Talons Philosophy

An Open Online Highschool Philosophy Course


Mr. Jackson’s Magical Sense-Making Aura – Katherine

This midterm is brought to you by Mr. Jackson’s Magical Sense-Making aura, aka the phenomenon where you think you know nothing about philosophy, then you talk to him and everything makes sense  and he basically tells you everything you know and you’re like “oh yea! I DO know that!” gives you three new questions and then leaves you and you just sit there going what.

Anyways, here’s my syllogism:

P1: Knowledge can be rationally determined

P2: Knowledge needs to be empirically confirmed in order to be true

Conclusion: Therefore, True knowledge is when we synthesize what is in our heads with our sense       experiences, and conform our innate knowledge.

Now let’s try and explain this bastard. Hold on to your hats, we’re gonna learn.

excited seinfeld lets go cosmo kramer it's time

P1: Knowledge can be rationally determined

To explain this, let’s go to math. To start off: I hate math. I’m pretty bad at it too nowadays. But way back when, I sued to be pretty good, especially when it came to my multiplication tables. I had those suckers memorized in beginning of grade 2. Thing is, we started in math using little blocks, putting two blocks with two blocks to show 2+2=4. But for these, I didn’t need to get five groups of five blocks to know 5×5=25. I could, and that would prove it, but rationally knew it.

Rational knowledge also deals with predictions, persistence, and substance. I can predict that if I drop a pencil off the table, it will fall. I don’t need to see it every time to know it will happen. I know if I sharped a pencil, even if the properties have changed, it is still the same pencil. I know happiness doesn’t have substance but that my desk does, just like I know that I, as a being with substance, am separate from the chair I sit on.

Rational knowledge, yo. Its pretty tight.


P2: Knowledge needs to be empirically confirmed in order to be true

I normally view knowledge as a collection of experiences that we get when we are exposed to the outside world and those around us, as we learn from each other and or environment, whether we are being taught how to read or we learn what color purple is or knowing that space is infinitely larger and more complicated than we can ever comprehend.

This is where my good friend Descartes comes in. If we can’t empirically confirm something, how can we know for sure that it is true? (Actually, Descartes would argue that since our sense lie to us, it STILL might not be true, but I don’t like him). See, things that we cannot empirically confirm could be true, but we just have no proof.

Conclusion: Therefore, True knowledge is when we synthesize what is in our heads with our sense       experiences, and conform our innate knowledge.

Basically, we blend the two together and that, as far as I can tell, is the closest approximation that I have to “True Knowledge”

justin bieber bieber learning wisdom growth

Dudes Who Helped me:

Image result for emmanuel kant

So, this guy is Emmanuel Kant. What a guy. Look at that face! He looks like he just saw something he’s mildly disgusted by but can’t wait to use it as blackmail. My kind of guy.

Anyway, my man Kant is one of my favorite cause he took all my worries about Descartes and nothing being real and essentially defenestrated them. See, Kant believes in a unified consciousness – merging sense experience with our minds. He’s also a fan of my good friend Bundle theory. He believes that merging our empirical evidence with our innate knowledge to unify them is what lets us see “the big picture”. His ideas and views on philosophy basically shaped my syllogism – thanks dude.

Small shoutout to Descartes: I still kind of hate him, but he has some good points. He shaped my second premise, so thanks, you bastard confusing old man okay guy.

How does this all connect? Well, my friend, lets skip back and look at one of my first ever blog posts: Plato’s Cave, aka the Cave is Gay.

So, at the tender age of 12, all my previous experiences had led to the conclusion that I was Heterosexual ™. I had crushes on boys, pictured marrying a boy, gossiped about them with my friends and all that jazz.

then came the innate knowledge, or sense experience part: I realized that I felt some of the same things for girls. No one had “taught” me what crushes or feelings were, yet I recognized the same feelings in relations to girls, and other genders. I wanted to date them, too. Huh.

Now for the empirical knowledge: I started learning new words, like bisexuality! I started doing research and learning about different forms of being queer and different identities, proof that these feelings were real! Yay!

Basically to conclude this all: Descartes sucks, I’m gay, and blend your thoughts like I blend my foundation.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *