Talons Philosophy

An Open Online Highschool Philosophy Course


Knowledge & Information

To begin, allow me to explain my definition of Knowledge and Information.

Knowledge is the information perceived and interpreted by any living creature. All living beings have one or another way of doing things. For example, by reading this, you are collecting information about this very subject, therefore you are obtaining information and turning it into your own knowledge. Information is anything that can be perceived and interpreted. Information is stored in all beings. Information by itself cannot be knowledge. Information can be seen as raw materials, while knowledge can be seen as being processed information.

Premise 1:

All living beings contain knowledge, which they have learned from other beings with knowledge or information.

Premise 2:

All objects, animate or inanimate, contain information, and all knowledge is obtained from information.


Information, stored in objects, are the source of knowledge, and knowledge is within all living beings.

Living beings all do something. It can be as complex as building a spacecraft to as simple as propagating. Some beings are born with knowledge, such as birds, for they inherit the information of their parents. Knowledge can also be garnered by observing other beings with knowledge. When an instructor teaches his or her students, the students are observing the knowledge the instructor has. This can be seen as a transfer of information, since the teacher and students won’t perceive it identically. This is the critical difference in information and knowledge, for there is only one kind of information, but there are multiple if not infinite ways of perceiving knowledge.

Information is everywhere and anywhere. Information makes up the perceived universe. Information by itself is not particularly useful, for it cannot work on its own. It would be trying to fuel a car with raw unprocessed fuel or coal.Some information is beyond perception by living beings.

Knowledge may come from other knowledgeable beings, received at birth, or learnt from a source of information, but the conception of that knowledge all come from information, not from another being. However, knowledge can be changed in such a manner that the original source of knowledge may be completely different.

In conclusion, information is the foundation of all things,and living beings operate out of the knowledge they have garnered. There cannot be a living being without knowledge, and there is nothing without information within them.



The glass house of religion, the snake eating its own tail


San Bernardino, California. London, United Kingdom. 2 most recent terrorist attacks in the west, all over the news. Fox news, vehemently accusing all Muslims of being a terrorist. Donald Trump, suggesting that all Muslims be banned from USA. Little do they realize the biggest source of terrorism in North America is White Christian Extremists, and that most Muslim terrorist attack other Muslims in Muslim countries. The forgotten war in the Central African Republic, where the Muslim Seleka slug it out with the Christian Anti-Balaka. The seemingly endless wars in the Middle East, where the “religion of peace” chops people’s heads off for their god. As I have said before, how are these religions taken so seriously by so many after we see all these hypocrisies? Perhaps some explanation by famous philosophers will make clear of this situation.

Helen H. Gardener, a famous author and philosopher. said,

Every religion must be tried at the bar of human justice, and stand or fall by the verdict there.

It has no right to crouch behind the theory of “Inspiration” and demand immunity from criticism.

Yet that is just what every one of them does. They all claim that we have no right to use our reason on their inventions.

But evil cannot be made good by revelation, and good cannot be made evil by persecution.

What she tries to explain in her quote is that religion should and must be something that we should be able to critic. Nothing should be forbidden from criticism. There is nothing to hide behind the wall of “beliefs” if your religion is truly what you claim it to be.

To end this in a more humorous tone, allow me to end this with a quote from the internet.

Religion is like a P****.

It’s fine to have one.

It’s fine to be proud of it.

But please don’t whip it out in public and start waving it around,

and please don’t try to shove it down people’s throats.



Religions, Contradictions, Ignorance, Hypocrisy.

In the modern world, where we have the internet, satellites, aircraft, smart phones and ICBMs, it is said that around 84% of the human race has one kind of religion or other. In a world where we can see the obvious faults and cracks of religion, most of the world still believes in a mythical sky patriarch who hates homosexuals and mixed clothing. Religion has and continues to play a huge part in politics, society, and even in our daily lives. Most of the so called religious do not even know what is written inside their holy books; and yet when you criticize their religion they will lash out at you.

How have religions survived into the modern era? There are nearly endless amounts of flaws evident in religions, from child molestation to downright religious massacres, and yet, nothing changes. Religions have seemingly become so natural to our daily lives that we care not for what it is. It has become a tradition, a force of social pressure. Religion has become entwined with culture, and as the world develops, it is finding it difficult to separate itself. Studies and reports have and continue to show that religion is not what it claims to be and yet, religious people will glance over them, minimize the faults and eventually ignore it. If we were to look at religions in a calm, logical manner, it is obvious that it is false, yet we believe to fill in the gaps of our knowledge, gaps which have been created out of ignorance and stupidity.

