Having studied and taught philosophy, one question in particular that one has to get used to is the question: “why study philosophy?” I have actually given significant thought to the best answer to give to this question, not least because of the frequency with which it is asked. I have come to the conclusion that the question “why study philosophy?” is actually no different from the question “why pursue knowledge?” or alternatively, “what is the value of knowledge?” After all, any form of studying is a pursuit of knowledge and knowledge as valuable in some sense is a fundamental supposition of its pursuit.
One of the distinctive features of studying philosophy however is that there is not really any profession, apart from academia, for which the knowledge pursued is useful. In this way philosophy differs from other disciplines one could study. Law is studied so as to become a lawyer, business is studied so as to become an entrepreneur or get into corporate, biology is studied so as to become a vet or perhaps to discover a cure for ebola etc. For these disciplines it is easier to make sense of the value of the knowledge pursued. The knowledge you get in law courses and business courses is instrumentally valuable as a means to a further end of a successful and lucrative career or whatever. The knowledge you get in philosophy is not so instrumentally valuable.
But does this mean that it lacks any value whatsoever? I should hope not. But for it to have value this must mean that knowledge has value independently of the careers it helps to foster. Ultimately then, in my mind, I feel that the question “why study philosophy” really boils down to the question “does knowledge possess intrinsic value?” or value that is independent of the ends that it might help us achieve in the world.
I think knowledge in itself has an immense value, but only if it is engaged with in the correct way. There seems to me to be fundamentally two ways of engaging with knowledge. The first is to try to acquire it as an asset that will stand you in good stead in the future, the second is to interact with it and allow it to transform the way you see the world and the way you are in the world. I have seen that philosophy itself can be approached in either of these two ways and, in my mind, if it is approached in the first it is essentially valueless, except if you want to become an academic philosopher. If, however, it is approached in the second way, philosophy becomes immensely valuable as all the thoughts and doctrines studied challenge you to conceptualize the world in different ways.
Aristotle said that the beginning of philosophy is wonder, philosophy begins when a curious mind wonders, that is, opens itself up to inquire after and hopefully witness truth. Philosophy done right is about engaging theories and thoughts with wonder, grappling with them and allowing them to unravel to their logical conclusions. This process asks us to consistently re-evaluate how we frame the world to ourselves and how we conceive of ourselves in the world. By so doing we can actually come to actively uncover our true and most fundamental assumptions and suppositions about the nature of the world, those beliefs which form the bedrock of how we construct our inner realities.
When asked the question “why study philosophy?” I think the best answer that can be given is “to become wise.” Becoming wise is not a matter of acquiring bits of knowledge that are memorised, compartmentalised and stored in boxes in your brain, to be brought out to impress at a dinner event or in a job interview. To become wise is about transforming oneself through a productive interaction with ideas, thoughts and theories. Wisdom is a different form of knowing than the knowing we ordinarily send our children to universities to acquire. It is not the having of knowledge, it is the act of knowing. Knowledge in this sense is a lived experience. It is the knowing of truth/existence “witnessed”, which is essentially an existential event that is beyond definition. For this sort of knowing it is impossible to leave oneself out of the equation. There has to be a symmetry between the belief proclaimed and the life lived otherwise one cannot truly be said to see the truth of the matter because seeing the truth of the matter is not far removed from being the truth of the matter. This is just because knowing is about being one who knows.
This point about how philosophy should be approached applies to all knowledge and all disciplines. The point is not what is being studied, the point is how one is orientated towards what is studied. We need to be open and curious and seek out knowledge, not to memorise, but to change ourselves and become a person who sees truth.
Comments
5 responses to “What is the Value of Knowledge?”
Nicely delineated.
My orientation is that existence, also known as truth, in its most pure form, devoid of content, is the self effulgence of pure consciousness. Pure consciousness, is aware of itself, and, therefore, exists. Awareness of itself, is pure existence and pure knowledge.
Meaning and value perpetuate each other like electricity and magnetism. They are light, also known as knowledge and action. They are the dna inherited from consciousness and existence.
The Existentialists were wrong, imho. My sense is that essence precedes existence, but it was a very close race. 🙂 In the absence of justification, we cannot live our desires into reality. Perhaps, our mode of life would be conditioned by the light of reality, but not in the mundane sense of meaning and value. We must act, but the significance of how we act, pales in the light of reality.
Interesting, I will surely ponder this 🙂
Good Stuff!
Philosophy is your worldview is your belief. It informs your intent which directs your attention, which affirms and entrenches your worldview. The pursuit of the “correct” worldview, philosophy, is of paramount importance as it determines what you become.
Thank you Dawood, I think you have put it about as succinctly as is possible.
Short, well-thought out, lucid and nice reading.