Anna Wood

Robison Bean

Theory of Knowledge

2020

“Others have seen what is and asked why. I have seen what could be and asked why not?” (Pablo Picasso) Explore this distinction with reference to two areas of knowledge.  

The quote generally refers to thinking outside the box and further exploring established information.  Both questions can produce innovative ideas but lead in different

directions.  The prompt suggests that the display of imagination is scarce and groundbreaking.  Perhaps “why” is a simpler question because the outcome is known, whereas “why

not” entails an intimidating unfamiliarity.  “Why” can be a simple explanation or demonstration. “Why not” can have many answers, possibly no answers, but usually more than a

single word response.  If why can be asked more readily than why not, the area of knowledge is likely more objective than subjective.  The area of knowledge limits the extent to

which the way of knowing can be criticized.  Based on the individuality of an area of knowledge, we are encouraged to criticize the teachings and claims of experts.  Such subjectivity

stems from how we learn the given knowledge and the creativity of the professionals.  For example, math is seemingly objective; students are fed formulas and identities to

memorize and then apply.  We are taught to question why a problem works out to a certain solution, but not any other answer because there are only select answers.  As for ethics,

philosophers weigh moral outcomes and are taught that there is not necessarily a right or wrong answer.  The easiest question for a person to ask in ethics is why not but answering

why not can be the most difficult question of all, especially when we are inclined to argue their point.  In school we are encouraged to advocate for our point of view even if it is not

our own, therefore, it conditions people at a young age to ignore or downplay potential counterclaims.  Discovering new concepts in math is just as difficult as discovering new

concepts in ethics.  The truth is so concrete in math so there is little room to criticize knowledge, but in ethics, there is so much freedom for new ideas that creating a truly original

approach is difficult.  Arguably, there are experts in math. Math is built on incrimental learning so one must teach another the next step.  In ethics, there are no definitive teachers

and students because the “students” and “teachers”  have the ability to learn from each other. 

When there are infinite possibilities or alternatives do more people challenge established facts?  There are infinite possibilities to discover anything in any subject but only

some areas of knowledge condition criticism or teach students about the infinite expansions to be discovered.  Math teaches us that no matter how large and specialized, it can be

expanded to see a bigger picture.  From the Fibonacci sequence, set theory, to Mandelbrot fractals, math provides answers within itself in an infinite pattern.  For instance, Georg

Cantor was a mathematician who established set theory and focused on transfinite numbers and was said to have questioned God’s work (Georg Cantor, Encyclopædia Britannica).

  Years later, mathematician Bertrand Russel proposed Russell’s paradox which undermined the work of Cantor (Georg Cantor– The Man Who Founded Set Theory,

https://www.storyofmathematics.com).  If applied to imagination and knowledge, it essentially states that it is impossible to imagine imagination or impossible to define all of

knowledge which brings about the concern: To what extent can this theory be applied to knowledge?  Although it was founded in mathematics, it is intended to apply to anything.  

For most in the modern world, math is taught by school teachers and not from personal experience.  As math builds, it branches off and brings about more natural questions as to

why things are the way they are, but also what else can be derived from higher maths.  Fundamental math offers more opportunity to ask why as opposed to why not since it is

implied in the name fundamental math that those understandings are given and unquestionable.  Therefore, in regards to mathematics, the more you know, the more there is to

question, but the less you know the easier it is to question.  

  To make an ethical decision, several different approaches must be taken to ensure integrity.  Theoretically, there are infinite choices in ethics to produce a variety of

outcomes.  When everything is questioned, criticism is normalized.  A major part of ethics is “what if…” much of which is theoretical but can still be analyzed.  The prisoner’s dilemma

, for example, is a real-life ethical dilemma where none of the outcomes are ideal.  For each of the three outcomes, one can make a case as to why that is the better option and just as

easily make a case against one of the outcomes.  In this scenario, why and why not answer a similar question.  Immediately after hearing the dilemma, one has a reaction or gut

feeling and instant ethical questions arise like “why did I choose that option so instinctively?” thereby preconditioning students to choose a right answer then instantly build

evidence for the most ethical choice regardless of the initial choice.  Rarely is the first option the best.  Moral imagination proposed by Mark Johnson, Edmund Burke, and Adam

