Trinity iThink 2024

iThink

iThink

How does our knowledge of God affect our behaviours and approach to life?

KeadenBeckford(3D)

RahulMehan(L6PJB)

The Futility of Epistemology: Why neither Justified True Belief, nor any other Theory of Knowledge will ever be sufficient

AlfieEdwards(TrinityAlumnus)

8 How can we distinguish Dreams from Reality?

EthanSun(5F)

11 Introduction to the Problems of Justified True Belief

CatherineLanaspre(U6TSL) 5 Can we ever know Objective Morality?

What role does divine knowledge play in Occcult Angelologies

DickonKing(U6RMB) 18 The Matrix and the Cave

RishiKanwar(L6DJL)

Attempts to solve the Plasticity/Stability Problem and what Adaptive Resonance Theory is the best 21 To what extent can we trust Knowledge from the External World?

ThomasLaw(U6BJP)

Literature and Knowledge: How is literature important in the development, acquisition and retainment of knowledge as a society

MiaMcAllen(L6JW)

The Role of Reason in the Enlightenment: How did a new approach to Epistemology shape Belief?

CaitlindeSousa(L6MSA)

Extra: Junior Philosophy Club’s thoughts on free will

EDITORS’ NOTE:

Thank you to all those that contributed an article to this year’s edition of iThink and thank you especially to Mrs Beresford-Miller who made this magazine possible through her continued support and guidance throughout the editorial process. And to the reader, we hope you enjoy this edition of iThink!

Catherine Lanaspre, Thomas Law, Ayaan Ratnayaka and Abi Watkins

HOW DOES KNOWLEDGE OF GOD

AFFECT OUR BEHAVIOUR AND APPROACH TO LIFE?

In investigating the sophisticated relationship between the knowledge of God and human behaviour, it becomes evident that the awareness and comprehension of The Divine significantly shape our actions and perspectives of life The profound impact of theological understanding on behaviour is displayed through the moral compass it instils in the sense of purpose, which and the ethical framework it provides, ultimately influencing every aspect of our individual and collective experiences.

KEADAN BECKFORD 3D (3RD-5TH ESSAY COMPETITION WINNER)

This writing analyses the complex dynamics of how knowledge of God serves as a transformative force guiding our ethical choices, shaping our social relationships and positively moulding our approach to the complexities of life. I begin by sharing my views on how knowledge of God has affected my life and pushed me to become a “better” person, followed by examining the positives and negatives of knowledge of God in all lives, subsequently evaluating non-religious ideologies and their opposing views, and finally, my conclusion

For all theists, the fundamental principles of what God represents as the creator, sustainer and ruler of the universe are the same, combined with a deeper acknowledgement that all actions have consequences As a practising Christian, my belief in a higher power watching over and unconditionally loving me; an omnipotent, omnipresent Being who I can call upon regardless of the size, complexity or importance of any problem without judgement; who keeps no record of past sins, once I have repented; who guides and protects, when asked, as He gives freewill whilst promising that His plans for our lives are to prosper and not harm, that will give us hope and a future (Jeremiah 29:11); who shares His all-knowing wisdom, knowledge and understanding with me, is of great comfort.

The Christian belief that God, sacrificed His one and only son for the price of all earthly sin, thus giving everyone a continuous clean slate, inspires me daily to become a better person. Each day I express gratitude for being the recipient of such a priceless gift by following the foundation principles of Jesus’ teachings such as - loving thy neighbour as thyself (Matthew 22:37-39); forgiving unconditionally (Matthew 18:21-22); and the knowledge that God will reward men according to their works (Matthew 16:27) Reflecting on personal experiences, the Bible’s teachings have been instrumental in shaping my ethical stance. For example, 1 Peter 4:12-19, the scripture encourages believers to endure trials, showing resilience in the face of adversity: these teachings remain forefront, informing my behaviour and attitude as I remain consistently motivated and determined to not only keep a positive mindset but to always strive to be an excellent representative for God’s kingdom.

This knowledge of God’s omnipotence and omnipresence guides those who believe, through challenges, with the understanding that there is a purpose to every trial. This awareness that there is a higher purpose to struggles, combined with the wisdom that no act is unseen and unacknowledged by God, provides profound perspective that transcends immediate circumstances.

Furthermore, in Shariff and Norenzayan's (2011) study on the relationship between religious beliefs and prosocial behaviour, it becomes clear that knowledge of God is intricately linked to acts of kindness, generosity, and compassion. The awareness of a divine presence encourages individuals to extend empathy and support to others, fostering a sense of interconnectedness and shared humanity This positive correlation between religious beliefs and proscoail behaviour highlights the transformative force embedded in the knowledge of God, shaping not only individual behaviour but also the collective fabric of society.

Conversely, it is important to recognise that not everyone subscribes to religious ideologies. Secular and non-religious perspectives may advocate for ethical behaviour based on humanitarian principlesemphasising empathy, reason and the intrinsic value of human life. These perspectives offer an alternative framework for ethical conduct, challenging the assumption that knowledge of God is a prerequisite for moral behaviour

Nonetheless, it is essential to acknowledge the moral compass that stems from religions understanding. The teachings and commandments found in various religious often set the boundaries of right and wrong. For instance, the Ten Commandments in Christianity, the 5 Pillars in Islam and similar moral guidelines in other faiths serve as a direction in shaping human conduct.

The awareness of a divine presence, witnessing our actions, instils a sense of accountability, fostering a moral consciousness that influences our decisions.

Significantly, it is crucial to note the nuances innate in the impact of knowledge of God on behaviour. Shariff and Norenzayan's (2007) study delved into the concept of moral outsourcing, suggesting that individuals may rely on divine entities to enforce moral behaviour, potentially diminishing the intrinsic motivation for ethical conduct thus, doing the right thing out of fear.

Notably, a finding that arguably demonises humans having the knowledge of God are religious extremists These groups have irrational and distorted views of God’s laws that are mainly based on fundamentalists’ and or exclusivists’ beliefs. Douglas Pratt’s article on Terrorism and Religion (2018) states, following a “higher dictate” or a “divine command” may obviate otherwise normal attributions of culpability. Unfortunately, many from these sects kill and commit other heinous atrocities in the name of their God and religion Throughout history there are many examples of instances where fundamentalist ideologies coupled with exclusivism have resulted in factions of religions, from Catholicism to Islam, becoming breeding grounds for terrorism and widespread hatred towards opposite believers.

In conclusion, the impact of knowledge of God on behaviour and approach to life is intricate, encompassing both positive and potentially divisive aspects. The moral guidance, sense of purpose, and ethical framework provided by religious understanding contribute to the formation

of a conscientious and compassionate individual Nevertheless, it is crucial to engage in respectful dialogue with those holding differing views, recognizing that ethical behaviour can find diverse oundations beyond religious doctrines. Ultimately, whether guided by faith or secular principles, the pursuit of a virtuous and meaningful life remains a shared human aspiration.

References: Shariff, A and Norenzayan, A , 2007, The International Journal for the Pyschology of Religion, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, accessed Monday 15th January 2024, <http://www.thebrights.net/morality/statemen t 3 studies/DOI/10.1080 10508619.2011.556990. pdf>

Pratt, D. 2018, Oxford Research Encyclopaedia, Oxford University Press, accessed Monday 15th January 2024, <https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/ acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore9780190228637-e-692>

CAN WE EVER KNOW OBJECTIVE MORALITY

RAHUL MEHAN (L6PJB)

If you have a room of people and ask about the simple trolley problem, pull a lever, and kill one person, or leave it and kill 5: some will pull, and some won’t. Ask about a variation of this problem; push a fat man off a bridge in front of the trolley to save 5 people, and less will do it Finally ask about the “Forced Organ Donation Hypothetical”, would you kill a man and take his organs to save 5 other people in need of his organs? Almost everyone would refuse at this point, but why do people change their minds when the number of lives ended and saved are the same? Is there really a logical moral reason to pull the lever, but not push the man, is there actually a difference in the morality between pulling a lever and killing someone for their organs? It’s difficult to find an unchallengeable answer to this, though a possible answer could be to do with

the level of seperation between your action and the consequence. However, the level of separation doesn’t seem to be morally relevant, because you wouldn’t say that Hitler wasn’t responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews because he didn’t personally run the concentration camps. But there is perhaps an emotional reason why people would want to avoid the more brutal actions This leads us to consider how ethics and emotions relate to each other – should ethics be emotionless and come solely from reason as Kant argued or are emotions are guide to an innate morality? I would argue that emotions are a fundamental part of humanity, and it would be wrong to try and ignore them, and that the nature of human emotions could suggest that there is a kind of innate morality, that is not wholly reliant on reason.

Around the world, in almost every culture there has been some kind of religion or set of rules. Most of these have very similar presmises, such as don;t kill, steal or lie, and

sometimes these are supported by belief in a higher power and/or judgement in the afterlife Although beliefs about the divine differ greatly between belief systems, most moral teachings remain the same or very similar. You could argue that the similarities between many different societies show that humans have some kind of innate knowledge about morality, and that this is proof of it. However, if humans really had innate morality, then what would be the point of societies having laws, because surely they wouldn’t have needed to be put in place if all humans were innately moral? You could use this to argue the opposite, that human nature is inherently flawed, and laws have been put in place to try and control this, and lead humanity towards good This would be supported by Hobbes who believed humans must have a powerful ruler, a “leviathan” to rule with total power, to stop humans from living lives that were 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short'. Many would support this with saying that humans have constantly committed atrocities such as the holocaust, or slavery. But the fact this argument can be made shows that this argument cannot be right, as if human nature was truly evil, we wouldn’t be looking at events like the holocaust as horrors, we would be celebrating them, or at least looking at them with indifference. So, human nature isn’t evil, but it can’t be perfectly good either, so are laws here to guide us towards the right thing, maybe religions and rules aren’t here because of something in human nature, but are trying to work towards the same universal truth about morality?

