Rumination 2: The Ethics of Self-made Knowledge

Knowledge is never value-free. Knowledge gives power to some and takes it away from others. Knowledge is used to justify not only how we live, but also how we expect others to live. Advocating for objective knowledge, one has an excuse to pretend that knowledge can be neutral. Advocating for self-made knowledge, one must face the fact that a person may make knowledge which is highly objectionable to others.

Full contemplation of the ethics of knowledge is not the subject of this project, but at the minimum some basic rules must be stated to allow us the freedom to explore. The rules are:

1. Do not force your self-made knowledge onto others.
2. Accept the limitations of your self-made knowledge.
3. Accept the consequences of your self-made knowledge.

The rules are derived from the dualistic view of knowledge. Your self-made knowledge, by its nature, is made to fit specifically your questions and concerns. It is created to make sense of the world to you. It might not be useful to others, and you have no right to force others to accept it. Your self-made knowledge is tailor-made to fit your particular condition, representing your own lifetime of experiences. Yet those experiences are limited. Your knowledge will not always be applicable for new situations that you, or others, might encounter. Accept the very high likelihood that your knowledge will not be able to explain some things about the world.

Finally, any view of the world, any knowledge has its consequences on how you and others see and interact with the world. Accept the fact that there are consequences to the knowledge you make, and some of those consequences might not be what you intended.

Rumination 1: Ready-made Knowledge and Self-made Understanding

I believe that ready-made, systematic knowledge—like scientific or religious knowledge—is problematic. This knowledge seems to be universal, independent of the time and place it is created. This is the knowledge that is most familiar to us. However, this kind of knowledge primarily benefits its own preservation and continued existence. It might contribute to the growth of human societies, but it does not necessarily benefit the individuals composing those societies. A legal corporation aims to improve its own incorporated existence, and views individual satisfaction as only a means to an end. So, too, does systematic knowledge benefit organizations while neglecting the needs of the individuals.

Knowledge can have two fundamentally different goals. First, knowledge can be developed with the intent of being stored, transmitted, and accumulated. This is knowledge used to explain things all across the world at all times. It is context independent, and unlimited in scope. It can be stored forever. It can determine which questions are valid, and provide ready-made solutions to them. Second, knowledge can be more like wisdom; used to provide understanding of the questions at hand, questions specific to the individual asking them, questions arising from right here and right now. These are the questions we face as human individuals trying to understand the world in terms that make sense based on our experiences. The more knowledge meats one of those two goals, the less it satisfies the other.

As an individual, I ask: what should I do next? Why are cats better than dogs? How do genetic mutations happen? How do I get healthy? What happens after I die? How do I get to Atlanta? Should I be pissed off at Sally? To me, all of those questions are related. In asking and answering them, I rely on what I have experienced in my lifetime. However, systematic knowledge approaches divide those questions into different domains. Each domain claims part of a particular question as legitimate to its sphere, while ignoring, or even condemning, other kinds of questions. Systematic approaches to knowledge are threatened by individuals mixing questions from the different domains, attempting to create an integrated, self-made understanding of the world. Systematic knowledge has many benefits, but it comes at a cost. This kind of knowledge leaves an individual without an integrated view of the world. After all, I am me, one me—not a sum of a biological thing, a psychological thing, religious things, a political thing.

I argue that there are two distinct kinds of comprehension: systematic, ready-made knowledge and individual, self-made understanding. They have different uses aims, and we need both of them. Systematic knowledge, just like ready-made, off-the-shelf clothing, electronics, or food, is essential to our existence and cannot be eliminated. However, it has limits. Systematic knowledge can be supplemented by self-made understanding (I argue that it ought to be and always is).

This project is an exploration of this dualistic view of knowledge. The goal is to preserve the many benefits of systematic knowledge while overcoming its shortcomings. It is based on a view of knowledge that recognizes the desires of the individual knower as being, at times, at odds with the aims of systematic knowledge.

My beliefs about the nature of knowledge are based on over a decade of careful thought pondering and research. However, this project is not meant to be a fully developed systematic argument. Rather it is an impressionistic contemplation. I want to present some of the arguments for, and consequences of, this dualistic view of knowledge. The main goal is to explore this view in more detail and test its feasibility.

The aim of this project is to think through these issues in public dialogue with others. If I am correct, and systematic theory has its limitations, then attempting to present a systematic exposition of my argument would be hypocritical. I hope that the dualities of knowledge presented here will help you, the reader, make more sense of the world for yourself, but that will require work on each individual reader’s part.

THE FORMAT OF THE PROJECT

There are three parallel parts of the project. The first part is “Ruminations.” This section will be composed of short pieces contemplating some details of the dualistic view of knowledge just introduced. The second part is “Fodder.” There, I will post my reactions to the work of others that are relevant to this project. These sources will be taken from conversations, books, articles, films, museum exhibitions, and other encounters. The discussions, as a rule, will not be full reviews or evaluations. Instead, they will be brief reflections on how the sources affected my thinking on the matter. The final sections, “Scraps,” will be a random assortment of brief observations. These are thoughts in the general sphere of this project, given without much comment, and put there for amusement or for future consideration.