A Complete Guide to Solve the November 2025 TOK Essay Titles
Unpacking TOK titles can be challenging, especially since they are intended to make you think in circles.
However, the Theory of Knowledge (TOK) essay is a crucial component of the International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma Programme. In this blog post, we will delve into each November 2025 essay title in detail, offering insights and strategies to help you tackle them effectively.
A word of warning: avoid using these exact examples in your essay. Instead, use them as inspiration to create unique examples that reflect your personal knowledge and interests. If you’d like some additional help while brainstorming, you can sign up for free or book a session to get resources, feedback and extra information.
Title 1: For historians and artists, do conventions limit or expand their ability to produce knowledge? Discuss with reference to history and the arts.
This TOK Essay question asks you to explore a fascinating tension: are conventions helpful structures or confining rules when it comes to producing knowledge in history and the arts? Like many questions in Theory of Knowledge (TOK), there isn’t a simple answer. You’ll likely find yourself arguing both sides—and that’s exactly what makes this a strong and nuanced essay topic for November 2025.
Let’s start with history. Historians follow conventions like rigorous source analysis, structured argumentation, and citation practices. These standards are essential for producing reliable and credible accounts of the past. They help prevent bias, encourage peer review, and maintain consistency across historical interpretations. But there’s a flip side. These very conventions can become limiting if they exclude alternative perspectives or discourage innovation. For example, unconventional approaches to oral history or postcolonial narratives often face resistance, even though they deepen our understanding of the past.
Now, turn to the arts. Conventions in the arts take many forms—genre expectations, techniques, stylistic rules, or cultural traditions. These can provide a shared framework that helps artists communicate and helps audiences make sense of what they’re seeing or hearing. But as you’ve probably guessed, artists often create new knowledge by breaking away from these norms. Think of modernism, surrealism, or even street art—these movements redefined what “art” could be precisely because they challenged conventions.
So, do conventions limit or expand knowledge production? The truth lies in the balance. In both AOKs, conventions can support clarity and quality, but they can also restrict creativity and inclusivity. As you write your TOK Essay, be sure to use specific examples and consider how conventions function not only as boundaries, but also as catalysts for new ways of knowing.
Title 2: What is the relationship between knowing and understanding? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.
Think about all those times you’ve sat through a class, heard the words, but couldn’t quite connect the dots. This TOK Essay question for November 2025 invites you to dig into the difference between knowing and understanding—two terms that seem similar but are far from interchangeable in Theory of Knowledge.
Knowing can often be passive: memorizing facts, definitions, or formulas without fully grasping what they mean. Understanding, on the other hand, is more active—it involves interpretation, application, and often some kind of personal or emotional engagement. It’s the difference between repeating Newton’s laws of motion and being able to explain how those laws help a satellite stay in orbit.
Take the natural sciences, for example. You might know that water boils at 100°C, but understanding that involves concepts like atmospheric pressure and molecular behavior. This deeper grasp is what allows scientists to innovate or solve real-world problems. Understanding builds on knowledge, but it goes further—turning information into insight.
In history, the distinction is just as clear. Knowing that World War I began in 1914 is a fact. But understanding it means exploring the complex web of alliances, ideologies, and national tensions that led to that moment—and the human impact that followed. Historians must move beyond the surface to truly interpret the past, considering multiple perspectives and motivations.
You could also consider the arts, where knowing the plot of a novel or the lyrics of a song is just the starting point. Understanding emerges when you explore emotional depth, symbolism, and cultural context—when you feel something and reflect on its meaning.
So as you develop your TOK Essay, don’t just draw a line between knowing and understanding. Show how they interact in different Areas of Knowledge, and how one might lead—or fail to lead—to the other. Think back to your own learning: when did something finally click for you? That’s the kind of insight TOK is all about.
Title 3: Should knowledge in an area of knowledge be pursued for its own sake rather than its potential application? Discuss with reference to mathematics and one other area of knowledge.
This TOK Essay question for November 2025 asks you to reflect on what drives the pursuit of knowledge. Is knowledge worth pursuing simply for the sake of curiosity? Or is its value tied to how useful it becomes in the real world? Your response will depend not just on your opinion, but on how these ideas play out in different Areas of Knowledge (AOKs)—in this case, mathematics and one other AOK of your choice.
