To a great deal the so-called guiding principles like freedom or fairness are so inspiring because they resist any endeavours to define them once and for all. As they doubtlessly refer to human practice, their contents have to be adjusted to the change of time. For example, what was regarded under the circumstances of Enlightened Absolutism as liberal, might justify by present standards revolting. For that reason the variable word content requires an analogously dynamic opposition term which is to be permanently negated to make sure the guiding principle remains update. Counterterms and negations are actually updates worked into the guiding principles. E.g., something is fair until something unfair is found in it, that is, until the once fair state is changed to become fair again. Dialectically speaking, there is no development without opposite notions.
The same thing applies to the core term the modern image modern societies have of themselves: knowledge, to be precise. If we examine the evolution of human abilities, we must acknowledge that in the last 300 years mankind has produced and gathered more knowledge than ever before on the one hand, but has been made aware of its own ignorance more than ever before on the other. So here the principle prevails, too, the process of knowledge results from the tension of knowing and not knowing. The more proudly human beings responded to a gain of knowledge, the more humbly they had to realize unexpected negative consequences soon after. In order to avoid the melancholy of ignorance people saved rationalism by characterizing it as critical. Knowledge concerns not only what is the case but also, more than that: exclusively,what is not. True is what can be proved false. That is why the positive aspect of knowledge is negative. We can only know for sure what is not the case, not what is, for what is the case only expects refutation.
This principle of fallibility is about to overtake itself, for the half-life of the raw material knowledge is steadily shrinking. That is because knowledge is in the true sense of the word a factor of production, not a product. And by now it points to the rucksack it is carrying on its back, ignorance. When once pupils explained their aversion from learning with their lack of knowledge what to use the things they were taught for, their teachers guaranteed their use. Nowadays this is no more possible. But hardly a teacher finally brings himself to characterize learning as exercise in being willing to forget any time what was taught. Still that is why the term knowldge society is ambiguous, for it means both what a society has already acquired and what remains to be acuired - just knowledge.
However, it is very important not to confuse old knowledge necessarily with obsolete knowledge. After all, Socrates' age-old insight into his knowing that he does not know anything is much more update than some complacent research on Artificial Intelligence or Neuro Science. Socrates has identified the opposite terms and has shown that the modern manner of sequencing knowldge and ignorance is wrong in believing it is possible to secure a linear increase of knowledge.
But how to put that application into practice? Well, it might be an intersting discorvery if we relate knowledge and ignorance to each other. In other words, we could follow Socrates' example and distinguish between four cases, namely (a) knowledge of knowing; (b) knowledge of not knowing; (c) not knowing of knowing; (d) not knowing of not knowing.
Ad (a): Consciousness that something is (not) the case is the classical example of human reason. Being rational is based on this principle. In its highest degree it tries to rely exclusively on strictly axiomatic conclusions, to deduce from what has been known for sure.Wissen, dass man etwas weiß. This complies with the intellectual wishes for security, but solves no problems in the long run. This attitude runs the risk of intellectual inbreeding when perpetuately applied.
Ad (b): This kind of consciousness is not rational - if we make the modern presupposition being rational means control. Instead, it would be more appropriate to talk about wisdom as the Socratic manner of modesty. However, we should picture what Socrates had to swallow, because any decision-maker will be most irritated by someone who steadfastly refuses to be right. Just because of that our social elites strive to be wise, but remain rational.
Ad (c): With the evolution of modern cybernetics this notion has gained importance. It is based on the idea that systems are not only internally organized in a rational way, but that they are also embedded in a feedback relation with their environent. Since a system can only control itself, but not its environment (for that would mean the environment ceases to be environmental and becomes a systemic element), the internal rationality will not be sufficient for the system to exist within its environment. So this is intelligence. A system cannot know or plan beforehand what might be occurring. Company strategies prove that every day. The inflationary use of the term intelligence only reveals its content is a rare good.
Ad (d): The way knowledge and lack of knowledge have been related to each other here, it is no surprise that the fourt case is very similar to being rational (but, of course, it is not identical). This is because being rational creates a logical niche, for it is exclusively focused on what is known; as a consequence, the fact that the niche differs from the environment comes as a big surprise. In short, what is not known is considered irrelevant, which means it slips beyond notice. A strategy like that establishes ignorance. Well, knowledge-based societies face the challenge of dealing with these four forms. We improvise, are lucky and after that realize rationally we have obviously acted intelligently. But if we then succumb to the megalomania of Enlightenment that we can rule everything we shall be merely ignorant. This can be mostly seen from people calling themselves intelligent in the first place; for self-attested intelligence is ignorance. And wisdom is recognizing being rational and ignorant can be only distinguished by the means of intelligence - which means the distinction is absolutely uncertain.
