FOLLOW UP:
In a response to Plato’s analysis of what we know, my slide show represents a concept of war that I feel very strongly about. I personally do not believe that we should be at war in Iraq. The images that I chose to represent what I believe to be right are images of food supplies being dropped over the country.
Although we supply these people with supplies, I don’t believe this makes up for what we are doing in that country. I think the useless killing is not justified by this supplement. Because I have seen so many images of war, carnage, and heard a lot of propaganda against the war I have developed such a perception on the topic. Through my perception, I have recreated something that reflects this perception. Despite our attempts to make amends for our actions, I don’t believe that sending in minimal supplies can accomplish this.
Because of my perception, I have created my own opinion, and recreated this power point to express my perception. Thus, it is an expression of “what I know”. An interpretation of what may or may not be the truth.

Plato seems so be saying here in his explanation of “what we know” is; everyone has their own interpretation of what is perceive in the world. The original creation of something, which Plato can only explain to be through the work of a “God”, cannot be replicated. For example: God (or any form of original creator) can create a chair. This chair can be perceived by a carpenter or workman. After this perceiving the original form, the carpenter or workman may create a, seeming, replica of the chair. It may appear to be an exact copy of the chair, but the original creation of this chair cannot be perfectly replicated. Beyond this, an artist may observe the replica of this chair, and create an artistic representation of this replica, such as a painting, but it is never truly the same exact chair.

This truth rings true in my eyes. In life, I believe that no one’s individual perception of the world can be replicated. Everyone has their own perception on what we know. Something may seemingly be entirely understood, but the reality of undeniable individuality comes into play making it impossible to be 100% the same. Referring to the previous example, God (or any original creator) had an original idea in mind for the creation of the chair. The artist that follows perceives the chair undoubtedly different than this original creator. No matter how similar the perception is, there will always be a difference in the reproduction. Respectively, the artist encounters this same problem.

In conclusion, no creation including: artistic, architectural, literary, etc. can be replicated in every aspect. This is due to individual perception of what we know.

PIMP: To make something better and more pleasing than it previously was. To change something for the better.
HACK: To change something without permission of the owner, or to change something from what it was meant to be.
MOD: To change or update something so that it is in tune with what is considered modern.
MASH-UP: Changing something so that it incorporates a variety of things. Giving something several different uses, so that it can be the all in one tool.

The words are really similar. They all have to do with change. The definition and connotation that follow these words have changed DRASTICALLY. It appears to be for the better. Society has seen a great shift in ideals among many other, and this seems to be evidence of that shift