Response #1.

This is in response to Chelsea's question, "Do you believe that tattoos should be considered art, and would you ever get one?"

I do believe that tattoos are considered works of art, for numerous reasons. Number one is that the artist who is tattooing on your skin is an actual artist; their work is normally talented both on the skin and on the paper. Skin is just merely another surface to make art upon. Secondly is that the tattoo can hold just as much meaning and just as much symbolism as any other visual piece of art. Art is known as art because of it's way of reaching into the human soul and grabbing a piece of it and churning it into something not only visually-stimulating, but also worthy of deep thought. I'm personally a tattoo enthusiast, I've loved them for years, and many of the tattoos that I've seen on other people (and the ones I have myself) are both artistically well done and has deeper meaning that is unique to each tattoo.

As for myself, I already have a tattoo and I'm planning out many, many more. I have a yin yang separated by yin and yang on each shoulder blade with two dots next to each side to represent a bass clef. It pretty much represents my belief that there is good in every evil and evil in every good, and how the universe naturally balances itself out, and how I also believe that music plays a role in that process because it's one of the oldest and most organic forms of artistic creation known to man. It's my first tattoo and I couldn't ask for anything more perfect.

My follow-up question is, "In contemporary society, almost anything can be turned into art. Where is the line drawn between something that is art and something that is not?"

Theories of Truth.

In class today, we started discussing the correspondence theory of truth versus the coherence theory of truth. The correspondence theory of truth states that a statement or idea is true if it corresponds with the way the world is, or is perceived to be. For example, Johnson gave the example in class of the statement "The cat is on the mat." The statement is only true if the cat is, indeed, on the mat - the claim is in accordance with the world. However, if at that particular moment the cat is not on the mat, then the statement is false.

On the other hand, the coherence theory of truth states that a statement or idea is true based on whether or not it coheres to other statements surrounding it. An example of this would be that my coffee cup is brown because it looks like the same color as the tree bark outside, and the tree bark is known to be brown because it is true. Therefore, my coffee cup is brown.

However, both the correspondence theory and the coherence theory are flaws in that they are both based off of our perspectives or how we perceive things, especially in the case of colors. One color to one person may not necessarily be the same color to another (what if they're colorblind?) so the system is flawed. Furthermore, in the case of the correspondence theory, optical illusions such as looking at a straw through a glass of water may distort our reality and distort truth.

My question is, "Where is the line drawn between critical thinking and skepticism? How does one think critically without being too much of a skeptic?"