Even if there was no contradictions and hypocrisy, which one is right? Is Islam the one true religion? Christianity? Judaism? Sikhs? Hindus? Buddhists? We’ve flown through skies, we’ve dug deeper than we could have possibly imagined. Where is evidence of anything? Where is heaven and hell, and how do they work? Holy books change all the time, how do they work? Religions have always and will break it’s own rules.  

In the modern era we live in, faith and belief should not overcome fact. That is a fact.




Is Justin Trudeau Anti-Western Canada?

One of the biggest elections of Canadian history has finally ended, with an unexpected winner.

This election has been described as being a gruesome, grueling, and a painful 78 days, the longest election season since the 19th century.

Justin Trudeau, the leader of the Liberal party of Canada, has won the General Elections of 2015, and despite being called unprofessional and too green to be prime minister, he is expected to form a majority government soon. This is a far cries from the 2011 elections, when the Liberals were shrunk down to just 34 seats.

Surprisingly enough, Canadians have seen a Trudeau sitting in the Prime Minister’s seat before. His father, Pierre Trudeau, had been the Prime Minister of Canada back in the 1970s and the 80s, so can we expect the same policies from Justin, that is to say, seemingly anti western Canadian politics?

Why was Pierre Trudeau Anti-Western Canada, I hear you ask? It was a little thing called the NEP, also known as the National Energy Program. In the 70s, the wars in the Middle East and Canadian support of Israel had caused an oil Embargo from OPEC, causing a huge gas shortage and inflation.

Back then, Canada had something called the National Oil Policy, which imposed oil import quotas only west of the Ottawa Valley while allowing free imports east of it. The result of OPEC’s embargo meant that Western Canada, which did not support Trudeau’s party, could enjoy lower prices compared to Eastern Canada, where Trudeau’s support base was.The situation was unacceptable for the Liberals, since that meant the people who voted for them would have ended up paying much higher fuel prices than those who voted against them.

NEP allowed the government to control the gas prices of the entirety of Canada, and forced the west to subsidize for the east.


This infuriated the Western Canadians, especially Albertans. Mr. Trudeau’s answer?

Why, a good third finger salute. And judging by the 2015 election polls, Albertans haven’t forgotten about it.2015-FederalElection








(It seems to me that thesedays, elections are won by fancy hair. Who’s next in line? Trump?)

Now, Justin has not yet given the Western Canadians a middle finger salute yet, but he has made some suspicious comments.

According to Mr.Trudeau, he has often criticized Alberta for control of the oil sands, and had stated for Quebec biased policies.

For example, look at these articles and you will see that Justin has had a fair few accidents talking to media outlets.

So let’s take a short while to look at his policies:

“Canada isn’t doing well right now because it’s Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn’t work,” he told a French television interviewer. Asked if Canada would be better served with more Quebecers than Albertans in power in Ottawa, Trudeau smiled and added, “I’m a Liberal, so of course I believe that.”

“we have 24 senators from Quebec and there are just six from Alberta and six from British Columbia. That’s to our advantage.”

According to those statements, we can garner this:

#1: Justin considers Quebec to be his home province and he wants more advantages for it.

#2: He is against Alberta’s control of the oil sands and the other western Canadian provinces holding power.

Therefore, it can assumed that Trudeau will increase or maintain power of Quebec while reducing or maintaining the unrepresentative status quo of Canada.

To be partial, the comments were made 2 years ago, and he has since rescinded from his comments. However, it can not be overlooked either.

Whether you love him  or not, Justin is here to stay for a while.



Logic and Neutrality

The author of the article Logic and Neutrality states in his article that the concept that logic is a neutral umpire is totally wrong. He states that logic itself can be a debating point for philosophers, and that logic have and continues to help us solve philosophical questions. I agree with the author of the article in that logic can help us solve questions, but I think logic is not something that can be argued. I find logic to be a fact; you cannot argue a fact, for facts are something that cannot be changed unless our perception of the fact was wrong in the first place. Unless our view of logic is wrong, I do not think logic can be arguable.

The power of logic is a chain of logical reasoning made by connecting a few simple axioms of logic. by simple using logic, it can solve seemingly unanswerable questions, and it proves that logic is not a neutral umpire.

Logic is not a neutral umpire because it can and does solve questions. It is not a middle man that tells us it is neither A nor B. By using logic, we can find answers by removing the answers that are illogical. Therefore, logic cannot be neutral because it will give us answers.

The author challenges the reader at the end of the article, asking, us to see the close similarities between logic and science, and to try to find a distinctive identity of logic.