What about ethical theories, could one of them be reflective of what morality truly is? Their proponents would almost all claim to, but there is a problem that lies, not within the theories themselves, but in how we actually evaluate them Take Bentham’s Utilitarianism, some criticisms talk about how it ignores duty, and that pleasure can be sinful, however most criticisms area bout what may happen when it

is used; for example it may be used to justify a large number of sadistic guards beating a prisoner for fun However, the problem with these kinds of criticisms is that by criticising an outcome of using the theory, we are giving a moral judgement about the outcome. By doing this we either assume that we know something of moral reality, or that there is a universal reaction to this kind of outcome, that is correct, eg in the above situation: you are either saying everyone would rightly disagree with the guards enjoying beating up a prisoner, or that you know that it is immoral to do so. From the above you could conclude that we innately know morality, however you could possibly argue the complete opposite which is that we can never find morality because the only way we can truly evaluate moral theories is by assuming that we know better J L Mackie said that there is such a fundamental disagreement about ethics that it would be impossible to argue that there is objective morality, however, I would say that all the disagreement demonstrates is how hard it is to find and quantify this morality, rather than it proving that it doesn’t exist at all.

So, by considering ethical theories, human society, and reactions to ethical dilemmas, it seems that morality could be something innate in humanity. But then, if morality is innate, then how can people draw different conclusions about dilemmas and theories, and how do people commit immoral acts? The answer could lie in genetics Dawkins believes that behaviours and traits developed by humans are part of evolution, and that they are in order to improve survival chances. This could explain the appearance of an objective morality, which could have formed part of the traits that humans have developed in order to survive. For examples, rules like don’t kill,

don’t steal, preserving life, and looking after one another would have been useful and straightforward to follow in times where simple societies needed to survive But why does this genetic morality not give us universal answers to the trolley problem? Maybe because, as society has changed, these primal instincts that once led us to having small homogenous societies that were able to survive, now are somehow outdated, and in this new world, with larger societies and modern technologies. The trolley problem, or the forced organ donation could never have happened while small, primal societies were developing. So now, when there are situations where life can be saved by killing or forfeiting other moral rules, for example in the case of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan or testing new medicines on people, these primal instincts that would have served as mostly foolproof guidelines now do not work completely. Further support for this is the introduction of modern language. Now we can describe hypothetical situations and also give words to actions, we are moving morality closer to definition-based arguments than real life scenarios In early evolutionary times we wouldn’t have had this ability, and maybe then morality was much clearer as it would be a natural reaction in a situation. Another reason could be the introduction of legal systems, as it leads many people to attribute things that are right and wrong to rules, rather than an innate feeling about what is right or wrong.

So, is there an objective morality? Possibly, but perhaps not in the way we imagine, maybe there’s not a correct thing to do in every situation, especially in modern society, but maybe there is an objective morality in terms of some underlying principles, that came from a need to survive and reproduce. So, what does this mean for humanity? I would say it shows us that if there is a right or wrong answer in an ethical dilemma, then we will most likely know the right thing to do, and in a harder situation, where it isn’t clear, all we can do is our best

7 | OBJECTIVE MORALITY

and try and look to have the best possible intended consequence

HOW CAN YOU DISTINGUISH DREAMS FROM REALITY?

ETHAN SUN (5F) (3RD-5TH FORM COMPETITION WINNER)

Imagine a world where everything y perceive is a mere illusion. A world where yo senses deceive you, blurring the boundar between what is real and what is not T question has fascinated philosophers a thinkers throughout history, challenging o understanding of the very nature of existenc

In the iconic movie The Matrix, Morphe poses a thought-provoking query to Neo: "Ha you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were sure was real? What if you were unable to wa from that dream? How would you know t difference between the dream world and t real world?" This captivating quote urges us confront the responsibility we hold choosing between an artificial existence a the authentic reality that surrounds us.

Delving further into this philosophi labyrinth, we encounter Zhuang Zhou, t Chinese Taoist philosopher In the bo Zhuangzi, the Chinese Taoist philosoph Zhuang Zhou gives his view on this questio He ponders, "Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man." Zhuang Zhou challenges our perception of self and raises the possibility that our reality may just be a fragment of a grander dream, where we unknowingly take the form of other creatures.

When considering this question, we must acknowledge that the peculiarities of dreams often appear ordinary while we are submerged in them. Furthermore, the phenomenon of dream realism can blur the lines between fantasy and reality A person

may experience the phenomenon of dream realism can blur the lines between fantasy and reality. A person may experience the phenomenon of dream realism if they had a dream so vivid, that they were unsure if it happened or not Studies conducted at Maastricht University in the Netherlands revealed that a remarkable 12% to 26% of participants struggled to differentiate between their dream experiences and waking life. These findings highlight the intricate workings of memory and sleep, which can create a vividness that challenges our ability to discern what is genuine

As humans, we have memory flaws that

DREAMS AND REALITY | 8

make it hard to discriminate between dreams and reality. We forget the details of memories because of the trace decay theory. This theory states that forgetting occurs because of the automatic decay of the memory trace The trace decay theory also says that short-term memory can only retain information for 15 to 20 seconds unless rehearsed. Dream realness is an exceptionally normal phenomenon due to the complexity of memory and sleep. Moreover, dreams have a remarkable power to reflect our subconscious desires, making them feel remarkably real Freud, the influential neurologist, proposed that dreams serve as outlets for unfulfilled

wishes and emotional healing. According to Freud, our subconscious intertwines with our dreams, revealing doubts and critical reflections that shape our beliefs While our waking lives undoubtedly influence our dreams, they remain distinct realms, both shaped by our conscious experiences.

Some may argue that a definitive test exists to distinguish dreams from reality, asserting that certain experiences can only occur when awake. Pinching oneself, it is often said, can serve as an indicator of wakefulness However, the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes challenges this notion, suggesting that any test we conceive

can be replicated within both dreams and reality, rendering it futile in drawing a clear distinction between the two Similarly, neuroscientists can measure brain activity to determine if one is dreaming, further blurring the boundaries between these parallel worlds.

René Descartes, a renowned philosopher, and scientist of the 17th century contemplated the possibility of discerning dreams from reality Yet, upon closer examination, Descartes concluded, "As I think about it more carefully, I see plainly that there are never any sure signs by means of which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep." His provocative argument suggests that even if we believe we are awake, the same experience could be replicated within a dream Descartes' Dream Argument continues to spark vigorous debate among philosophers, with differing interpretations of his claims. Philosophers' views on the Dream Argument differ because of the two different claims from him. The first claim is that you cannot tell which of your experiences are dreams and which are waking experiences. The second claim is that all your experiences may be dreams, so you may have been in a dream for your entire life, never having any waking experiences. It remains unclear whether Descartes meant to argue for the weaker first claim or the stronger second claim. Regardless, Descartes challenges our certainty in perceiving the world solely through our sensory experiences, suggesting that our sensory perceptions can be easily replicated within a dream, undermining our grasp on reality

I believe that no one has found a convincing response to this question. On one hand, some believe that dreams can never have the same level of detail as experiences in the real world. On the other hand, the Persian philosopher alGhazali suggested that in the

same way, we think we are awake having woken from dreams, there is a possibility that we might wake from our current state into another state of even greater wakefulness. In other words, this means that we are in a dream state when we think we are awake.

In the quest to unravel the enigma of differentiating dreams from reality, no definitive answer has emerged This age-old question continues to captivate our imaginations, reminding us of the profound mysteries that lie within the realms of our subconscious and the subjective nature of our existence.

“All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible.” T.E. Lawrence in the book Seven Pillars of Wisdom.

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEMS WITH JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF

CATHERINE LANASPRE (U6TSL)

Do I know that it rained in Edinburgh yesterday? This essay explores what conditions are needed to claim that I know something. Take the proposition above: ‘it rained in Edinburgh yesterday’, I know that it rained in Edinburgh yesterday because I saw on the weather program that it had rained in Edinburgh and it did rain (although I was not there to observe it). Here there seemed to be 3 ‘ingredients’ that meant that I knew this fact: the statement was true; I believed the statement and I was justified in believing it (I was told by the weather program) These conditions are the traditional conditions for knowledge and this analysis of knowledge is known as justified true belief (JTB). So, simply, I only know statement A if:

A is true 1. I believe A 2. I am justified in believing A 3.

These conditions were widely accepted until Edmund Gettier’s famous 1963 paper: ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ which offered to two examples (known as Gettier cases) of how JTB failed. These showed that all three conditions could be satisfied without what we would consider knowledge.

Here is an example of a Gettier-style case: I am told by a friend that they own a dog, so I say, ‘I know that a friend of mine owns a dog ’ This friend does actually not have a dog, but it turns out another friend who I never asked about whether they had a dog or not has one, so my statement is not false. Here all three conditions are satisfied, so did I know that a friend of mine had a dog?

It feels like my example has misunderstood the conditions involved in JTB and played a trick on what the conditions really meant. And there are two main fronts on which JTB analysis thinks this example and Gettier problems in general are dubious: you cannot know something if your justification is faulty;

you were simply lucky that what you believed was true These two strategies are interlinked because belief based on faulty evidence will only be true by luck and the following paragraphs consider both criticisms of Gettier problems individually and together.

‘Knowing’ a friend owns a dog is entailed by ‘knowing’ this friend (friend A) has a dog but surely, we could apply JTB to the particular case and then the general case to show that we did not have a sound justification for knowing some friend had a dog (from knowing friend A had a dog). If I did not know that friend A had a dog because they did not have a dog, then how can this now be considered sufficient justification for knowing that some friend had a dog? This is called the false lemma criticism but this criticism does not work for all cases For example, Dharmottara gave the example of seeing a mirage of water in a desert, you say you know that there is water in this exact spot but you are only seeing a mirage, however there is in fact water there. This does not rely a chain of reasoning. The problem of faulty justification remains.

To resolve this the 3rd condition could be amended to specify that the justification must be sound However, even if condition 3 were adapted: I am justified in believing A only if my evidence is strong and correct, new problems arise. Adding sound justification only seems to be a repeat of the 1st condition with an unattainable standard for the evidence that justifies the belief. Knowing a friend has a dog at first seems to only depend on being told by a truthful friend or seeing their dog in person but really accepting either of these depends on other factors e.g. the dog that you see is your friend’s dog or your friend never lies. The justification used for any argument or statement will depend on a multitude of statements that need to be justified. Taking apart the evidence used in any statement will ultimately lead to doubt: applying Cartesian hyperbolic doubt, nothing can really be considered a sufficiently strong justification.

In the end, sound justification is not as helpful as it first appeared since to ask for an entirely airtight justification is to ask for too much

After an unsuccessful attempt to adapt the 3rd condition, let us consider if we can eradicate the luckiness of a false belief being true. Gettier cases all rely on this turn of luck which means the faulty justification coincides with the true state of affairs. Peter Unger introduced a 4th condition: the belief in A is not true simply due to luck This seems to be a reasonable additional condition to knowledge – you were lucky you had another friend who had a dog so that your statement was not wrong. This seemingly resolves Gettier cases because it avoids the luck which makes a certain belief true. However, the anti-luck condition is unsuccessful because all things involve uncertainty Whether or not the Sun rises tomorrow involves uncertainty, simply because the Sun has risen every day of my lifetime up till this point does not guarantee the Sun will rise tomorrow. If you cannot guarantee that the Sun will rise tomorrow, it is lucky if the Sun does actually rise tomorrow. So, I cannot know the Sun will rise tomorrow. The issues surrounding luck and justification are inextricably linked, I cannot fully justify the belief that the Sun will rise tomorrow and since I cannot fully justify its rising with 100% certainty, if I do believe the Sun will rise tomorrow and it does, I was lucky. So ultimately the flaw with the anti-luck condition is that due the uncertainties involved in all aspects of our lives, we cannot claim to know anything

Overall, it seems that both attempts to redeem JTB analysis have been unsuccessful and have only removed the possibility of knowledge. Neither condition was satisfied because they both demanded unattainably high standards. While the conditions can loosely work to dayto-day uses of knowledge, for the philosopher the conditions are not sufficient for knowledge and what the knowledge conditions are remains a hot topic of debate among epistemologists.

WHAT ROLE DOES DIVINE KNOWLEDGE PLAY IN OCCULT ANGELOLOGIES

DICKON KING (U6RMB)

The procurement of divine knowledge has always played a central role in occultism from the ancient Egyptians to modern day magical practices. Angels have always played a central role in the occultism surrounding Abrahamic traditions as the messengers of God and the link between the divine and the human. This is no more seen in both the work of the Elizabethan occultist John Dee and the Jewish apocalyptic text of Enoch

John Dee was obsessed with gaining divine knowledge and also knowledge of the divine. Knowledge for Dee was not only something to be used practically but instead he said that

13 | DIVINE KNOWLEDGE IN OCCULT ANGELOLOGIES

“There is nothing which so much beautifies and adorns the soul and mind of man as knowledge of the good arts and sciences”. The way that John Dee thought he could gain knowledge was multi-faceted, he had one of the largest private libraries in the Elizabethan world, as well as using a technique called ‘scrying’ to gain knowledge from the angelic realm Scrying includes using various objects that have magical properties, such as a crystal ball, or Dee’s choice of wax seals, and using visions to predict the future. Dee, and his assistant Edward Kelly, used wax seals inscribed with magical angelic signs in order to summon and communicate with angels. This process used long periods of meditation and long rituals of purification before the angels would agree to come down to speak with Dee and Kelly, this theme of purity and asceticism is central to most practices that involve communication with the divine realm as humans are seen as impure and below this

divine knowledge, and without the required purity, they may end up with the same fate as Lot’s wife when she looked back at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This is important in the role of knowledge in occult angelologies as it displays that this knowledge is far from our right or responsibility to know, it is reserved for the select few sages who are pure enough and dedicated enough to achieve this knowledge In Dee’s tradition, there is no soteriological aspect to this divine knowledge, it is strived towards because of the immense beauty that is seen in the trueness of divine knowledge, which is not seen in the a posteriori human knowledge which we have. Even the knowledge of the true names of God holds in itself an untouchable stillness and indominable beauty which cannot be achieved through human observation This can only be achieved through communication with the divine realm, and angels and the connection between the earthly and heavenly realms and are therefore the only ones who can be consulted in matters of the higher realm.

The actual conversations Dee supposedly had with the angels are recorded in his book ‘Conversations with Angels’ and his biggest discovery was recorded in the ‘Monas Hieroglyphica’. In the former are his scrying sessions in which he converses with the archangels on various matters, including the composition of the elixir of life, the location of buried treasure and most importantly, the language of the angels, known as Enochian Enochian is important for proving the role of divine knowledge in Dee’s angelology as it makes the connection between the human realm and angels even stronger, as we can now know the full, untranslated version of the knowledge held by angels, strengthening our link to God. The Enochian language is also important for the construction of magical furniture and seals as this is how you can know the true name of God, through the language that is used in the heavenly realm.

This displays the layers of divine knowledge, angels can give knowledge of the human liberal arts, or can provide a link to the divine realm through language but can also share knowledge which is expressly reserved for angels, such as the true nature of God. This layering of knowledge also reflects the layering of the circles of heaven, typically three levels in Pauline theology, which Dee would have been using as a Christian These three levels go from connection or proximity to God’s throne, the first level being the furthest away from God in Heaven, and the third being where God resides, this is reflected in the three levels of revelation, the physical facts about the world being the first level or the least godly, and the third level being knowledge of God himself This displays that knowledge is not only a means to understand our physical world, but also intrinsically linked to the divine world. This quite obviously splits from the traditional Aristotelian philosophy of the mainstream Church and injects a Platonic aspect of separating changing earthly observations and unchanging divine truths.

The ‘Monas Hieroglyphica’ explains Dee’s method of finding the glyph which is supposed to represent the unity of all creation. It is synthesis of various Latin words and astrological and alchemical symbols, which were revealed to him through angels as well as through his vast library. The practical application of this glyph, which is called the ‘Monad’, is that when Dee meditated on it, he found hidden knowledge and profound truths about the Universe and all of God’s creation, this symbol was seen to encapsulate the whole Universe. This shows a very different view of knowledge to what we have today, far separated from our view that knowledge can change and evolve, Dee clearly thinks that knowledge and truth is unchanging and eternal, and even woven into the fabric of the Universe.

This means that angels are representatives of this unchanging truth as angels are unchanging themselves, they are eternal However, their temporality and immanence mean that they can make these truths understandable to the right humans who are prepared and godly enough to know these truths, stressing the role of an angel to be the intermediaries between God and man, and their main role within this is the revelation of divine knowledge

Overall, John Dee is very Platonic in his view of knowledge and truth as an unchanging quality which is intrinsic to the fabric of the Universe and of God’s creation. Angels play a huge role in his theology as since the Universe is God’s creation, only He knows these truths from the inner circle of Heaven This means that angels also have this knowledge, as unlike humans, they can ascend to this level, and therefore, angels can be called upon, especially archangels, in order to have this knowledge revealed to the sage. This means that the main role of angels in Dee’s angelology is the revelation of divine knowledge to humans and to act as an intermediary between God and humans

Another example of the role of angels being the holders of divine knowledge would be in second temple period Jewish apocalyptic texts. Even the Hebrew word for angel ךאלמ)) means messenger, showing how interlinked their role is with delivering the will of God The second temple period ran from 586BCE to 70CE and was characterised by the eschatological hopes of the Jewish people under various foreign occupations. This led to the flourishing of the apocalyptic in Jewish literature, the most famous being the Book of Daniel but the most important for understanding the role of angels being the three books of Enoch