Let’s start with mathematics, often seen as the ultimate example of knowledge pursued for its own sake. Many mathematical discoveries begin as abstract ideas with no obvious use. Think of number theory—it was once viewed as purely theoretical, but today it’s crucial to digital security and cryptography. This shows us that what begins as “pure” knowledge can later become incredibly practical. So even when mathematicians explore concepts out of curiosity, that knowledge might eventually shape technology and society.
Your second AOK could be something like the human sciences, particularly economics. Economists often create theoretical models simply to understand how people and systems behave. But these models don’t stay abstract forever—they’re used to guide public policy, business strategy, and even global development efforts. The theory of supply and demand, for example, started as an intellectual model but is now central to how we structure markets and pricing.
On the other hand, some argue that knowledge becomes truly meaningful only when it’s applied. After all, calculus wasn’t developed in isolation—it was created to solve pressing problems in physics. Likewise, economic theories must be tested in the real world to prove their relevance. In this view, knowledge pursued solely for curiosity might seem incomplete without impact.
A strong Theory of Knowledge (TOK) essay here will show that these motivations—curiosity and application—aren’t in conflict but can work together. When we pursue knowledge for its own sake, we expand the boundaries of what we know. When we apply it, we make that knowledge useful and impactful. So, whether you’re passionate about math, science, or economics, this title offers a great opportunity to explore the balance between pure inquiry and practical benefit.
Title 4: To what extent do you agree that however the methods of an area of knowledge change, the scope remains the same. Answer with reference to two areas of knowledge.
This Theory of Knowledge (TOK) Essay title for November 2025 might look like one of the trickier ones—but don’t let that intimidate you. It’s actually a great opportunity to dive deep into the knowledge framework, especially the relationship between methods (how knowledge is produced) and scope (what that AOK aims to explore). The big question is this: when the tools and processes we use to gain knowledge change, does the purpose or content of that knowledge area stay the same?
At first glance, methods and scope might seem pretty independent. Take mathematics, for example. Over time, mathematicians have gone from working things out by hand to using computer-assisted proofs and artificial intelligence. But despite these massive changes in method, the scope of mathematics—discovering abstract structures, exploring logic, and identifying patterns—has remained largely consistent. The same could be said for history: even though modern historians now use digital archives, forensic technology, and data analysis tools, their core aim is still to interpret and understand the past. These are great examples of AOKs where the scope has stayed steady, even as the methods have advanced.
However, some AOKs show a much more dynamic relationship between method and scope. In the natural sciences, for instance, new methods have completely transformed the field. Think about quantum mechanics or genetics—these breakthroughs didn’t just tweak existing knowledge; they redefined what science is even able to explore. Suddenly, we weren’t just studying motion or inheritance; we were delving into subatomic behavior and gene editing. That’s a real shift in scope. You could make a similar case for the arts, where the rise of digital tools, AI-generated media, and interactive installations has expanded the very definition of what "art" is. Artistic scope has stretched into new territories that didn’t even exist a few decades ago.
So, to what extent does the scope stay the same? It really depends on the AOK. A strong TOK Essay here will compare two contrasting examples—maybe one AOK where scope has remained constant and one where it has evolved—and evaluate how methods interact with broader goals and possibilities for knowledge.
This question encourages you to think historically and creatively. It’s abstract, yes—but it also allows you to reflect on how knowledge evolves, and what that evolution means for the fields you study.
Title 5: In the pursuit of knowledge, is it possible or even desirable to set aside temporarily what we already know? Discuss with references to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.
This is one of the more intriguing TOK Essay titles for November 2025, and many students are finding it surprisingly relatable. After all, how often do we need to “unlearn” something to learn something new? This title invites you to explore whether setting aside our current knowledge can help—or hinder—the pursuit of further knowledge. And, as you’ll see, the answer depends a lot on the Area of Knowledge (AOK) you choose.