According to the author, logic is not just a controversy-free zone, and that if restricted to uncontroversial principles, nothing would be left. No principal, even logic, is above challenge. Logic can give us infinite answers or no answers, and the strength of logic is what makes it similar to science.

The author of the article views science like philosophy. He believes everything can be debated on it’s meaning, and that nothing is controversy-free. He seems to note that science is so strong that it is obvious when there’s a flaw, since a flaw can be seen with a simple counter example.




What is Philosophy? Philosophy is Space Exploration.

Recently, we had a project with the question, “What is Philosophy?” This is my script; I will provide a link to the Prezi presentation.


In this ever expanding universe, we humans have only managed to survive on Earth. Human knowledge is comparable with the amount of this universe we have managed to colonize. There are seemingly infinite amount of questions to every answer we may or may not find. The same can be said of philosophy. We use philosophy in an attempt to answer the questions we cannot answer with science, and to look at a scientific answers in a different manner.

Why is this video important and how does it relate to philosophy? Just as this video announces that our understanding of mars has changed, so can our ideas of philosophy.

So what is the similarities of space exploration and philosophy?

  1. Starting both events require large amounts of effort and preparation
  2. There is an acceptance that there will always be the chance that it will go wrong
  3. The path to finding the answers are many and complicated
  4. There is no ultimate end goals or a finishing line
  5. We search for things that we many not even be capable of understanding
  6. Every answer we find lead to even more questions
  7. The fact that our current knowledge seems so vast and yet in comparasion with the rest of the universe is so small.
  8. Most people in this planet can barely understand if at all of any of this study, yet we try to simplify it and make presumptions of it.
  9. We ignore, mock, devalue, and fight the progress of these studies.
  10. The studies we have can and will change as we find out more about the subject.
  11.  There are seemingly endless comparasions if an indivisual tries to make such comparasions.

Our desire for knowledge is like a blackhole; never to be completely satiated. Both activities require dedication, education, and an innate understanding of oneself in this world. The people who work in these areas will all have different ideas and opinions; after all, this is a blurry area of expertise, for there is no defined answer.

As I have said before, there is no clear goal nor ending in both subjects. It is perhaps that because there is so little boundaries or limits of what we can do with the subjects that we feel compelled to find those boundaries.

Of all the species thus far encountered, the humans are the only ones that have actively been able to understand its surroundings, to understand why the sun goes down in the west and rises in the east. To understand such a phenomenon, once can argue that in doing so, Human is looking for understanding of its own surroundings.

Despite that, we humans are barely understand the world we inhabit, for there are places in Earth that we don’t fully understand. Philosophy is the same; we almost know nothing, so can we even know what philosophy is?

Given its limited capabilities in the reals of cognitive science, Man as very little understanding of its own through process, and if we can barely comprehend our own selves, how could we even attempt to understand anything beyond it? There are questions out there that we cannot even comprehend, never mind answering them with any scientific method.

Those questions can be seen like a black box, where we cannot perceive, we are blind, as such, our traditional methods of science break down, prompting us to rely on an older, more primitive form of assessing the truth. Therefore, given the assumption that the human mind is incapable of answering these questions, would it be a stretch to state that man really knows anything?

After all, an answer without the question is useless as the reader will not comprehend the context, or will be able to assess the greater implication of the answer in the world.

To sum up what I have stated, I’d like to quote Socrates: “there is only one evil and that is ignorance, and there is only one good, and that is knowledge.”

His quote, if anything, signifies the current trend towards knowledge, but fails to grasp that in order to properly understand things, one needs to be able to understand the question.

Prezi Link Here.



Hello World.

I’ll be honest, I don’t really know what I’m doing at the moment. My internal facial expression goes something along these lines as I write this very sentence. It’s the last year of high school, no one wants to do any work. Heck, no one even wants to be here. However, knowing I can’t avoid this assignment, let’s just get this over with, shall we?giphy

So, where do we begin? I’m John Kweon, and no, I’m not Jk’ing (terrible pun, I know). I’m enrolled in the Philosophy 12 course in 2015. Currently in Grade 12, I plan on graduating one semester early. I focus on literature and History courses. Anyhow, that’s enough about me, let’s move on to Philosophy.

Philosophy class has only recently started, but we’ve already covered some interesting details. The question of whether color existed or not was a popular topic, and also had the clearest answer. However, the questions about women in philosophy and about non-applicable philosophy was quite uninteresting.

The most recent assignment we looked at was the question “What is philosophy?”, and we were shown Plato’s Cave, which I found to be very insightful. Now we have to write a post about what we think philosophy is about. I personally have no idea what to write about, but hey, I’ll find something to write about.