Would you be interested in some disinterested knowledge?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Would you be interested in some disinterested knowledge?

Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ‘disinterested knowledge’ as similar to ‘pure research’, as compared to ‘applied research’. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

Disinterested knowledge generally has no bottom line pay-off. If there is no money-in-it why do it? Understanding is a long step beyond knowing, it requires high motivation and perseverance and it may never happen it requires curiosity and caring.

I think that understanding and disinterested knowledge are the two sides of the same coin. I am sure that people, on occasion, bother to understand a domain of knowledge for reasons other than a desire to understand. Every specialist probably learns to understand his or her specialty and they have been led to do it because it is an instrument serving a career purpose. I have heard professors say that ‘you never understand a subject until you try to teach it”.

I think that a person strives to learn disinterested knowledge because they wish to understand that domain of knowledge. I do not think many people bother to study something that does not have a valuable payoff in money unless it is to understand. I would not learn to “do” calculus except that it is necessary to being an engineer. I would, however, study calculus if it helped me understand mathematics. Every engineer, when asked if s/he could “do” math would respond yes. Every engineer if asked ‘do you understand math’ might answer quickly, ‘are you kidding me’.

I think of the self-learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand. The knowledge and understanding that is sought are determined only by personal motivations. It is noteworthy that disinterested knowledge is knowledge I am driven to acquire because it is of dominating interest to me. Because I have such an interest in this disinterested knowledge my adrenaline level rises in anticipation of my voyage of discovery.

This quotation of Carl Rogers might illuminate my meaning of disinterested knowledge.

I want to talk about learning. But not the lifeless, sterile, futile, quickly forgotten stuff that is crammed in to the mind of the poor helpless individual tied into his seat by ironclad bonds of conformity! I am talking about LEARNING - the insatiable curiosity that drives the adolescent boy to absorb everything he can see or hear or read about gasoline engines in order to improve the efficiency and speed of his ‘cruiser’. I am talking about the student who says, “I am discovering, drawing in from the outside, and making that which is drawn in a real part of me.” I am talking about any learning in which the experience of the learner progresses along this line: “No, no, that’s not what I want”; “Wait! This is closer to what I am interested in, what I need”; “Ah, here it is! Now I’m grasping and comprehending what I need and what I want to know!”

I think that after schooling is finished a search for disinterested knowledge should begin. Does this make sense to you?

2

Yes. I think this “disinterested knowledge” business is a very good idea, and a good think to pursue. Knowledge only for the sake of knowing, Spinoza would be impressed.

3

I disagree. Knowledge for its own sake is a perversion and by pursuing it you are in fact giving up, or sacrificing, what is infinitely more worthwhile, your life. “Knowledge only for the sake of knowing” is equally silly as eating for the sake of eating.

4

Some people read for the sake of reading, study for the sake of learning.

Why would a bartender or a welder read philosophy or the news or a poem if its not going to help them in they’re field? its a interest that was picked up for one reason or another.

5

For its intrinsic value.

6

People live for the sake of living… meaning is constantly deffered

In fact can we do anything not for the sake itself?

7

Philosophy might not help them in their profession, at least not directly, but it is possible that it may help them make better choices and live a better life more generally. I don’t really see your point.

Learning for the sake of knowledge is not equivalent of “living for the sake of life” - it’s not like one chooses to live or has many alternative options.

My point is merely that everything has its value relative to life, not in or for itself. A Nitzschean point of sorts - knowledge for the sake of knowledge, that is to say giving in mindlessly to the will to knowledge, is a misguided form of asceticism that is unfortnately all too common.

8

For me the word “pure” is applicable only to chemistry. We have isolated pure oxygen. The word as applied to philosophy or the arts in the Kantian sense is meaningless. I could never be interested in “disinterested” knowledge simply because all of my transactions with others are personal. The psychological and biological implications of a desire to learn need to be explored. The separation of subject from object is philosophic, not experiential.

9

Fair enough, its not equivalent, that would be silly. BUT of course it is along the same line of questioning.

Why do you live?

You have the choice to commit suicide if you wish and stop living.

What is your idea of value?

I think its impossible to give into knowledge mindlessly… I think you have to be “of” mind to be able to acquire it in the first place if such a thing as knowledge actually exists. I think certain forms of knowledge are acuired naturally without any purpose or meaning. For instance we collect knowledge about a hot stove that burns us.

My point is if we cannot determine an absolute meaning to do anything why not do it for the sake in itself?

10

Szpaku: I think Ierrellus pretty much nailed it: “The psychological and biological implications of a desire to learn need to be explored.” Are you sure you know or realize exactly what it is that you do by “pursuing knowledge for its own sake”? This is kind of what I mean by a “mindless” pursuit of knowledge - perhaps “mindless” is not the best choice of a word.

11

disinterested knowledge seems impossible to me…

12

coberst: I agree entirely. Your post sounds more like a statement of infatuation with knowledge for knowledge’s sake than a philosophical argument for it, but i’m perfectly in step with your conclusion. Good show.

filip:

But knowledge for the sake of knowing, rather than sacrificing life, is a part of life’s purpose. Unless you have absolute certainty about the meaning of life, the search for knowledge should be part of your life because you just don’t know. And you ought to know, because you ought to know what you ought to do.

For instance, why are we all here, posting on this forum? Because we have questions and seek answers. We want to know, because we have all, in our own way, come to the conclusion that it is important to know what, if anything, we are supposed to be doing. And until that is crystal clear, it will be important to know things simply for the sake of knowing them, if for nothing else, to simply be sure of what really is important.

13

yes clear concise genius that i could not obtain…

=D>

thank you kind sir

14

Knowledge for the sake of knowing or for the purpose of life? Because one is not the same as the other. In the interest of life it may be necessary to restrict the hunger for knowledge, for example… (see below)

I do not seek certainty - I’ve reconciled myself to the idea that it is most likely unattainable outside of highly controlled and artificial situations (like some scientific experiments). Furthermore, I accept that in my actions and decisions I take chances and face unknown, potentially dangerous consequences. I am willing to learn from my mistakes and change, but this in no way means that I pursue knowledge for its own sake. I do not shy away from learning, on the contrary, but I also don’t consider pursuing more and more knowledge to be valuable in itself or a solution to life’s dilemmas or a remedy for existential anxieties.

If you pursue knowledge with a hope of reaching “absolute certainty about the meaning of life” you are setting yourself up for a huge disappointment, IMO. Meanwhile, as a side effect, if you are indeed serious about your pursuit, you are likely going to find yourself increasingly incapacitated by growing skepticism and nihilism (such are the psychological - and cultural, for that matter - effects of unrestrained knowledge drive) - a most unhealthy condition from the perspective of life.

15

Neither do I lol

It’s impossible of course!

How do you know nihilism can’t be good times!? Have you tried?

But you must! Any other reason to pursue knowledge outside the sake of knowledge is absurd! and can be deconstructed to “just because” or “i don’t know”.

Consider a probable conversation of ours:

f: hey dude
s:hey man wuts happenin
f:nothin just reading some stuff
s:koo…why u reading that?
f:because i find value in it
s:why
f:because i enjoy reading it
s:why
f:because it makes me happy
s:why does it make you happy?
f: just because! or I dont know! man

16

Szpak,
Great responses! If being is becoming, if we live in a world in which we experience growth and development, all of our ideas of reality are good for the time we need them. They evolve toward our future need. They involve our common problems with sadnesses of change and desire for some final, absolute certainty that would make the whole experience of loss and gain seem meaningful for us. The holy grail of finality, however, may just be the carrot before the horse, not the final solution.