There are three books as it has been preserved in three translations, the Ethiopic Book of Enoch being the first and the only one

included in a canon (it is still used by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church), the Slavonic Book of Enoch and the Hebrew Book of Enoch found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Third Enoch is the particularly important one when questioning the role of knowledge in this angelology as it includes the ascent of Enoch into Heaven, and he is then transformed into the angel ‘Metatron’. He is then enthroned next to God and then is given secrets about creation and the end of the world This seems to suggest that a human would not be able to gain this knowledge and that only once Enoch has completed his transformation into Metatron, he can know these divine secrets. The fact that Metatron is also exalted as the most powerful of all angels and even referred to as ‘the lesser Yahweh’ shows that only those who are close to the heavenly Throne can know these secrets This provides a split from the work of John Dee as Dee believed that humans could gain this knowledge, but Enoch very clearly implies that this knowledge cannot be for humans but only for those who reside in Heaven. This leads into the material conditions that the Jews were living in at the time of writing, as W D Rusell makes the compelling point that Jewish apocalypticism contains the hopes of the Jews for the end of days and the liberation of the Israelite people from Roman rule. This may feed into the belief that angels, in their knowledge of the end of days, will play a pivotal part in the final battle against the forces of evil and that Metatron may play a part in ushering in this end time This hope that Jews will be saved by God through their covenant is prevalent in almost all apocalyptic literature, and as God needs an intermediary between Him and humans, angels will play a huge part in this end time. In ‘War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness’ even the tactics and weaponry used by the Sons of Darkness’ (usually thought to be the Romans) were outlined, showing that angels will know exactly how to defeat these foreign powers and how to finally gain the land promised to the Jews not under foreign

powers and how to finally gain the land promised to the Jews not under foreign occupation or pressures

The ‘Apocalypse of Abraham’ is also a deeply interesting book when studying the role of knowledge in Jewish apocalyptic angelology as it involves Abraham’s transportation and apotheosis in the divine realm. Abraham was accompanied by the angel Yahoel who helped Abraham navigate the divine realm and reach the throne of God or the Hekhalot. Once he reaches the Hekhalot Abraham is shown by God the beginning and end of the world. First of all, the fact that Abraham needed Yahoel to guide him is important as it shows that the Heavens is no safe place for a human, even a great Patriarch, and therefore Yahoel in his great knowledge of the divine realm is needed to guide Abraham to the Hekhalot Andrei A Orlov also suggests that Abraham goes through an apotheosis, a transformation from a human to a divine being, in this book. Orlov says that this is important as it proves the same point as 3 Enoch, that humans cannot handle divine knowledge, only immortal being can. This also poses the question, did Abraham go through an apotheosis in order to gain this knowledge, or did he go through it because he had this knowledge? If the latter were to be true then it would suggest that this knowledge is an intrinsic part of being an angel and that knowledge has the power to turn a man into a God. This strikes at the core of why all these occultists through the ages wanted to gain divine knowledge, because they believed that this knowledge has the power to deify the bearer, these stories of transitioning into a heavenly being after gaining knowledge of the Universe obviously inspired practitioners to try and go through the same process. This is why so many have tried long and difficult processes to gain angelic knowledge, in the hope that they would become an angel themselves 17 | DIVINE KNOWLEDGE IN OCCULT ANGELOLOGIES

In conclusion, angels are intrinsically linked with divine knowledge in all occult angelologies, their role as the messengers of divine knowledge and the bearers of the infinity of creation is pivotal to their use. In more practical magic, such as John Dee’s, they are ways in which humans can gain knowledge of the arts and sciences, but as well as this, they are ways in which humans can go through an apotheosis and become Gods through this knowledge This is reflected in Jewish apocalyptic texts, which seem to suggest that only angels can know the secrets of the Universe, and therefore the person ascending to the heavenly realm becomes an angel and must meet God Himself to gain this knowledge. In all these traditions knowledge is something much more than just practically applicable, it is the key to the liberation of the Jews, to the end of days and to the deification of humans, and angels are the vessels and the bringers of this knowledge.

PLATO’S CAVE AND THE MATRIX

RISHI KANWAR (L6DJL)

In 1999, towards the close of the millennium, the Wachowski brothers dropped a sciencefiction action film that changed both the future of film as well as the mindset of a generation. Interestingly the word matrix comes from the Latin word ‘mater’, meaning mother The archaic use of the word was for ‘uterus’, so from a psychoanalytic perspective, escaping from the matrix can be seen in terms of moving from the mother's world of comfort and possible illusion into the rigours of the real world.

‘The Matrix’ has become popularised recently by social and political discourse on the internet, so it is impossible to talk about the film without referencing its most famous scene. This is when Morpheus (the films mentor figure) offers Neo (the protagonist) the choice of escaping the virtual simulation he has unknowingly been trapped inside. Taking the blue pill will let “you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe”, whilst the red pill lets “you stay in Wonderland” so you can see “how deep the rabbit hole goes”, which is Morpheus’ evocative way of describing reality with all its complexities. This is an echoing of J.S Mill’s statement: “It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”, a call to embrace reality, no matter how uncomfortable it may be The metaphor of the red-pill choice has been popularised by both right-wing movements and the “manosphere” (an online male movement, spanning from male advocacy to resentful misogyny). It has been used to represent critiques of the accepted narrative promoted by mainstream society and media. In the attempt of some to break out from the mind-controlling system, some believers have become trapped in cultish movements, which seem as tunnel-vision red as the perspective they attempt to break out

from However, despite some of the negativity which has been associated with the metaphor, its fundamentals are positive and stretch back to the birth of western philosophy. To take the red pill is to live more realistically, to be able to look at uncomfortable truths and not shy away from them, it is a sobering, stoical perspective which treats no accepted beliefs or opinion as above questioning

Socrates, is considered the founder of Western philosophy, and remained very self-critical about himself, saying “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing”. This may at first seem paradoxical, but it is in reference to humans being limited, and we need to understand that we don’t and won’t know all the answers His humility and skepticism is the first step to breaking down the consensual reality, and is a key proponent to a potentially revolutionary mindset, which eventually leads

THE MATRIX AND THE CAVE | 18

to his death

As Socrates’ student, Plato was also able to hold the perspective that our view is both tainted and deceptive. The Allegory of the Cave was created by Plato and published in his book, ‘The Republic’, and was intended to discuss the distorted appearance of things we see in the supposedly “real world”. Like the red pill, the cave is a reflection on the distinction between appearance and reality, he was aware his senses were limited. They act as a subjective filter to parts of the world, which can be observed within the fact that we can't observe UV waves, but they still exist. This idea can be expanded to reach the conclusion that everything we see is simply a lie.

The Allegory of the Cave is written as a conversation between Socrates and Plato’s brother (Glaukon). Plato describes a world in which humans are in chains and are forced to observe shadows on the wall created by puppeteers and a fire. They hear sounds from within and outside the cave and as they have grown up there it is all they can understand and know, so no one questions it However, one man breaks out of his chains and emerges from the cave. This is Plato’s philosopher, or Neo, who begins to unlearn everything he thought he knew.

As with Plato’s cave within the Matrix, mankind is in a simulation, with images being played out before their eyes so that they become immersed within the illusion In reality they are being harvested by machines for their bioenergy which helps to power the machines, as the sunlight has been blocked out. This may be seen as a metaphor for the population that if a population’s minds and imagination are captured, they are more easily controlled and able to exploit Eventually Neo is offered a choice by his mentor, Morpheus, to either wake up or remain comfortably numb; differentiating him from Plato’s philosopher who was chosen to walk up. Neo is not forced

into leaving his digital cave, he is given the option to return to delusion in the famous “red-pill, blue-pill” scene

Plato’s character is compelled to turn his head and stand up. He observes the fire that the shadows are made from and it burns his eyes. He can now see true reality but consequentially cannot see the artificial shadows in the same manner as before Plato says the man would “turn away and run back” to the shadows and his former understanding of reality if he could, but is instead compelled by an otherworldly force to leave the cave. His eyes would become temporarily blinded from the light and it would take some time for him to accept the true nature of reality, with the man starting off with only observing shadows, before reflection in the water and finally “the things themselves” The man has been enlightened and can see the world for what it is.

Similarly, when Neo breaks out of his shell, his body hurts as it has never been used before. The pain both he and the man feel is representative of the pain of leaving everything behind, the pain of the task he is about to endure, the pain of comprehending the truth. Plato had observed that the man would want to return to the cave due to it being too painful on the outside, unlike Neo, who has no such desire and moves freely of his own volition. However, Cypher, the films character who is committed to a fake life and whose name means zero, one that has no weight or influence, is the traitor and embodies this idea of wanting to return to delusion at any cost to others.

Neo questions this reality after experiencing the pain in his body and asks Morpheus “This is real?” Morpheus responds: “How do you define real? What is real?

If you’re talking about what you can feel what you can smell and what you can taste and see, then real is just electrical signals interpreted by your brain You’ve been living in the dream world, Neo, this is the world as it exists today”.

This may be taken as a warning not to wake up from one illusion and slip into another, like the previously mentioned red-pill cultists It is also advice which could have been given to Plato, who ultimately rejected Socrates’ sceptisim to claim he had the truth and that the ignorant should be governed by enlightened philosophers. Karl Popper saw this as an arrogant and dangerous corruption of Socrates’ humble scepticism.

