5. ToK Prescribed Titles (2009) Question 10

There can be no knowledge without emotion…until we have felt the force of the knowledge, it is not ours” (adapted from Arnold Bennett). Discuss this vision of the relationship between knowledge and emotion.

The essence of the Q: while the main focus is on the key words 'emotion' and knowledge', don't be deceived into thinking that you have to ignore the other WoKs: you must explore how reason, language and perception either enhance or hinder emotion in getting knowledge. Look closely at Bennett's statement: do you think it involves any bias? What does he mean by the 'force' of knowledge? Surely the first part of the statement is blatantly wrong - I know that the internal angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, but there's no emotion involved in that knowledge... And what does he mean by suggesting that knowledge is 'ours' - can knowledge be owned or possessed? Is it a commodity to be bought and sold? Don't fall into the trap of defining 'emotion' or equating it with 'instinct' or 'intuition', although you could certainly trace their similarities. Following Roger, you might explore the 'survival' value of emotion: how our emotions have allowed us to adapt to our environment and evolve into such strangely complex and intelligent creatures.

Knowledge Issues: Is emotion a reliable test for our knowledge? Can emotion be measured? To what extent does all our knowledge have emotive or subjective origins? Is any knowledge without emotional 'force' knowledge at all? Is objective knowledge impossible to acquire? If all knowledge springs from emotion, isn't the idea of truth completely relative? Is subjectivism a justifiable position?

Approaches: The Arts are the most relevant place to start exploring these knowledge issues - especially with regards to the issue of what makes a 'good' work of art? One person's interpretation will differ from another's and there may be some very emotive discussions of modern 'installation' art. In Ethics, Bennett's statement appears to hold true: can you think of any ethical situation that is not emotive? Distinguish here between ethics and morals - which one involves being dispassionate and objective and which one is subjective and wholly emotive? Also consider that in public speaking or debating, it's usually the people who express their knowledge with passion and emotion who get the votes: there may be little content in, or substance behind, their words, but the emotive impact of their words is everything (some have accused Mr. Obama of this). Our knowledge of history is meant to be factual and informative - we have to keep our emotions out of the events of the past, in favour of dating and categorising these events. But is this always possible? Surely, our emotions direct us in the first place in deciding which events should count as history... Now mathematical knowledge, as suggested above, doesn't involve any emotion (except, of course, if you happen to struggle with quadratic equations!). But what about the link to intuition here? Isn't their a thrill when you suddenly grasp the answer to a question without having to make all the requisite steps in the calculation? Think about the place of emotion in the Natural and Human Sciences: perhaps the approach to knowledge of the latter is more emotive. Again, you might like to explore the links to intuition and instinct, but always aim to analyse how emotion can be helped by the other ways of knowing.