Atomic energy is a loaded gun placed in the hands of a child. Comment?
I think we know enough about the universe that we don’t run the risk of a lab accident blowing us all up. Genetic engineering better fits the metaphor. GM crops scare me
Thanks, NHDB,
Einstein expressed concern that our knowledge could exceed our emotional maturity. Does this contradict Socrates’ notion of ignorance as evil? Or does it simply modify it?
humans intellegence has already surpassed their wisdom, thats the reason for mass conflicts and uneccesary pain caused, the fact that we have the knoledge to create a nuclear bomb and not have the wisdom to know the right time to use it is deeply worrying people and the justice system dont know how to define right and wrong in simple never mind complex situations and so the turnout is unjust.
some forms of ignorence are “evil”, in this day and age we need ignorence in certain situation to keep from being overwhellmed and goin under. evil is just a term made by religeus believers, no action is evil only right or wrong, to generalise ignorence is wrong and teh cause of allot of problems…
Socrates’ notion of ignorance as evil –
I’m not sure if Socrates’ idea of knowledge and ignorance translates to knowledge of facts or to wisdom. Wisdom would be good by definition and its ignorance would be bad, perhaps even evil. But if we mean knowledge as knowing that, then …
Neither ignorance nor knowledge are inherently good or evil. However, they have the potentiality to be either, or both. This potentiality is played out as reality, and as history.
For example, can the ignorance or knowledge of a baby or animal be good or evil? Either one can help it survive or cause it harm.
The same way for adults and for society, and for science and technology. Atomic energy is capable of helping humanity raise its living standards, but it is equally capable of destruction and death. Cars improve our mobility immensely but at the cost of covering the planet in asphalt and smog.
Ignorance may be evil, but no more so than much of what passes for wisdom.
I don’t think so; I think the idea of “evil” is based on more than just “undesirable consequences.” If scientists were to destroy the world researching nuclear reactions, they would do so accidentally; it wouldn’t be evil. You have to mean it. A person has to totally understand the consequences of their actions in order to act in an evil manner. I, for one, tend to think evil never really occurs; it may be a part of what we are, but it isn’t ever in complete control. So everything is, to some degree, an accident in that it goes against our intent, or at least the intent of a part of ourselves.
As to the Einstein quote, I think ignorance of our emotions is just as dangerous as ignorance of the consequences of our actions.
How we define evil may be the problem here. Science is fallible in two ways. First, its assumptions can be invalidated or expanded by new discoveries. Second, as a tool, it is subject to the whims of humans in diverse psychological states. It is not Satan; it is not Saviour.
Ignorance of ecosystems could lead to the demise of humans who want to have it both ways., i.e., lifestyle without consideration of the cost of such in other lives or in the physical possibility of life itself. I would define evil as the lack of ability to see the interconnectedness of all life foms and their dependence on a physical world that can sustain life. If this is ignorance, it will have to pay the price. If it is human hubris, it deserves to pay the price.
Given that most philosophers considered ‘learning’ in a very different light than we do in the modern age, where ‘learning’ meant ‘learning how to be a good person’. This is where you get the idea of self-knowledge, and that the unexamined life is not worth living. So, it has less to do with science and more to do with applying reason to ourselves in order to make ourselves better people.
That said, I do think that willful ignorance is evil. Knowledge is good. The more informed you are about any situation, the better you will be able to respond to that situation. This is a concept with extends beyond morality into literally every interaction and choice we make. An uninformed person cannot make a choice because they do not see the true situation and do not fully comprehend what is going on. Concequently, the choices they make are poor. Knowledge is not a safe-guard against making poor choice; however, it allows for the possibility of making good choices.
Spot on, Xunzi. The old ones had happiness on their lips, as the most exclusive and elevated end for human beings. Sure, they associated this with cultivating virtues, both of the character and the spirit. And who knows more about what virtue is, than one who inquires about it, namely the philosopher – the guy who’s got a love affair with Sophia.
Nowadays, this idea has suffered a significant degradation. Gustave Flaubert posits, for instance, that : “To be stupid, selfish, and have good health are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost.”