Within the final part of the cave allegory, the man returns back to the world out of sympathy for the other humans After observing the sun and all of the light, when returning to the cave, the man’s vision is obscured in darkness and takes some time adjusting. The other captors laugh at him and question whether the ascent was worth it, and in him attempting to help

them they would attempt to kill him This is in reference to Socrates, Plato’s teacher, being poisoned for “corrupting the youth” However, despite this it forms the argument for Plato’s philosopher kings, those who understand the world for what it is should govern it, due to them having supreme knowledge of ethics and morality. However, we should maintain Socrates’ scepticism and uncertainty and remain humble If we wake up and then claim to know the truth, this can easily be corrupted by locking in belief closing down further exploration, a key component in radicalisation. So to avoid succumbing to the narcissistic idea that philosopher kings know best and are supreme- in essence, another ‘cave’, we should remember that all we can know is that we know nothing

This is where the Matrix differs from the cave allegory, Morpheus dismisses the idea of releasing all of the others trapped from the simulation due to the belief that they are not ready to be “unplugged” However it is similar to Plato’s allegory in some ways, as the man doesn’t attempt to free anyone else, but just tells them that their beliefs are wrong and he has observed the truth

Both the Matrix and the allegory of the cave are imperative to our knowledge and opinions on reality. They have both lead us to question our reality, belief system and the limitations of human knowledge as Socrates had pondered. We are all incredibly limited in forming ideas about our reality, due to the vastness and layers of the simulation The Allegory of the Cave clearly has a heavy influence on the Matrix and in both stories the protagonist's life and understanding is totally removed, leaving them empty, however they both grow from their acquired knowledge and rebuild their shattered faith in order to help others

THE MATRIX AND THE CAVE | 20

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN WE TRUST KNOWLEDGE FROM THE EXTERNAL WORLD

THOMAS LAW (U6BJP)

The lack of reliability of empirical reasoning presents a persistent problem for how humanity understands the world. The opposing view, rationalism, has often taken root, proponents of which take the view that a priori knowledge is the only form we can trust (that is, knowledge gained preceding observation or experience). As Plato points out through his employment of Socratic doubt, there is much we cannot trust about our experiences in the world, thus he defers to this this rationalist view. Scholars such as Descartes, and the brain in a vat thought experiment, similarly oppose the inductive reasoning endorsed by empiricism.

Nonetheless, in this article I will outline why we do not have sufficient reason to doubt our knowledge obtained from the real world, and certainly not to the extent that Plato and Descartes argue

Sense data is our best way of understanding the world. When we have so many

21 | KNOWLEDGE FROM THE EXTERNAL WORLD

independent sources (i.e., billions of people seeing and acknowledging something’s existence) verifying the same thing, it seems difficult to deny. Moreover, alternative propositions drawn from rationalism seem far more difficult to trust Plato’s sole reliance on this line of thinking makes it impossible to truly understand the world. His idea of the Realm of the Forms details an alternate realm of unchanging metaphysical perfection –idealised states of things we encounter in out physical world. While Plato claims our knowledge of the sense world is too easily misguided, he cannot provide sufficient reason to buy into his alternate proposition As Aristotle points out in his Third Man Argument, if eveything is a copy of a previous form, then we have no explanation for the origin of that form, and thus we end up with a seemingly meaningless infinite regression. Beyond arguments criticising Plato, it seems impossible to ever be certain that we are completely accurate about the true state of the world – even if we could not trust empiricism, it seems there are too many steps to take to reach the truth sourly through reason. Arguments dependent on a priori arguments also share other problems; when there is a fault in one of the premises, the entire argument crumbles For Plato, this may be the

problem with universals – there is no universal understanding of old, or beauty, so how can there be a Form of Beauty? However, there are still ways in which our knowledge of the external world can be criticised. For example, when it comes to alleged religious experiences, many argue they cannot be trusted as a fault of brain activity – Dr. V S Ramachandran has suggested that temporal lobe epilepsy can be a cause of these visions Similarly, drugs and alcohol can impact individuals and thus make it hard to trust every experience we have of the world. Nonetheless, empiricism proves to be the superior point of view. While it’s true that a priori arguments can completely fail when one of their premises is untrue or there is a logical contradiction, that doesn’t counteract the fact that we should generally trust what we experience Swinburne’s argument from credulity testifies to this (while he does argue for religious experience, we can apply the idea here that we should generally trust what we see).

While we cannot deny with confidence the information we gain from the external world, more problems arise when considering that it could all be within our own minds Descartes was a fierce proponent of this idea, saying that all that he cannot doubt is that he is a doubting being. Hilary Putnam’s brain in a vat scenario, a modernised version of Descartes’ evil demon thought experiment, similarly suggests that everything we experience could simply be a simulation However, this argument struggles eaccount for the existence of other minds; for example, the diversity of languages or the depths of history. The human mind strugglers to comprehend and maintain vast amounts of information, and so in order for all of the world to be an invention from within a singular mind, we would have to conclude it is of an entirely different kind Thus, it cannot be a simulation as we understand it presently Furthermore, while there is nothing we can therefore say to disprove this argument, we

similarly have no evidence to accredit it This ultimately seems to render the argument meaningless – there is no value to the idea that we are just a ‘brain in a vat,’ as it does not change anything about how we can understand the world we actually experience. As Wittgenstein might argue, people are mistakenly conflating different forms of language when people discuss these ideas, making the whole thing non-cognitive – not meaningful in the real world What does it mean if we are all just brains being played with to create our experiences of the world – not only do we have little evidence to support it, but it also tells us nothing about the world (either the real world, or our ‘simulation’).

Much like Russell’s teapot, wherein he employs reductio ad absurdum argument to argue that we can’t just make a claim and constantly make additional claims to maintain it’s validity. The argument denies any ication claims, and as such we cannot it to be meaningful. Therefore it while it be that the world we experience is ated, we cannot make that assumption, ven if it were true, it affects nothing.

nclusion, empirical observation has more than rationalist thinking. While there e faults in what we experience, this still more value than the attempted conclusions ight make otherwise. Moreover, the idea he world only exists as an extension of own minds allows for much moral urse Essentially all actions can be itted as they can be dismissed as fake, this doesn’t therefore account for the us harm that our actions can cause. So, it is not only meaningless, it should be er discredited as it does not be good. ment external world isn’t real dies a death housand qualifications, no impact on life me as Anthony Flew criticism of religion ately, we should not doubt our ledge from the eternal world

THE FUTILITY OF EPISTEMOLOGY: WHY NEITHER JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF, NOR ANY OTHER THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE WILL EVER BE

not justified true belief, though, in my view, no alternative theory will ever be significantly more successful in attempting to define knowledge.

SUFFICIENT

ALFIE EDWARDS (TRINITY ALUMNUS)

In The Problem of Knowledge, A J Ayer argues that there are three necessary and sufficient details for something to constitute knowledge. These are: that the individual believes something, it is true, and the individual has the right to hold their belief. This is essentially a rewording of the previous formulation of the JTB account of knowledge and immediately feels unconvincing given Ayer’s failure to explicate the third criterion in any detail, leaving how one gains the right to be sure of a belief utterly ambiguous. As Ayer notes, however, this ambiguity in the definition is not necessarily a failure of the definition itself, as it is not the role of a definition of knowledge to state what items

According to the account of knowledge as justified true belief (JTB), S knows that p if and only if S believes that p, p is true, and S is justified in their belief that p. Whilst this theory was dominant for a significant period of time, it is now, for good reason that will be discussed, largely seen as untenable. There have been countless attempts to adjust the JTB account as well as create new theories of what knowledge is, but I will argue that any such attempt will always be futile as knowledge is not a concept that we, as humans, cannot analyse objectively. Therefore, knowledge is FUTILITY OF EPISTEMOLOGY | 24

constitute knowledge, rather it should provide a framework for this to be determined Nevertheless, even if we permit Ayer this ambiguity, his theory, along with all other formulations of the JTB account are rendered indefensible in light of the criticisms of Edmund Gettier.

In his now infamous paper Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Gettier provides two counterexamples of justified true beliefs that cannot be considered knowledge – in both cases, justified true belief is arrived at by faulty means that, due to unlikely coincidence, lead to a true conclusion. Through these counterexamples (as well as other so-called ‘Gettier cases’ since) it becomes clear that JTB alone is insufficient for constituting knowledge One such counterexample is as follows:

Smith and Jones have applied for the same job, but Smith has been told by the company’s president that Jones will get the job. Smith also looks in Jones’ pocket before his interview and finds that Jones has ten coins in his pocket. This leads Smith to form the proposition, P1, that:

Jones will get the job and he has ten coins in his pocket.

P1 entails the proposition P2 that: The person who will get the job has ten coins in their pocket.

In this case, Smith is justified in his belief that P2is true However, were there to have been a mistake and Smith was actually the applicant who was going to get the job and, unbeknownst to him, Smith also had ten coins in his pocket, then P2 would still be true, though P1 (the proposition from which Smith derived P2) would be false. In this case, Smith believes that P2,P2 is true, and Smith is justified in his belief that P2is true (since his evidence was strong, though incorrect) According to the JTB account, this would mean that Smith knows that P2 yet this seems intuitively false, since the premises that led

25 | FUTILITY OF EPISTEMOLOGY

Smith to this proposition were false, and the conclusion was only correct by pure chance

Such a counterexample would be surmountable were one to add an additional criterion, one not targeted by Gettier, to the JTB account. However, it seems unlikely that any such criterion could be robust enough to escape Gettier cases. A similar view to this is raised by Linda Zagzebski, who argues that “no account of knowledge as true belief plus something else can withstand Gettier objections as long as there is a small degree of independence between truth and the other conditions of knowledge.” By this, Zagzebski means that so long as the conditions for knowing a proposition are not necessarily tied to its truth, then there will always be room for Gettier-style counterexamples providing a case where ‘knowledge’ is obtained by chance

For this reason, Zagzebski claims that JTB-style accounts of knowledge can become tenable, but only if we are willing to accept that a degree of luck may be a part of knowledge, thus separating the ‘justification’ and ‘truth’ criteria in the definition Whilst this may allow us to work around Gettier cases and provide a more robust account of knowledge, it seems inappropriate to do so if it forces us to change the commonly accepted, prima facie understanding of knowledge altogether. Hence, the more viable aspect of Zagzebski’s thesis seems to be to accept that JTB-style accounts of knowledge will always run into Gettier cases, stripping the theory of any credibility

Admittedly, a definition of knowledge that does not permit a degree of luck sets quite stringent criteria for knowledge, though I believe this to be perfectly acceptable if we acknowledge that ‘knowledge’ in a more philosophical sense may be more elusive than what we may call knowledge in day-to-day language. That is, ‘knowledge’ as a term varies in its requirements depending on use and

context, so whilst we may say “I know that p” quite commonly in everyday life, perhaps were we more precise with our language, we would find that we really mean “I believe/think that p”.

