Students must post here one comment of 80-100 words on the play "Copenhagen". This is a TOK EXERCISE NOT LITERATURE. PLEASE DO NOT REVIEW THE PLAY. FOCUS ON TOK :)
- SUGGESTIONS -
- KNOWLEDGE ISSUES CONCERNING HISTORY AS AN AREA OF KNOWLEDGE- HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW?
- KNOWLEDGE ISSUES - HOW CAN WE KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT SOMEONE WAS THINKING OR THEIR INTENTION?
- What are the ethical limits of knowledge when it concerns weapons of mass destruction? Should we use our knowledge to build chemical weapons, biological weapons and nuclear weapons?
- SCIENCE AS KNOWLEDGE - ETHICAL DUTY? ( Scanners on foetus - checking gender of foetus in advance- infanticide?)
- Amartya Sen - "The Argumentative Indian" - chapter on nuclear weapons.
- You - as a TOK STUDENT IN INDIA IN 2012 - WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE PLAY AND ITS RELEVANCE IN THE WORLD OF 2012?
-Shivaan Thakkar (he could not comment through his laptop)
ReplyDeleteCopenhagen addresses issues about the reliability of information and the ethical responsibility of possessing knowledge.
The ideas in the play show us that knowledge, or a lack of it, could lead to an inherent need to substitute what we do not know with what we think we know. We invariably use our ways of knowing to mend the absence of knowledge with temporary belief – with perspective. And in the passing on of such beliefs, as can be seen in History as an area of knowledge, there arise problems with knowledge. Thus, in juxtaposing two beliefs, the issue we must deal with is determining which perspective is more ‘reliable’.
Secondly, the play also demonstrated how knowledge could be used for an atomic bomb or a nuclear power plant – depending on the user. And in considering this duality of knowledge, we must be mindful of the ethical and moral parameters of our use, or misuse, of information. A key determinant in defining such limits is the role of judgment and relativism. What might be downright immoral to one individual might be acceptable to another. Hence, the problem arises when we must decide where to draw the line between moral and immoral; ethical and unethical. I believe that there would always exist a discrepancy between opinions as long as perspective and individual belief play a role in judgment.
In conclusion, the play has showed me the link between perspective and reliability of information, and has taught me of the power of knowledge and how its contextualization is solely dependent on the “knower”.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI can't say that I particularly enjoyed the play because of all the scientific jargon-however i could appreciate its message. The main question that I thought the play addressed was 'How can we know the truth about what really happened at that meeting in Copenhagen, knowing there are two vastly different accounts of the event.'
ReplyDeleteWe have to rely on language as a way of knowing-letters written by Bohr surfaced after his death condemning Heisenbergs expectations of him; however Heisenberg went to his grave saying that he spoke in code at that meeting. We can see how language can be used to shroud actual meaning and how ineffective or unclear use of language led to one of the biggest misunderstandings of the 20th century.
Reason and emotion are important ways of knowing in this situation because Bohr was half Jewish when he thought that Heisenberg wanted to conscript him into working for the Nazi's he was understandably upset. Heisenberg said he had spoken in code that day because he believed Bohr's estate to be bugged and he wanted to avoid detection by the Nazi's.
We have to keep in mind that Heisenberg and Bohr had been friends before this whole fiasco and had produced some of their best works together. It is quite possible that Bohr gave Heisenberg the benefit of the doubt and may just have written those letters to vent. We know that he never sent them, so Heisenbergs friendship was obviously very dear to him.
Both versions of the story are believable, it depends completely on the reader, although the playwright seems to favor Heisenberg. To make a fair judgement, we should consider all the evidence, limited as it is, and avoid making a conformation bias to obtain an impartial conclusion.
In the play Copenhagen, according to me ethics plays an important role in the acceptance of knowledge. The knowledge of how an atomic bomb is made is very rare but whether to use or no is the decision to make. This decision could be ethical to one party and not another as they will be on opposite ends.
ReplyDeleteThe play also shows us uncertainty in life and science, as what we do is never certain and is not important to be right. For e.g. the calculation of the U-235 was not assured which shows us uncertainty in science. The uncertainty in life is shown with the dark origins of human behavior and human actions.
- Kaniel (he could not post a comment either)
ReplyDeleteHistory (an AOK) has been known to help us piece the puzzles of the past and even understand it. It attempts to explain our past actions and answer the fundamental question "why did it take place?". For long we have relied on history to explain our conflicts or advancements. However, History does happen to be written by the "successful witness" or as the quotes states "Written by the victors". Hence the play "Copenhagen" remains just the writer's point of view and does not essentially explain as to why the "Meeting in Copenhagen" took place between Bohr and Heisenberg.
Majority of historians and people enthusiastic about historical facts believe that Heisenberg risked visiting Copenhagen during the Second World War, to persuade Bohr in helping the Nazis build a nuclear weapon. However that is where the claim stops.
This just happens to be the one of the author's interpretation of the reason behind the meeting. However we may never know what really happened in that meeting as there was no witness or recording. Therefore the following questions can be raised, "How can we know the truth about Historical Facts?" or "How can we rely on the validity of Historical Events?"
This uncertainty of "what really happened in the meeting" allows me to conclude that History as a way of knowing also comes with issues of knowledge. A historical event unless well documented cannot be considered credible as it could have always been perceived incorrectly or misinterpreted. In conclusion the play "Copenhagen" is a golden example which proves how possessing knowledge could lead to ethical issues, in this case- The wrong usage of nuclear energy and essentially scientific advancement.
- Prianka (she could not post a comment as well)
ReplyDeleteIn the play Copenhagen the two physicists discuss the ethics behind creating a weapon of mass destruction. About a decade after the war, Heisenberg visited Bohr, to discuss his own ethical concerns about nuclear weaponry. However, Bohr remembers differently; he claims that Heisenberg seemed to have no moral qualms about creating atomic weapons for the Axis powers. So to what extent can the audience know the truth about what really happened and who is right and who is wrong?
This also leads to the knowledge issue about whether Heisenberg was unethical in trying to supply atomic energy to the Nazis and whether Bohr behaved immorally by creating the atomic bomb?
Through out the play, Margarette asks the question, “but why did he come to Copenhagen?” How can the audience know for sure why Heisenberg really came to visit Bohr? Over the years and even through the course of the play, several versions of the answer to this question have been drafted. When it comes to history as an area of knowledge, we require enough evidence to come to a conclusion about a certain event or theory, and often the problem of history is either too much evidence or too little evidence. In this case, there is not enough evidence of why the two scientists met in Copenhagen in 1941 and people tend to assume and draft their own versions from what they hear, using language as a way of knowing.
This could lead to the claim of whether Heisenberg was visiting Bohr only to seek moral guidance? Or whether he wanted to parade his superior status?
My inability to comprehend much of the intricate details of nuclear physics possibly hindered my understanding of the play, to a certain extent. However, even the actors in the play were not well versed with the aspect of physics in the play when they agreed to take up the play because they believed it was interesting. My situation was similar to theirs. Despite the complexities and subtleties of high level nuclear physics, I was able to appreciate the core of the play.
ReplyDeleteThe core of the play was simply a knowledge issue, along with an ethical issue. The knowledge issue is whether Heisenberg came to Copenhagen to create a nuclear bomb or not. The ethical issue came in the form of whether it is correct to help your country in a situation of war even if you will be responsible for the death of millions of people.
The play also involved an extremely important Area of Knowledge and the power those who witness these events have. A historian has the ability to build or tarnish the reputation of a person in the future. Bohr had that exact power when it came to Heisenberg and his reputation.
As the true motives behind Heisenberg's visit is unknown, speculation and reconstruction are our only ways to find out. Maybe, the play was a reconstruction in an attempt to stimulate thought in the audience, so that one day, the real motive behind Heisenberg's visit can be deduced.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the later part of the play remained obscure owing to the extensive use of scientific terminology, the inherent purpose of the play was clear throughout. The areas of knowledge of History, Ethics and Natural Science arise here. A collective use of all the four ways of knowing was required to comprehend the significance of the happenings in this play.
ReplyDeleteWe can never be most "certain" about history. The accounts of historians are often influenced by personal ideology and bias. Time and again, historians have tried to excogitate reasons as to why Heisenberg visited Copenhagen, and have made contradictory inferences. This arises the knowledge issue, 'To what extent can we rely on historians and their accounts, while attempting to deduce the events of the past?'
Moreover, the play involved an extremely important ethical issue regarding the use of nuclear weaponry as weapons of mass destruction during the second world war. The knowledge issue here is, "Is it ethical to aid one's country and support nationalism by supplying nuclear weaponry, while knowing that the aftermath would be dire for the entire human race?
In context of this play, we can relate to one of the prescribed TOK titles for 2013: Does the possession of knowledge carry an ethical responsibility?
Even after spending a good three hours trying to decipher Heisenberg's purpose of travel, the question still remains unanswered. This speaks of the uncertainty in the universe
As I understand it, Michael Frayn wrote the play intending that it would be palatable for a wide audience - that knowledge about Physics, or about History wouldn’t be necessary for understanding the play. In this respect, the play is perfectly suited for a general audience.
ReplyDeleteThough the understanding of either subject would help the audience appreciate certain aspects of the play, it is not required for grasping the “bigger picture” of the play. This is not because each concept of physics is explained in the dialogue, or because the background of each historical event is provided. It is because the “bigger picture” of the play is something much more fundamental.
One of these fundamental issues could be: Should the intensions of an act matter, if the outcomes are good.
Of-course, most viewers thought they hadn’t understood the play because they weren’t familiar with the physics that was being talked about. In regards to the fact that the play was intended for a general audience, this presents another fundamental issue. “Do the intentions of an act necessarily dictate the outcome”?
- Zara
ReplyDeleteOne KI which struck me during the play was- "To what extent does overly complicating and analyzing a situation hinder the pursuit of knowledge?"
Before the play, I had my guesses about why Heinsberg visited Copenhagen. But halfway through the play, I was more confused than ever. I had absolutely no opinion on who was speaking the truth, on what version of reality was real. I think that was the aim of the play- to remain ambiguous- but personally I like knowing a concrete or at least probable answer. I was something which Margaret said that finally seemed right- "He came to show off." Unlike her male counterparts of phenomenal scientific intelligence, she was a normal intelligent person- or was she? She was shrewd and saw a situation for what it was. She didn't build layers around it like Heinsberg and Bohr; she kept things simple and didn't veer of a topic easily. I think her guess is right because even Heinsberg doesn't know why he visited them. That could be because his superficial reasons for going (asking advice, asking for connections Bohr didn't have, etc.) were different from his subconcious intention- to show them how well he had come on and meet his old friend. I believe Margaret was right, because her theory makes sense from all perspectives.
There is a counterclaim- that it was the complex analysis of the two scientists that enabled Margaret to make such an observation. Plus, I believe she is right but there is no evidence for the same- I simply feel it is coherent. The truth being relative, most people will have their own opinions.
But I do believe that making a simple problem overly complicated can be the biggest hurdle to solving it. It does help to generate more theories though, which, even if far-fetched, may just turn out to be the truth.
-Parth Seth
ReplyDeleteOne of the most knowledge issues in the play, from the view of the audience, would be "How can the expectation of something affect our knowledge of it?". I felt that a large part of the audience chose not to concentrate on the play as a result of their previous knowledge that the play would analyse a large amount of Physics.
I felt that the main area of knowledge was that of ethics since it was an ethical dilemma that both the scientists were confused between. The dilemma was between releasing the information about the nuclear bomb to Germany or not.
History and Natural Sciences as area of knowledge are integral to each other. Both our very important forces of our lives. History is recorded knowledge whereas Science is proven knowledge. In history, we know what we know as it is recorded and presented to us. This recorded knowledge thus affects our perception and therefore our reasoning and emotion. In science however, we know what we know because it has been proven to us. Thus our reason and logic is affected. Both areas of knowledge have their ethical limits. The use of nuclear weapons have played an important role in both history and science and in our pursuit to knowledge. When it comes to nuclear weapons, one should not use their knowledge to build such weapons. This is where ethics steps in and in particular the rightness and wrongness of nuclear policy. To much or lack of knowledge either helps to build a bridge or blow it up.
ReplyDeleteThe wok sense perception enabled us to gain information by viewing and listening to the play, which consisted of only three speakers/characters. And it was evident that to understand the play a great deal of concentration and attention was required. The language being simply words spoken or expressions or body gestures helped each character to portray his or her personality. These ways of knowing enabled the audience to have an insight into the play. The language was influential and captivating at times since emotions were conveyed through language and had gestures. The play hovered around misconceptions, guilt and morals. From the sad drowning accident of Bohr’s son to Heisenberg having to create a nuclear weapon for Hitler to experiencing guilt for betraying his nation by interacting with the enemy. There was a clash between the ways of knowing reason and emotion because Heisenberg was in a fix which was that he’d either be reasonable and loyal to his country and Hitler by building the nuclear missile to win the war and for their protection. On the other hand being driven into emotions that it would result in the deaths and casualties of over a million innocent people and his friends would feel deceived.
ReplyDeleteKnowledge issues: To what extent is the play reliable to reveal the real truth about what happened between the two physicists that night?
To what extent can the audience depend on the role played by the actor to judge the historical person?
How do we know if Michael Frayn could be called a historian or simply a war playwright?
Can the play be used as evidence or as hints to solve the mystery of Heisenberg’s visit to Copenhagen?
In my opinion Heisenberg was in a constricted situation where either he could be a friend and save a whole another nation risking his own nation’s security or then simply risking other nation’s security and causing mass destruction. Here the two ways of knowing can be interrogated which seems more logical or rather right emotion or reason? It depends from person to person. But emotions have entangled Heisenberg when it comes to be being a loyal citizen.
Well in my opinion country leaders are more concerned about the security of their nation. Each country is striving to develop as fast with latest technological advancements. A great deal of military advancements like the AH-64 Apache helicopter may benefit one country but to protect one can destroy another. This is an example of how knowledge carries an ethical responsibility.
The AOK science in my opinion does carry an ethical responsibility because if a thing is created to benefit one person it shouldn't be harming others. Knowledge should be there to benefit us and the people around us. In fact science should be used or should emphasize on how to improve the quality of life and the environment rather than trying to make one nation a superpower than the other.
The play is actually relevant even today because it portrays how sense perception as the only communicative way of knowing cause misconceptions that can result in failing of nations. Also it presents knowledge could be the cause of the end of human existence and that ethical responsibility should be carried all along. The play was not a historical documentary but seems so, due to the language this proves that language as a WOK can change the opinion of a person for example it portrays Heisenberg to be an innocent man but what if he really wasn't. One has to be aware of what they are basing their insights on because our sense perception can easily be tricked and can lead to a deviation in reasoning.
In my opinion, a rather significant TOK aspect of the play was the reliability of language as a way of knowing... in the play, we encounter two problems in interpretation: miscommunication and deliberate manipulation. We do not know if Heisenberg's noble intentions had been truly misunderstood by the Bohr, or whether Heisenberg later manipulated the truth. These lead to ambiguity and uncertainty, and hence, it is difficult to truly "know" what was Heisenberg's true intention. Thus, language plays an important role as a way of knowing. The ambiguity caused by language prompts the audience to consider other ways of knowing to obtain the truth. Emotions prompt the audience to believe Heisenberg may be innocent. This is probably because the playwright and director have provided a moving account of the initial friendship between Heisenberg and Bohr. This perhaps causes us to sympathize with Heisenberg. Yet, reason suggests otherwise. The illustration of the socio-political conditions of the time seems to suggest that Heisenberg truly was guilty. The complexities in the play prompt me to wonder if as an audience, I am creating a false dilemma... perhaps there really is no way of clearly declaring if Heisenberg was "innocent" or "not-innocent". Perhaps these value-judgements would greatly differ depending on the context from which we look at the situation, the ethical standards used, and indeed, the numerous other factors that influenced Heisenberg's visit to Copenhagen.
ReplyDelete