From the very genesis of philosophy as a discipline, scholars have struggled with the concept of knowledge and, by extrapolation, the wide array of methods concerning the acquisition of knowledge. In pursuit of this aim are two noteworthy groups of philosophers apparently at odds with each other: the rationalists, who see logic and raison d’être as the source of all knowledge, and the empiricists, who believe that knowledge must be derived from one’s experience of the surroundings. Both schools of thought accept the idea of warranted true beliefs as a working definition of knowledge. It is about the steps required to satisfactorily prove a belief both true and justified, that rationalists like Rene Descartes conflict with empiricists like John Locke. Rationalism holds that all knowledge can and should be uncovered through the use of logic and reasoning, beginning with comprehensible and distinct ideas that need not be proven further and building up through layers of more complex reasoning a view of the world that is both true and logically justified.
Reasoning is an extremely powerful tool in the overall attainment of knowledge, offering philosophers a method of broadening yet deepening their knowledge of the world beyond their own experience. By comparison, empericism’s reliance on sensory perception and contact with the physical world appears somewhat limited and possesses the ability to cast doubts on the extent to which empirical knowledge can be conclusively proven factual or justified. Newton’s law of gravitation itself was incomplete by experiments; it was only after Newton came up with the equation that weight was the product of an object’s mass and the value of the gravitational field strength at that point in which we could fully appreciate the experiments that he carried out and extrapolated that knowledge to anticipate the outcomes of further experiments. This is less of a challenge in rationalism, where one need not depend on sensation to develop knowledge; instead, one can derive knowledge through a series of logical arguments, that is, through the supremacy of reasoning alone. In the case of Descartes, rationalism also transcends the challenges posed by scepticism to some degree by asserting that proof of a consciousness is a sufficient proof of existence. By adopting a structure that is apparently more objective that empiricism, reasoning offers us a chance to acquire theoretical knowledge even beyond our personal experience.
Thomas H. Huxley’s quotation, though contentious, gives any reader good food for thought. By claiming that “the deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence”, Huxley implies that the mere obtainment of knowledge without any proper, well defined proof is as good as blatant ignorance. Huxley can thus be categorised into the school of thought of positivism, first theorized by Auguste Comte in the mid 19th century and developed into a modern philosophy favoured by scientists and technocrats; positivism states that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method. This perception that science provides us a platform for absolute truth and unfalisifiable facts was, however, rebutted by classical compatibilist David Hume and was consequently deemed incredulous.
It is almost a characteristic of modern society that when progress takes place, a myriad of issues with regard to the purpose, the means as well as the implications of that progress would emerge. The appreciation and understanding of information via lifelong learning, from birth till death, and experience is incontrovertibly intricately interrelated to the development of nations. Eg? However, it does not serve as a purpose, means or implication to this progress; instead, it stands as a cornerstone in our unending journey towards the unreachable, undefinable success of a country. Knowledge develops man to achieve their potential in their ability to interact with his surroundings, both adversely and beneficially; such a gift does not necessarily affect the progress of a country directly. Nevertheless, it is vital for the long term growth of our international society that consists of both developed and less developed countries. Eg? Consequently, knowledge is not an object to be selfishly confined within a group; it is a valuable possession that is meant to be shared throughout our international platform regardless of the existing paradigm shift.
However, a challenge that arises alongside such an advantage of knowledge is the acceptance of knowledge. Sometimes, our reluctance for knowledge emerges due to our stubbornness and reluctance to understand our world although it is clearly beneficial; such a case is acrimoniously tragic as the laziness and glaring materialistic tendency of mankind result in ignorance which further exacerbates the situation in which we are suffering so devastatingly in. The reality that there has been an exponential increase in the consumption of fast food is great testament to the fact that we either ignore information concerning the adverse effects of such consumption, such as insulin resistance and obesity, or simply are ignorant to such knowledge. According to the film ‘Fast Food Nation’, (why quote this movie if all you want to cite are statistics?) in 1969, McDonald’s had 1,000 restaurants compared to McDonalds’ more than 30,000 today, with 2,000 new ones opening each year due to an increase in demand for fast food. A more poignant movie would be Sicko – that why despite the effects of fast-food, people still consume horrendous amounts. If you can give a simpler example, you can remove the above lines. How about…HIV/Aids?
However, the rejection of knowledge may also be due to our tendency to subscribe to solipsism which is the idea that one can only know that one’s self exists and that anything outside the mind, such as the external world, cannot be known to exist. Solipsists place emphasis on a subjective reality, and that what we perceive to be true for one person may not be true for another. In fact, many of our global leaders today lack sufficient current affairs knowledge to be compatible politicians attempting to assist mankind in its unending journey to an ambiguous better life. Sarah Palin herself thought that Africa was a country, not a continent and could not name all the countries involved in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Another example is that of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran who claimed vehemently that the holocaust did not take place.
With the ever-growing culture of globalisation, we, as global citizens have to be knowledgable about our rapidly-changing world. As developments occur, we have to keep updated. We have to keep track of developments in our globalised world. The lack of acquaintance about our surroundings has the potential to disadvantage us. Only with proper knowledge about our surroundings can we make informed decisions for our own selfish desires; only with various angles can we appreciate suffering and selflessly think about how advantaged we are. We live in a highly interconnected world; our very actions can have far reaching effects. The burning of forests in Indonesia adversely affects tourism air quality in Singapore and the region. Consequently, the development of other countries in Southeast Asia.Mere apathy of our surroundings can result in undesirable effects for others or even one’s self.
However, it is apparent that knowledge is both our friend and foe. Incontestably, we have improved our standards of living through technological developments and the spread of ideologies such as capitalism, mainly due to knowledge. At the same time, the overflowing knowledge of certain individuals may be highly aversive to society; the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the nuclear bomb was due to our confident knowledge of modern physics, the brainchild of Albert Einstein.
In today’s modern context, the most common mode of transmission of knowledge and information is via the mass media. The mass media is a powerful force that inevitably penetrates through our lives to the extent that it can influence our character, attitude and lifestyle; its ubiquitous nature has the power to make or break a person. New and conventional media have managed to integrate into our lifestyles such that we are non-existent without it. Dwelling in an exceedingly interconnected world, we cannot merely garner knowledge by word of mouth, just as the aborigines in Australian transmitted their knowledge over generations. We depend highly on the Internet and newspapers for knowledge concerning daily occurrences; journals keep a register of past discussions for us to learn new knowledge for application in future research. Internet usage itself is increased from 361 million users in 2000 to 1.8 billion by 2009.[i] Its effects in disseminating knowledge are far reaching – a new frontier at a cusp of innovation…Since September 2006, the brainchild of Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook has seen an exponentially increase in a few short years to a sum of 300 million subscribers today. Such a platform has been useful in the spreading of knowledge and as a discussion forum.
In our aim to teach one another knowledge that is freely accessible physically, yet extremely exclusive mentally, we have to undertake pedagogy that appreciates that we most efficiently learn via different learning styles. In our aim to teach knowledge through the best possible method, we should have the target to do so efficiently and within the least time possible. This can only be done if we can satisfy the learning style of the person being taught. This is where many educational institutions have failed. Merely organising lectures and tutorials are insufficient; they are only effective for auditory and visual learners. Holistic teaching that encompasses theory and application are essential to driving knowledge. Institutions should organise field trips and excursions so that kinaesthetic learners are not left out; they can benefit equally from the education system. Alternatively, practical sessions could be organised; instead of simply learning an economics concept or scientific theory, projects, experiments ad research can be facilitated as an approach to hands-on learning. Today, we should not emphasise rote learning is a distant past; independent thinkers are the future.should be developed. This can only be done if institutions teach less, but students learn more. This will succeed if institutions inculcate into their students the importance of interdependent and independent learning.
Independent learners can be developed through Socratic thinking and questioning. Socrates once said theorised that, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” To develop independent learners, we need to teach ourselves how to think. Through independent learning, we obtain knowledge by ourselves; we do not depend on others for such a valuable commodity. The job of institutions is to teach people to find knowledge, not teach them knowledge. The best way to do this is via thought-provoking questions. Through his relentless questioning, Socrates forced people to examine their own beliefs. Questions provide us a platform for a purpose-driven life. We think about our actions; we appreciate our environment. We do not merely accept knowledge; we question it. We do not simply consume knowledge; we apply it. The integration of such outcomes of a thinker causes us to become more than knowledgeable. We become wise. Examining Blooms Taxonomy, accepting knowledge passively is the lowest level of education-receiving. Institutions should aim to undertake an approach in which students value knowledge and allows it to influence his or her characteristic where useful such that that knowledge can be applied with wisdom.
Thomas Edison explained, “our greatest need is to teach people who think- not what, but how.” Through such judgment, we are not satisfied with simple knowledge. We are more interested in the process than the final result of knowledge per se. We are not as concerned about the facts; rather, we are engrossed with the derivation and controversies about such beliefs and falsifiable theories. When Einstein presented his theory of Quantum Physics, the world was appalled. How could electromagnetic waves have wave particles? Nevertheless, it was the process in which Einstein was enabled to justify, to an extent, such a theory that appeased the world; he performed experiments. Through judgment and the skill of analysis, we evolve from conformism into individualism. Only through individualism can future civilizations accept facts firmly and determine the suitability of such knowledge in that modern context. Conformism is the sustenance of knowledge; individualism is the birth of knowledge. Our understanding of the heliocentric solar system and quantum physics were due to the individualistic nature of brave, confident scientists who rejected the paradigm of their time and were consequently leaders of a paradigm shifts. Via Quantum Physics, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was invented for further investigation into the characteristics of subatomic particles which will consequently strengthen foundations concerning our knowledge on Quantum physics and build upon that understanding. Individualism allows for the growth of a plethora of schools of thought that enables us to appreciate knowledge based on stronger foundations.
Knowledge consists of both the priori and posterori knowledge; nonetheless, there is no superior form of knowledge. Knowledge should be a civil right; it should be non-rivalrous and non-excludable. The preference of type of knowledge and learning style will help us, as members of an interdependent international society focus on the development of one another, as independent, individualistic thinkers such that we are not merely bogged down by mere memorisation of knowledge; we rather decisively critique knowledge. Only then can we apply knowledge to improvements in quality of life so as to ensure the progress of future generations. Our forefathers have passed down to us invaluable knowledge; the Babylonians and Egyptians indisputably inspire us. It is time for us to take the lead and inspire future civilisation to press on and trudge on in the unending pursuit for knowledge. Ultimately, it is the wise who own knowledge. They know the importance of it and they apply it not to benefit themselves only, but to advantage the rest of mankind as well. Stephen Hawking, a reputable mathematician and physicist who continued the work of Einstein from various aspects such as relativity, once said, “we are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.” Knowledge and its applications have made us superior. The option has been provided to man to accept knowledge and convert it into multifaceted wisdom.