Smith, states that one should always evaluate all possible outcomes before acting on a situation, then the consensus of all utilizing their imagination is the moral choice (Moral

Imagination, https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/ ,The University of Texas at Austin).  In theory that is sound, however, by nature that is impossible and inefficient (Heath, Moral

Imagination, Encyclopædia Britannica) .  Thus, the amount of possibilities is irrelevant to how common it is to criticize the truth in regards to ethics.  

Therefore, does the capacity to imagine determines the ability to question the truth?  Capacity to imagine is  dependent on the person and the suggested amount of free

thought in the area of knowledge based on the conclusion to the first knowledge question. What are the factors that determine a person’s ability to imagine? It is both nature and

nurture, but more importantly habitual. How well curiosity is nurtured influences an individual’s boundaries of imagination going forward as it imprints an expected amount of

doubt or certainty.  Anyone is able to imagine a solution to a math problem.  However, a child who is told they are intelligent are more likely to have the confidence to challenge a

subject as logical as math as opposed to a child told they are not as intelligent.

Although restriction of thought is synonymous with censorship, it also has its positives.  These limitations can be set by social constructs which give people rules to the

game of thought.  In modern day, humans are tethered to these common concepts like monetary value which everything else is based off of.  Few question money lest they want to

undermine the system in place and ensue discord.  The safety of thought can be demeaning but also simpler than knowing nothing to be true unto which one calibrates oneself.  In

addition to agreed upon standards, fear holds people back from discovery.  Fear of learning something that thwarts the knowledge of others or fear of what something could lead to.

  Mathematicians fear an entire branch of math growing more convoluted for practical purposes, or the intimidating nature of arguing with “facts”.  Philosophers battle this fear

under the guise of uncertainty, without bounds too much unravels thus assumptions contain the mind its infinite possibilities.  

As established earlier, exploring and questioning are integral parts of ethics, yet each circumstance is limited to its own outcomes.  In an ethical dilemma like the trolley

car scenario, there are two options.  In real life there are likely many more, however, the dilemma itself forces one to make a crucial decision.  It would be unreasonable to ask “why

does the train not have breaks”, presenting an I have seen what could be and asked why not type of response with the truth being that a decision must be made between the divided

tracks.  It is a valid question, but that is not the intent of the dilemma.  Despite the subjectivity of ethics, there are rules; rules that usually conform to the specific topic or

guidelines.  Now the capacity to imagine has been narrowed making the questions more focused and probably more challenging to propose.  Therefore, based on the ethical

discussion and ground rules, the types of questions are restricted, which as a whole decreases the capacity to imagine ethical solutions.

One may propose the argument that imagination cannot be quantified and is unlimited.  Based on empirical evidence, imagination is infinite given everything humans

have created has most likely stemmed from someone’s imagination or thoughts. The only way to limit imagination is to believe there is a limit.   In conclusion, the distinction between

why and why not can be traced back to one’s understanding of a subject, but ultimately it is rooted in one’s personal beliefs and habits.  The reasons for an individual’s curiosity

cannot be followed back to a single explanation, or exact causes which makes criticism incredibly hazy.  Theoretically and practically, the “capacity to imagine” consequences or

questions is both infinite and impossibly infinite; perhaps the absolute paradox.  

Works Cited

“19th Century Mathematics - Cantor.” Cantor - 19th Century Mathematics - The Story of Mathematics, https://www.storyofmathematics.com/19th_cantor.html.

Heath, F. Eugene. “Moral Imagination.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 5 Sept. 2017, https://www.britannica.com/topic/moral-imagination.

“Moral Imagination.” Ethics Unwrapped, https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-imagination.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Georg Cantor.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2 July 2019, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Georg-Ferdinand-Ludwig-Philipp-Cantor.