The same thing applies to the core term the modern image modern societies have of themselves: knowledge, to be precise. If we examine the evolution of human abilities, we must acknowledge that in the last 300 years mankind has produced and gathered more knowledge than ever before on the one hand, but has been made aware of its own ignorance more than ever before on the other. So here the principle prevails, too, the process of knowledge results from the tension of knowing and not knowing. The more proudly human beings responded to a gain of knowledge, the more humbly they had to realize unexpected negative consequences soon after. In order to avoid the melancholy of ignorance people saved rationalism by characterizing it as critical. Knowledge concerns not only what is the case but also, more than that: exclusively,what is not. True is what can be proved false. That is why the positive aspect of knowledge is negative. We can only know for sure what is not the case, not what is, for what is the case only expects refutation.
This principle of fallibility is about to overtake itself, for the half-life of the raw material knowledge is steadily shrinking. That is because knowledge is in the true sense of the word a factor of production, not a product. And by now it points to the rucksack it is carrying on its back, ignorance. When once pupils explained their aversion from learning with their lack of knowledge what to use the things they were taught for, their teachers guaranteed their use. Nowadays this is no more possible. But hardly a teacher finally brings himself to characterize learning as exercise in being willing to forget any time what was taught. Still that is why the term knowldge society is ambiguous, for it means both what a society has already acquired and what remains to be acuired - just knowledge.
However, it is very important not to confuse old knowledge necessarily with obsolete knowledge. After all, Socrates' age-old insight into his knowing that he does not know anything is much more update than some complacent research on Artificial Intelligence or Neuro Science. Socrates has identified the opposite terms and has shown that the modern manner of sequencing knowldge and ignorance is wrong in believing it is possible to secure a linear increase of knowledge.
But how to put that application into practice? Well, it might be an intersting discorvery if we relate knowledge and ignorance to each other. In other words, we could follow Socrates' example and distinguish between four cases, namely (a) knowledge of knowing; (b) knowledge of not knowing; (c) not knowing of knowing; (d) not knowing of not knowing.
Ad (a): Consciousness that something is (not) the case is the classical example of human reason. Being rational is based on this principle. In its highest degree it tries to rely exclusively on strictly axiomatic conclusions, to deduce from what has been known for sure.Wissen, dass man etwas weiß. This complies with the intellectual wishes for security, but solves no problems in the long run. This attitude runs the risk of intellectual inbreeding when perpetuately applied.
Ad (b): This kind of consciousness is not rational - if we make the modern presupposition being rational means control. Instead, it would be more appropriate to talk about wisdom as the Socratic manner of modesty. However, we should picture what Socrates had to swallow, because any decision-maker will be most irritated by someone who steadfastly refuses to be right. Just because of that our social elites strive to be wise, but remain rational.
Ad (c): With the evolution of modern cybernetics this notion has gained importance. It is based on the idea that systems are not only internally organized in a rational way, but that they are also embedded in a feedback relation with their environent. Since a system can only control itself, but not its environment (for that would mean the environment ceases to be environmental and becomes a systemic element), the internal rationality will not be sufficient for the system to exist within its environment. So this is intelligence. A system cannot know or plan beforehand what might be occurring. Company strategies prove that every day. The inflationary use of the term intelligence only reveals its content is a rare good.
Ad (d): The way knowledge and lack of knowledge have been related to each other here, it is no surprise that the fourt case is very similar to being rational (but, of course, it is not identical). This is because being rational creates a logical niche, for it is exclusively focused on what is known; as a consequence, the fact that the niche differs from the environment comes as a big surprise. In short, what is not known is considered irrelevant, which means it slips beyond notice. A strategy like that establishes ignorance. Well, knowledge-based societies face the challenge of dealing with these four forms. We improvise, are lucky and after that realize rationally we have obviously acted intelligently. But if we then succumb to the megalomania of Enlightenment that we can rule everything we shall be merely ignorant. This can be mostly seen from people calling themselves intelligent in the first place; for self-attested intelligence is ignorance. And wisdom is recognizing being rational and ignorant can be only distinguished by the means of intelligence - which means the distinction is absolutely uncertain.
No comments:
Post a Comment