It could, therefore, be argued that the term ‘knowledge’ and the concept it represents are the issue. Timothy Williamson argues that ‘knowledge’ is a simple concept which cannot be analysed at all As Williamson says, “[o]n quite general grounds, one would not expect the concept knows to have a non-trivial analysis in somehow more basic terms. Not all concepts have such analyses, on pain of infinite regress; the history of analytic philosophy suggests that those of most philosophical interest do not ” So perhaps the pursuit of a ‘theory of knowledge’ is a futile exercise in infinitely defining and qualifying terms, never leading us to a robust and satisfactory conclusion as to what knowledge is. This may explain why we use ‘know’ in such differing contexts, seemingly with differing criteria, as if there are no set criteria for knowledge, then we are free to use it as we please

Whilst this may not provide much closure, it seems a reasonable hypothesis given the limits of human understanding. ‘Knowledge’ is not observable in experience, it appears to be understood more intuitively but in a manner that we are incapable of defining, perhaps because it is such a fundamental component of thought and consciousness that, as Williamson argues, we cannot break it down into more basic terms – after all, what terms/concepts can be more basic than and can precede knowledge itself?

I suggest that knowledge is best understood, insofar as it can be comprehended at all, in a Wittgensteinian way, whereby its meaning is understood non-cognitively, and as inherently tied to its use in language. It should be noted that this does not provide us with a

27 | FUTILITY OF EPISTEMOLOGY

philosophical theory nor analysis of knowledge, but rather an account of how we, as humans, use it in language

In conclusion, knowledge is not, in my view, justified true belief nor can it be any x, where x is an analysis that reduces knowledge to more fundamental properties. As Zagzebski elegantly highlights, all theories of knowledge that take the pattern of JTB will inevitably run into Gettier-style counterexamples that render their criteria insufficient for knowledge. For this reason, it seems more productive to view knowledge in terms of its use in human language, since reducing it to basic terms appears to be beyond the reach of human understanding, perhaps since it forces us to comprehend the most basic contents and properties of consciousness and thought (i e , that which precedes us knowing anything) Such a non-cognitive account of knowledge may not tell us much, but at least it explains the discrepancies in how we use the word, since we can see that context informs our use of ‘knowledge’. Instead of actually comprehending what it means to say “I know that p”, we rely on a tacit assumption that other people know the ‘rules’ of the Wittgensteinian ‘language game’ we are playing, and so will understand the semantics of our proposition even if they do not know what criteria constitutes our particular knowledge.

ATTEMPTS TO SOLVE THE PLASTICITY/STABILITY PROBLEM AND WHAT ADAPTIVE RESONANCE THEORY IS THE BEST

AYAAN RATNAYAKA (U6RDM)

How does your brain constantly change to accommodate the sensory information we get every second? Until the discovery of brain plasticity in the 1990s, the brain was believed to be comprised of fixed neural pathways. However, Santiago Ramón y Cajal’s research changed this idea - based on the neuron doctrine (the idea that the nervous system is made of individual cells/neurones rather than a continuous network), Cajal conducted experiments that showed how neurones could reorganise in some situations. He used the term plasticity to describe this phenomenon. While there are many types of neuroplasticity

(structural which refers to how the brain can change the neuronal connections and functional which refers to how the brain can change the ‘job’ of a neurone), for now plasticity will just refer to the general ability of the brain to change With the discovery of plasticity, there came a new problem, how does the brain balance between plasticity and stability? This leads to the plasticity/stability problem (PSP) - excessive plasticity could destabilise the entire brain and lead to problems in processing and functioning while excessive rigidity would mean that our brains couldn’t process the vast amount of sensory information, we receive every second Studying what is effectively the mind (i e , not just the physical structures of the brain but thinking patterns) wasn’t possible even 30 years ago, but now with the emergence of cognitive neuroscience and more complicated brain scanning, we can link physical brain structures to different thinking patterns which can hopefully help us to solve this

plasticity/stability problem All of with developments in artificia networks) has led to Adaptive Theory (ART) a framework which solve the titular problem. However, dive into ART’s attempt to solve th should look at some previous attem the earliest neural networks dev Hebbian theory, proposed by Dona ‘The Organisation of Behaviour’ T that when 2 neurones are consiste the strength between them increase an extent) explains plasticity and summarised to be ‘cells that fire tog together’ - i.e., the strength of the increases. This theory (while outdated) provides a clear understanding plasticity in the bra high face validity (meaning tha surface, it makes sense) However, i unsuccessful (though this is not Heb this theory was originally publishe this is as Hebb doesn’t provide a m which prevents ‘runaway excitat refers to when the neural networks uncontrollably which is obviously This can lead to massive failure in in processing in artificial neural (ANNs). For example, there can b distortions in perception as whe information is encoded (processed the brain, there is a very specific m this means that if this mechanism is how the sensory information is r will be distorted This means t hallucinations could occur in processing network Runaway exci also lead to seizures in pe epileptogenesis (defined as ‘the p which a brain network that was normal is functionally altered increased seizure susceptibility - D Staley, 2012; Goldstein and Coulter, occurs through a positive feedback l a group of neurones fire caus neurones to fire which stimulates t group of neurones to fire again, this

loop spreads across the brain which can lead to epileptiform activity (an increase in electrical activity which can occur at any point before, during or between seizures) which is often manifested as seizures. This demonstrates how Hebbian learning, while providing a solid foundation for plasticity is overall unsatisfactory - this is as it fails to provide a mechanism to stop runaway excitation, this means that there is little to no stability which therefore means it cannot solve the plasticity/stability problem.

Another attempt to solve the PSP is Competitive Learning, proposed by Teuvo Kohonen in the early 1980s. This model is a clear inspiration for ART in its approach, but ART expands on Competitive Learning and ultimately makes it a more coherent approach Competitive Learning uses a group of neurones which compete with each other (hence the name Competitive Learning) to represent the data that is put into the system (in real life this would be sensory information). Competitive Learning makes use of unsupervised learning which means the data is put into the system without categorisation in order to simulate how we actually receive sensory information (ART also uses this). The data is put into the system and there is a ‘competition phase’ where neurones compete to represent the input data and there is a winner-takes all system where the neurone with the highest activation ‘wins’ (this is based on a pre-defined factor i e , similarity) The winning neurone strengthens its connection to the data that is put into the system and the connection between the ‘losing’ neurones and the input data gets weaker - this explains plasticity in the brain. To explain this in real terms - different neurones in the visual centres of the brain become more/less activated depending on the certain features of someone’s face, those neurones with higher activations (as they respond to the specific features of that persons face more than other neurones) strengthen their connections with each other. This explains how the brain adapts

(plasticity). Stability is ensured via lateral inhibition which means that the activity of neurones activated less is suppressed which means that it is less sensitive to that specific data - this ensures stability as random neurones firing occurs less and less with our experiences of the world This is a big improvement upon Hebbian Learning as the problems of runaway excitation doesn’t exist. However, there is a big problem for Competitive Learning which is how new learning can mess with things previously learned (ART addresses this problem with something called a vigilance parameter). What happens is that the network can prioritise learning new data and adapting to that, but to do this it sacrifices what was previously learned. This is a problem as this doesn’t necessarily happening with our brains - while new information can interfere with old information (known as retroactive interference - this can also happen the other way around in a process called proactive interference), it doesn’t necessarily happen on such a large scale. This poses a problem for Competitive Learning as it isnt fully representative of our brains which is what an ANN is meant to do. This is where ART comes in and provides a more coherent solution (though ART does have its own problems which I’ll discuss later).

As previously mentioned, ART takes inspiration from Competitive Learning as it makes use of unsupervised learning models as well. However, ART differs from Competitive Learning in its use of both bottom-up and topdown models of perception. The bottom-up aspect recognises the input patterns and categorises (similar to Competitive Learning) while the top-down part is effectively a feedback loop - when new data is put into the system, it is compared with what the bottomup aspect has categorised and if it doesn’t match any category that exists, a new category is formed. This explains plasticity in the brain. ART explains stability via ‘resonance’ - this is similar to what happens in Competitive Learning where if new data matches an

existing category, that category is strengthened (in real terms this is the connection between neurones), and other categories are made less likely to fire when new data matches that category. This means that runaway excitation is less likely to occur, and it means that the network is less likely to be overrun by meaningless signals - this maintains stability. However, the big difference between ART and Competitive Learning is the idea of a vigilance parameter which solves the problem of new data interfering with old data (which we saw was a problem with Competitive Learning). A vigilance parameter controls what is allowed into existing categories - if new data exceeds this threshold, then it won’t be allowed into the pre-existing category and a new category will be created What is so great about this is that vigilance levels can change, a very low threshold means that lots of new categories will be made so there will be lots of flexibility, but then a high threshold means that the brain remains stable. Effectively, this vigilance parameter is what regulates and compromises between plasticity and stability which doesn’t exist in Competitive Learning

In conclusion, ART is clearly a successful solution to the plasticity/stability problem. Hebbian learning is simply outdated and clearly would lead to distortion and runaway excitation while Competitive Learning has the problems of new information interfering with old information The introduction of the vigilance parameter in ART solves this problem and is successful in doing so ART also successfully provides a solution to plasticity in the brain as well as stability. We can also see how the introduction of ART in medical fields can be extremely usefultherefore ART is clearly an excellent solution the plasticity/stability problem

LITERATURE AND KNOWLEDGE: HOW

IS

LITERATURE IMPORTANT IN THE DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION AND RETAINMENT OF KNOWLEDGE AS A SOCIETY

Before humans began recording events, knowledge was transferred through the oral tradition, where stories and poems were passed down orally, as a form of communicating knowledge. Historically, literature has been vital in the development, acquisition and retainment of knowledge in society. However, philosophical perspectives on the relationship between literature and knowledge are divided, with some philosophers, such as John Gibson, arguing that literature does not contain knowledge of

moral propositions, or knowledge in the objective sense, like how one might consider scientific developments I would argue that this disregards the significant role literature has played and continues to play in society in relation to providing knowledge. Perhaps the search for an objective form of knowledge in literature, is the wrong approach. Instead, many philosophers argue that literature is able to provide powerful representations of reality and culture, through different perspectives, hence embodying ways to know the world. As Catherine Wilson argues, the process of learning through literature is through the recognition of an alternative way of thinking. Wilson also supports the proposition that literature is not a doctrine of thinking, but a how or a way of thinking [1] Additionally, in considering the role of literature in sharing different perspectives and ways of thinking, within schools and how the impact of a lack of literature is reflected in dystopian novels, it is clear that literature plays a significant role in the acquisition, development and retainment

MIA MCALLEN (L6JW)

One way of breaking down the significance of literature is to consider the role of communication and language within societies

As writer and activist Amiri Baraka asserts, “Speech is the effective form of culture”. Hence, “communication is only important because it is the broadest root of education”.[2]

This is a way through which one can share ideas and connect Baraka considers this to be powerful as language has the power to shape realities The users of words establish the world’s realities, and usually they are not the fantasies of the person but that of tradition or government. Through the understanding of language, a person ascertains knowledge, with which their reality is shaped. Baraka even suggests that “Semantic philosophers are certainly correct in their emphasis on the final dictation of words over their users,” specifically how something is said is most significant. Therefore, poetry, and more broadly literature, are an expression of language.

As a result, it is important to consider which voices can be heard, with a lack of marginalised voices within what is considered the canon, and the history of English Literature Though, the consideration of literature, in a world sense may provide one solution to this problem. Historically, there is a lack of knowledge of literary traditions and perspectives within English Literature of those who are not white, more often middle/upper class, men. When writing poetry for example, one cannot help but draw on poetic tradition, but as Annie Finch reminds us, in her essay “Female Tradition as Feminist Innovation”, that there is largely a lack of a female poetic tradition, “contemporary women poets do not have a long and powerful female formal tradition to rebel against”. The role of the contemporary female poet is not “based in the imitation of the fathers but in the unfinished work of the silent, or silenced, foremothers” [3] As the poem “Song for the Woman Poets” by A.E. Stallings, reminds us, by challenging

KNOWLEDGE of knowledge.

the male perspectives provided by Classical myths in the legend of Orpheus travelling to Tartarus to recover Eurydice – perspective is very important Hence, like history, in reflecting on the knowledge that literature provides us, we must always consider the perspective with which we are being provided, this is in itself being a form of knowledge. This is reflected in Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s famous TED talk “The Danger of a Single Story”, since only reading or being exposed to one viewpoint of a person or culture leads to a dangerous perpetuation of stereotypes.[1] Though stereotypes can be created through literature, they can also break us free from them. Hence, one of the key uses of literature is in sharing knowledge of different perspectives and experiences, rather than limiting them

This raises the question of English Literature as a subject within schools, given that its importance in the development of literacy skills and empathy is no doubt acknowledged, yet the curriculum is so often limited. Firstly, in approaching literature, as Robert Eaglestone argues, in schools, science is seen as the model of knowledge, yet the teaching of literature cannot be based on this model, rather literature should be seen as a way of knowing.[2] The experience of literature that young people receive in school is invaluable, when one in three children across the UK have fewer than ten books of their own (National Literacy Trust 2022). However, the literature deemed worthy of study disproportionately represents white people, despite that fact that the UK is a diverse, multiracial society Fewer than 1% of candidates for GCSE English Literature in 2019 answered a question on a novel by an author of colour and no more than 7% answered a question on a novel or play written by a woman.[3] Additionally, there is a lack of LGBTQ+ and disabled viewpoints. It is important to remember that many examined texts at GCSE have not changed in decades Furthermore, the changes made by Micheal Gove in 2015 placed an emphasis on modern British writing and older writing, with no

to study authors of colour Despite this, the diversity of texts that can be studied within schools has increased, though it is far from the norm yet. Indeed, schools are limited by time and resources, making it difficult for them to make changes to the literature that is studied. However, in achieving this, students would be equipped with invaluable knowledge that goes beyond the traditional literary canon, since literature is so effective in acting as cultural reflection or subversion In considering the importance of literature in providing and retaining knowledge, it is perhaps best to look where literature has been removed. An apt example of this is reflected in Ray Bradbury’s dystopia “Fahrenheit 451”, (1953) where he establishes as society in which books are burnt, ensuring that people do not have access to them Bradbury’s novel, partly a reaction to Nazi book burnings and McCarthyism, provides an understanding of the way in which literature acts as an education, providing people with different ways of thinking and knowledge, something which the majority lack in the dystopian world of “Fahrenheit 451”

This is relevant today, given the book banning that has happened recently in some states in the USA within schools and public libraries, Texas and Florida being where the most books have been banned. This novel also makes the power of literature clear for the few remaining “intellectuals”, who recall excerpts of novels and poems, in the hope that they will one day be able to write them down again Bradbury’s key fear seems to be a world where literature is no longer wanted, in which TV, that does not challenge us acts as a distraction from the reality of the oppressive state of “Fahrenheit 451”. Again, this seems culturally relevant, in a world of technology where literature is becoming less prominent. Additionally, this novel reminds us of the political relevance of literature, where in “Fahrenheit 451” simply reading a book is an act of rebellion Margaret Atwood, a prolific dystopian writer, commented that if there are no readers, “Literacy will be dead, and democracy – which many believe goes hand in hand with it – will be dead as well”.[1] Throughout her work, Atwood makes clear the political importance of writing, in her novel “The Handmaid’s

LITERATURE AND KNOWLEDGE | 34

Tale”, where most women are banned from reading and writing, again both of these actions become a political act Hence, through the world of dystopian fiction, which we must remind ourselves, is sometimes not far from reality, the importance of literature in providing and sharing knowledge is only too obvious when it is taken away.

Overall, it is clear that literature has had, and continues to have, an important and powerful role in the acquisition, distribution and retainment of knowledge. It is crucial in providing us with different ways to approach reality - the process of learning through literature being a change in the way we see the world. Authors, readers and philosophers have asserted the significance of literature as a way of thinking, of cultural record and of sharing different perspectives As Lorraine Kasprisin suggests, art “becomes a vehicle for meaning It becomes a statement about the world rather than being of the world”.[1] Hence, it is a how or way of accessing knowledge, without which society would be unrecognisable.

References

[1] Catherine Wilson Literature and Knowledge (1983).

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3750861?seq=1

[2] Amiri Baraka. Expressive Language (1963).

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/694 73/expressive-language

[3] Annie FInch. Female Tradition as Feminist Innovation (2005)

https://www poetryfoundation org/articles/695 67/female-tradition-as-feminist-innovation

[4] Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. The Danger of a Single Story (2009).

https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda ngozi adichie the danger of a single story#t1101088

[5] Robert Eaglestone Powerful knowledge, cultural literacy and the study of literature in schools (2021)

[6] Victoria Elliot, Lesly Nelson-Addy, Roseanne Chantiluke and Matthew Courtney. Lit in Colour: Diverstiy in Literature in English Schools (2021).

https://litincolour.penguin.co.uk/assets/Lit-inColour-research-report pdf

[7] Marta Bausells Why we read: authors and readers on the power of literature (2016). https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/ 23/why-we-read-authors-and-readers-on-thepower-of-literature

[8] Lorraine Kasprisin. Literature as a Way of Knowing: An Epistemological Justification for Literary Studies (1987)

https://www jstor org/stable/3332867?seq=10

THE ROLE OF REASON IN THE ENLIGHTENMENT: HOW DID A NEW APPROACH TO EPISTEMOLOGY SHAPE BELIEF?