Let’s start with the Natural Sciences. Scientific progress has often required thinkers to challenge or temporarily distance themselves from previously accepted ideas. A great example is Einstein’s theory of relativity. To develop it, scientists had to rethink long-held Newtonian concepts of space and time. In that moment, they had to set aside what they thought they knew—at least temporarily—to make space for a new understanding. But this doesn’t mean old knowledge is thrown away completely. Instead, it often gets integrated into a broader or more accurate framework. Newton’s laws still work in many everyday situations; relativity just explains more complex ones. So in science, temporarily stepping away from what we know can be a useful—and sometimes essential—part of progress.
Now contrast that with History, where existing knowledge isn’t something you can just set aside. In this AOK, historians rely on records, interpretations, and perspectives from the past in order to generate new insights. Ignoring that prior knowledge could lead to biased or shallow analysis. For instance, if you’re researching colonial history, it’s not enough to focus only on new interpretations—you need to engage with earlier records and narratives, even if you’re critiquing them. Rather than setting knowledge aside, historians typically re-examine and reinterpret it. So here, continuity matters more than rejection.
So, is it desirable—or even possible—to set aside what we already know? A strong TOK Essay on this title will explore the subtleties of that question. Maybe in some cases, setting aside knowledge helps spark creativity and innovation. But in others, turning your back on prior knowledge could risk losing valuable insights. Think carefully about how different AOKs deal with old vs. new knowledge, and consider the conditions under which it’s productive—or dangerous—to temporarily hit pause on what we think we know.
This is a great essay title for students who like questioning the process of learning itself, especially across disciplines. Reflect on your own experiences too—when has “unlearning” something helped you gain a clearer perspective?
Title 6: Is empathy an attribute that is equally important for a historian and a human scientist? Discuss with reference to history and the natural sciences.
At first glance, this TOK Essay title for November 2025 might seem simple—of course empathy is important, right? But as you probably know by now, Theory of Knowledge is all about digging deeper and challenging the obvious. The real question isn’t just whether empathy matters, but whether it plays an equally important role in the work of historians and human scientists. That’s where your critical thinking comes in.
Let’s begin with History. Historians do more than just collect facts—they try to understand people from entirely different times, cultures, and worldviews. That’s where empathy becomes essential. Imagine trying to explain the choices made by soldiers in World War I or revolutionaries in 18th-century France. Without some effort to understand the emotional and social pressures they faced, historical analysis risks becoming shallow, or worse—judgmental by today’s standards. So in this AOK, empathy helps us create richer, more nuanced interpretations of the past. It allows historians to consider context and complexity rather than reducing history to a list of right and wrong.
Now shift to the Human Sciences, like psychology or anthropology. Here, empathy still plays a central role—but in a different way. Human scientists often interact directly with people, whether through interviews, case studies, or observations. Empathy can help them build trust, frame better research questions, and conduct ethical studies. For instance, a sociologist studying trauma in displaced communities needs to empathize with participants in order to understand their lived realities and avoid causing harm. So here, empathy isn’t just a tool for understanding—it’s also an ethical compass.
But what about the Natural Sciences? This AOK is based more on objectivity, reproducibility, and empirical data. A physicist doesn’t need empathy to run particle experiments, and a chemist doesn’t need emotional insight to analyze reaction rates. So you might argue empathy plays a smaller role here. That said, even in the natural sciences, empathy can surface indirectly—such as when scientists consider the human impact of their work, or when designing studies that involve human participants. So while it’s not a core tool of investigation, empathy can still influence the ethical and social implications of scientific knowledge.
In your essay, don’t just compare the presence of empathy across AOKs—go deeper. Ask yourself: Does empathy help uncover deeper truths, or can it introduce personal bias? Is it more central to understanding human experiences (as in history or the human sciences), or does its role shift depending on the purpose of the knowledge being pursued?
This title is a great choice for students who are interested in the human dimension behind knowledge—how we relate to others, how we interpret lives that aren’t our own, and how that shapes the way we learn and grow.
How do I know which title is right for ME?
It’s important to select a topic that resonates with you. Are you passionate about the arts, or do you find yourself drawn to the natural sciences? Your TOK essay is an opportunity to explore areas that fascinate you and align with your future aspirations.
By selecting a title that aligns with your way of thinking, you’ll be more engaged and motivated to put forward your best ideas. Embrace your individuality and let your TOK essay reflect your personal journey of knowledge exploration.
Related:
