TOK; actually, I love them.

what he said.

oh well, I can't say I LOVE them but sometimes they can be interesting to me. I read the past year TOK titles and there are some that interest me, but I just hate the fact that my teacher never teaches us anything and he expects us to understand TOK and write the essay in a short time period. I don't know nothing and I have to be assessed for something I do not understand?! WTF! you know what we do in class? watch videos, read newspaper articles, debate on general issues, complete worksheets that are not related to TOK at all... he never taught us the WOKs and AOKs... and textbook and online resources don't always help! I can't be self studying this **** forever.

if we're not learning anything I'd say we better don't have the classes... I'd rather have CAS time to complete my forms etc

[CkyBlue]

You guys are substituting the limitations in the course as a reason to hate TOK. In reality, Desy, and TR, you really enjoy the essence of TOK.

[TurtleR]

You guys are substituting the limitations in the course as a reason to hate TOK. In reality, Desy, and TR, you really enjoy the essence of TOK.

Where have you been? Have you read my comments at all?

I don't hate the philosophies and concepts behind TOK; actually, I love them.

That's what I said. I enjoy the essence of TOK. However, too many limitations are on the course. I told you, I hate the COURSE.