CAITLIN DE SOUSA (L6MSA)

The Enlightenment was a ‘European intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries in which ideas concerning God, reason, nature and humanity were central, as they were synthesised into a worldview that instigated revolutionary development in politics, arts and philosophy.’ (1) It celebrated reason: the God-given power through which humans can understand the universe and come to their own logical conclusions It was an era of innovation, where people chose to seek answers, find happiness and embrace their free will. However, it had a large impact on faith, and belief, especially as the movement aimed to distance the state from the

Throughout this period, reason was applied to different areas of study, with a focus not only on religion, but also on science – one of the most famous contradictions to religion and religious developments. The 17th century was the point at which the opposition to Christianity’s authority over the whole of Europe came to be discovered amongst ‘intellectuals who championed science as an alternative to Christianity.’ (2) Many of these intellectuals believed that through their reason and scientific discoveries, they had proved that the Bible was inadequate to explain the wonders of the world They believed that Christian scholars did not understand that religion was not based on logical reason, but rather belief without evidence, as they were disconnected from reality, making it seem useless to anti-Christian intellectuals. However, the critiques and anti-religious statements did little to sway the authority of the Church, with people instead seeing science as heresy and a threat Although many scientists, such as Galileo and Newton, REASON DURING THE

ERA | 36

remained Christians, the Church continued to condemn scientific theories, such as the heliocentric theory, that the earth and planets revolve around the sun, due to Biblical scripture teaching us that the ‘Lord had made the sun stop in the sky’ (2): instead opting to believe that the earth is stationary in the sky and the planets and sun move around it, as there was no Biblical contradiction to this explanation This shows that the Church chose to interpret the Bible literally, similar to fundamentalist beliefs today. The Church’s teachings would be against our current reasoning, as we know through science, that the belief that the earth is stationary in the sky has been disproven. However, at the time, belief was shaped by the Catholic Church and scientists were forced to change their theories and proclaim false truths In the trial of Galileo, he was forced to formally reject all his findings, and publicly state that the earth stays in place and the skies move around it: conforming to the views of the Church. Yet after this trial, he reportedly stated that ‘the earth does move’ – showing the resistance of even those who had belief in God, to the new approach the Church took towards epistemological development Although it seems as though this new approach to knowledge through reason shaped solely Catholic beliefs through the Church’s strict control; in reality there were many Christian intellectuals who embraced this new knowledge and way of thinking, wanting to develop science as proof of God’s truth and show that God inspired science, showing his greatness This argument was also introduced through the philosopher Calvin, who in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, insisted that the world was a ‘mirror’ of God’s greatness, combining both science (reason) and religion (faith) through natural theology, which is the theory that knowledge of God can be gained by the power of the human mind (3) The Catholic Church insisted that the efficiency and beauty of nature could not be coincidental and must be designed by a higher

power – the sole work of God. In opposition to this, scientists attempted to explain that the ‘mathematical and mechanical’ attributes of the world (2) were purely scientific, explainable through scientific discoveries and theories. Yet, the Catholic Church simply believed that all of these theories showed evidence for the existence of the Christian God, even the most potent scientific discoveries such as the existence of gravity, which was seen by the Church to be so intricate and finely tuned, that God could be the only one capable of creating it. A main reason why the new approach to faith through reason was not truly life-changing for religion (Christianity in particular) and did not lead to an acknowledgement of the role of reason in the world, was due to the men who were chosen to lead the religious institutions, who had an animus against science and asserted that faith transcended scientific reality (2)not allowing any discussion. However, the approach to epistemology through reason, lead to an entirely new attitude towards new religion, and formed Deism – in opposition to Christianity. This can be defined as an ‘unorthodox religious attitude that refers to what can be called ‘natural religion’ (4) For someone who was a Deist, they only believed in God’s existence through reason and that the complexity of nature makes God seem self-evident: perhaps a link to modern day natural theologians. However, they believed that God’s nature is incomprehensible due to our mortal limitations, but through our God-given reason we can develop our own ethical principles using our freedom They did not see God as a deity who interacted with humankind, which threatened the Catholic Church and Bible’s idea of the transcendent nature of God and created an opposition to the Church –providing people with an alternative view towards religion which advocated morality as religion’s most positive force It may seem that the development of reason in religion through the Enlightenment is positive, since it inspired

people to think of new ways to discover God, such as through the outside world and our own logic, not blindly trusting religious texts and scriptures. Yet, this introduction of Deism also had negative effects, such as skepticism and atheism. This is because the focus on reason drew focus away from the core values of the Catholic Church and the Bible, leading people away from the core principles of the time, such as belief itself People began to doubt the authority of the Church even further, due to their newly discovered reason, as skeptics challenged the adequacy and reliability of its principles. This meant that people began to denounce the beliefs that arose from mystery and miracle, causing the number of atheists to grow, as they came to their own conclusions about the existence of God through reason alone, causing the Catholic Church to lose some of their authority, and animosity between the religious institutions, science and reason to grow exponentially. Overall, the Enlightenment helped to develop new religion in history, showing people that there was an alternative to blind faith (as Christianity was trying to inspire in people at the time), whilst not denying God or religion, only the aspects that are based on mystery and miracle. This is crucial to the study of epistemology and knowledge of God today as it sparks the argument of how God can best be discovered: through natural theology, revealed theology or simply sensus divinitatis (innate sense of the divine). It also formed the basis of Deism, which was the main factor behind taking away the mysterious aspects of religion and created anti-church radicalism, and the idea of the separation of church and state. The Enlightenment may not have allowed the Catholic Church to make peace with science, but it certainly allowed the Church to solidify the faith of the those who still wanted to believe, in more ways than just one, whilst allowing people to choose what they wanted to believe in

In the modern day, reason and religion have found a way to co-exist with each other, as each rely on each other. Without reason, it can

be argued that faith is completely blind, simply following a perceived higher deity, without any empirical evidence, and without faith, life would rely on each person’s interpretations and a flawed conscience due to the concupiscence because of the Fall, where Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit. This is supported by more modern philosophers, such as Bonaventura and Polkinghorne, who believe that there are multiple ways of seeing the world, through both reason and faith, allowing us to have a deeper and more well-rounded understanding of God.

Therefore, it seems as though a new approach to epistemology through religion during the Enlightenment, impacted belief to a great extent as it gave people more ways to understand the existence of God, whilst also allowing people to make their own decisions about what they believe in. Although reason and scientific discoveries caused tensions for decade between science and religion, in the end, it has shown us that both reason and belief are extremely helpful for the Catholic Church, believers and scientists to discover truths about God and the universe, allowing everyone to have a unique viewpoint. It could be argued that without the Enlightenment, we would not have reached the maturity, freedom and understanding of the world that we have today. As Pope John Paul II stated ‘faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.’

https://www.britannica.com/event/Enlightenm ent-European-history (1) https://www encyclopedia com/humanities/cul ture-magazines/christianity-science-andenlightenment#:~:text=The%20Scientific%20R evolution.,as%20an%20alternative%20to%20C hristianity. (2)

https://alevelphilosophyandreligion com/ocrreligious-studies/ocr-christianity/knowledgeof-gods-existence/ (3) https://www.vaia.com/enus/explanations/history/europeanhistory/enlightenment-religion/ (4)

COMMENTS ON THE FREE WILL-DETERMINISM DEBATE

JUNIOR PHILOSOPHY CLUB

“Through conscience and free will, each of us has the right to live as we choose.” Barack Obama

“Not everyone can have complete free will at the same time,” Theo Reagan 2E

“Man has free will, otherwise councils, exhortations, community, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain.”

Aquinas + Philip Tattersal 1N

“Free will does not exist because life is restricted to money and jobs,” Seb Harris JT

“I believe that everyone has free will because anyone can do whatever they want, regardless of the law, because if they get arrested they still could choose whatever they want to do, even if it is illegal The law can give you punishments, but it can’t stop you from doing what you want to do,” Freddie Dawe 2E

“You do not have free will in life because it is up to your parents what you what you do you (like if they took you to ice skating and not cricket, then you cannot explore cricket so you don’t have free will )” Aaryav Mehra JT

“Your parents are like a dictionary, you use it to learn words, and then you use those words to make your own stories.”

Kieran Logendra 2G + Saahil Mahajan 2G

“Free will does not completely exist. Yes, you can choose how to live, but can you go on the street and murder someone with no charge? No! It is impossible to have complete free will: this is what ethics suggests,” Atharva Joshi

“Free will does not exist As a child, everything in your life is chosen by your parents and other adults If you think about it, you will realise that all of your hobbies when you were a child were chosen by your parents. Later on in life, your hobbies are your hobbies because they have some sort of connection to child hobbies chosen by your parents. Your personality is created by your memories, and childhood is the jumpstart for memories and choosing what sort of person you will be Your parents are the ones that created these memories for you, either directly or indirectly. Everything that is you has been chosen by your parents. Other things like books and television also contribute to this. Your personality decides what choices you make in life. If your personality has been created by someone else, then they have chosen how you make choices This is the same for your parents, their parents, and this continues back in time until the first ever living thing. That was the only ever being who had free will. Free will died off a long time ago, but humans are too afraid to acknowledge it.” Torin Strathearn 1N

Are people able to choose their religion?

“Yes, because you (and every human) has free will, so you can decide what to believe ” Unknown

“In some religions, it is hard to break apart.” Unknown

“The religion that your parents are a part of will be the religion that you are born into When you get to an age where you think about joining a different religion, you will, by then, know the religion that you are in so well, that you wouldn’t join another.” Torin Strathearn 1N

Are people able to choose the sport that they like? – Seb

Harris-Folkard, Aaryav Mehra JT

“Yes, sporting careers are for everyone Every sport can be your sport.”

“Everyone has potential. But it is your choice whether or not to try new things.”

“No, it’s up to your parents to give you exposure to different sports ”

Can you choose your career?

“Yes, but if you go down one path of learning for a long time, it is difficult to break away from it.” Philip Tattersal 1N

“No, everything in your childhood was decided by your parents, and likewise, for them This chooses your hobbies, and then your career ” Unknown

Are we free to go anywhere in the world?

“Some places are too expensive.” “Your religion blocks you out from certain countries.” “Ethnicity blocks you from certain countries ” Unknown

“Yes, because even if the country has restrictions, you are still able to go there,” Freddie Dawe 2E