To what extent does the movie "12 Angry Men" illustrate the central knowledge questions and ideas taught in the TOK course so far?

 

What role do reason and emotion play in the formation of our political affinities
or in our voting decisions?

12 Angry men is definitely a classic and it is a great movie indeed. The movie delivers a lot to think-for instance questions on the validity of all the ways of knowing and areas of knowledge, it owes a lot to theory of knowledge also. We see that emotion and reason, some of the Ways of knowing from theory of knowledge are represented in the movie. For example, we understand that at the end juror 3 is only motivated for the execution because of his feelings/emotions towards younger people. It is also shown the broken bond between juror 3 and his son, which automatically triggers his anger towards youth, as the one accused. We also understand that juror 3 may hold affinity for the dead father of the accused, as he visions himself in the similar situation. (his son abused him and left off). Therefore his emotions lead him to create certain personal knowledge, that the boy is guilty, which is evident in his arguments and it is plausible in his eyes. It is perfectly bias. At the climax when he is the only one left, we also see that he is only left with unclear arguments and has a little support for his guilt, except that he knows he's guilty. From this we can see how emotion functions as a way of knowing. It is obvious that emotion is a way of knowing in today's world. There is no way to not get affected by emotions while reasoning out. Knowledge questions like is it possible to separate reason and emotion? There are confused arguments but still the movie is all about reason. Humanity uses reason as a way of knowing;it is not without its accidental flaws. Another interesting point that 12 angry men projects is the role of perception in knowledge. Most of the jurors use their own angles and views of the boy, contrasts it with their knowledge and generate a cliche' for the accused. Juror 10 who uses opiniated arguments to support his claims, is a perfect example of how ways of knowing and personal knowledge contrast with each other. Areas of knowledge that the movie demonstrates were human sciences and ethics.