All departments of knowledge stand in a certain natural relation to one another. Now if in endeavoring to enlarge our knowledge we neglect this natural connection, all our manifold knowledge will result in nothing but mere rhapsody. But if we make some one science our end, and consider all other parts of knowledge only as means to it, then we impart to our knowledge a certain systematic character. - Chapter Six, Introduction to Logic
I am a firm believer of the importance of the connections between knowledge. Much like the way that, ideally, all pages on Wikipedia (hence, topics) are connected fluidly. It is difficult to truly estimate the staggering quantity of information that can be accessed in this way. For example, in the book on North Korea I'm reading now, sometimes they mention steel or cement production. Whole books have surely been written on steel production, or cement formulae. And from there, one could progress further back to chemistry, or could turn and learn about building applications. I suppose I treat my knowledge base much like a road atlas. Of course it is important to fill in specific areas, analogous to cities, with every side street and feature. It is impossible to know every road in the nation - but what good would an atlas be if the various cities weren't connected? Improving the strength of the connections between my individual areas of knowledge is important.
Yet, I do not agree with the last sentence of Kant's words, replicated above. What good would it do to focus solely on one science, even if we learn other sciences as a 'means to that end'. All knowledge is important. And it would presumptuous to assume that I can identify which area of knowledge is most important and deserving of my attention. Only someone who knew the full extent and utility of every piece of information could make that determination. I think I realize Kant's intention here, but I see a fundamental incongruity within it. To make an accurate and truthful judgement about something requires knowledge about it. I can only hope that a continued devotion to learning and philosophy will reveal that which is truly most important.
I am a firm believer of the importance of the connections between knowledge. Much like the way that, ideally, all pages on Wikipedia (hence, topics) are connected fluidly. It is difficult to truly estimate the staggering quantity of information that can be accessed in this way. For example, in the book on North Korea I'm reading now, sometimes they mention steel or cement production. Whole books have surely been written on steel production, or cement formulae. And from there, one could progress further back to chemistry, or could turn and learn about building applications. I suppose I treat my knowledge base much like a road atlas. Of course it is important to fill in specific areas, analogous to cities, with every side street and feature. It is impossible to know every road in the nation - but what good would an atlas be if the various cities weren't connected? Improving the strength of the connections between my individual areas of knowledge is important.
Yet, I do not agree with the last sentence of Kant's words, replicated above. What good would it do to focus solely on one science, even if we learn other sciences as a 'means to that end'. All knowledge is important. And it would presumptuous to assume that I can identify which area of knowledge is most important and deserving of my attention. Only someone who knew the full extent and utility of every piece of information could make that determination. I think I realize Kant's intention here, but I see a fundamental incongruity within it. To make an accurate and truthful judgement about something requires knowledge about it. I can only hope that a continued devotion to learning and philosophy will reveal that which is truly most important.
No comments:
Post a Comment