In one case, Historian R.G Collingwood (1889-1943) drew attention to the importance of going beyond the study of the actual historical event and understanding the motives and reasons behind those involved to understand the event as a whole.[1] This involves using emotion, imagination, and reason in order to evaluate the actions and thought process behind an event. However, if may difficult to sympathize with certain events or historical figures like Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.; this may cause an overload of emotion and instead cause social bias. Poor ability to reason can cause ignorance and prejudice, which in certain cases in the methodology of history, can be a limitation. A counterclaim to this is that reason is limited to the human ability and therefore, there may be certain things we, as humans, do not have the capacity to comprehend. Another way of knowing that comes into mind when mentioning reason, is language. So, to what extent do reason and language work together to achieve certainty in history? As the framework of history depends on language and the communication of information, we need to understand the meaning of language before truth can be analyzed. In history class, our class held a discussion in which we discussed the demands of the French revolutionaries which were satisfied by 1794. Depending on how the word, “demand”, was interpreted, students came up with different responses. For example, I interpreted the word demand as the social, intellectual, economic, and religious goals of the revolutionaries. Therefore, different people reason the meaning of language differently which can cause disagreement despite access to the same facts. However, it is important to keep in mind that there are aspects of truth that cannot be described adequately with language. Moving on to the second area of knowledge, art, is focused on sense perception and emotion. We can call something art because the intentions of the artist are known; something is a work of art if the maker intended it to evoke an aesthetic response. We can call something art as the intentions of the artist are known and was intended to evoke some sort of response. Another individual can call something art by assessing the quality of the work. According to the methodology of art, art relies upon the personal knowledge of the artist and is meant to interact with the audience on an emotional level. Therefore, art and the response to art may change over time and differ between individuals because art relies on sense perception and emotion as ways of knowing. Therefore, it is accepted that there are certain standards to judge art by, but different people have different tastes based on their perceptions and emotions towards a specific piece of art. This leads to the knowledge question, to what extent are sense perception and emotion reliable in interpreting reality in the arts? Upon viewing Jackson Pollock’s Convergence >