I am really impressed by such articulate responses. In my own mind, I’m reminded of Jefferson’s hope that an educated populace would be moral. What we have instead is educated crooks. The Socratic know thyself appears secondary to indulge or appease thyself.
There is an old theme (Genesis, Enoch, Faust, Frankenstein) that knowledge is purchased at the expense of one’s soul and that its excesses can create destruction. Does knowedge accompanied by immaturity threaten extinction of humans?
“Extinction of humans” is a bit hollywoodian, a tad far-fetched. To euphemistically call it “considerable harm” would be however, of course, correct.
I wish the whole matter could just be hollywoodian. But the dysgenic and devolutionary side of human nature offers much for thought. In any event, bacteria, knowing nothing of the human sense of knowing, will survive any holocaust we bring upon ourselves. Maybe that is “just starting over”.
Its on topic somewhat but I’d like some feedback on the following passage from the bible.
“For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow”. (Ecclesiastes 1:18)
I’ve really yet to see, aside from wild speculation, how technology makes our lives worse.
We are living longer lives, in greater contact with our fellow humanity. We are no longer subsistence farmers trying to eek by.
Anyone who says technology makes life worse has clearly never felt hunger pangs, nor gone to bed exposed to the elements.
We might be able to end billions of lives in a single instant . . . but we can also support billions of lives, a previously unimaginable feat!
So . . . I guess what I am trying to say is: where is the drawback, again?
Could not the same things be said about human understanding and wisdom? As ones wisdom grows can they not invalidate yesterdays wisdom? I like to loosely define wisdom as “the ‘proper’ use of knowledge” (I realize ‘proper’, as used here, is quite subjective - purposely so). Using this definition, as ones knowledge is increased, ones wisdom may also change, thus invalidating yesterdays supposed wise descisions.
Is wisdome, therefore, fallible?
Guess what happens to a child, born with parts of the DNA missing?
Guess what happens to an opinion, born as a judgment, without all of the facts and the understanding?
I consider ignorance to be a deformity, not an evil.
I have felt hunger pangs and have slept out under the elements. Technological comforts are for those who can afford them. We don’t live in a world in which giving necessities freely is a given. As for technology as comfort for my personal needs, I don’t see it as adding meaning to my life. What is longevity or quantity without a life of quality? Video-voyeur distractions don’t do it for me.
As for “Ecclesiates”, I find that knowledge is sorrow only for those who wish to keep all of the socially imposed guilts of should have, could have, etc., with no clear understanding that one does what one is. If being is becoming, I have no right to judge my today or tomorrow by my yesterday.
How is technology preventing you from living a life of quality?
I don’t see it.
It does, however, afford the chance of living a life of quality. Living day-to-day prevents quality of life since limited resources 1) lead to strife and 2) become a fixation. When you are hungry, all you think about is food.
Technology has liberated us from having to live that way all the time.
Ierrellus wrote,
Hi Ierrellus,
Without technology you and I not be pleasantly chatting away on the Internet. Instead, we’d be out weeding a field of turnips with gnarled hands. I grow some 30% of my own food, so here I know of what I speak. At the start of the 20th Century most Americans were engaged in agriculture; meaning twelve hour days of plowing, weeding, reaping, clearing rocks from the fields, feeding animals, shoveling their excrement, and so on.
And yet that’s not quite correct, because agriculture itself requires technology, as did hunting seals or wilderbeasts. Stone Age man used technology to shape his stone knives and spearheads.
Without technology more than half of us in this forum would have already died of childhood disease, a burst appendix and the like. I once spent an evening looking through the record of births and deaths for the small New England town in which I live. I was shocked to find that one family lost six children one summer to diphtheria; another family lost three, and another two. This disease is almost unheard of today in North America, given that technology has bestowed upon us an effective vaccination for it.
Of course quality of life is important. And yet in order to have a quality life one first must have a life. It also helps not to be hitched ten hours behind a plow. Less technology is no recipe for utopia. Instead one must be able to discern and harness those technologies that would improve his or her life while shunning those which would degrade it.
Regards,
Michael