as part of my study into the enlightenment, I am studying David Hume…
Now one of the things I have noticed is when discussing say, Hume’s theory
of how we aquired knowledge, it is rather theoretical and abstract…
for example, we look at a tree and we then use reason to understand
the nature of the tree… whereas in fact, this is not how we gain knowledge
at all…we are children and we ask, hay dad, what is that thing over there?
Dad will explain, that is a tree son…Hay dad, what is that glowing thing
in the sky? Well son, that is the sun…it is bright and helps keeps us alive…
Ok, how dad? well, the sun heats us and the planet and that allows plants
and tree’s and animals and us to grow… ummm, So, dad, what about…?
and we learn from either asking questions or being told, what a certain thing is…
to make connections between such things as tree’s and us for example,
we must study and experiment and reflect on tree’s and what is their purpose…
but that is after we have learned what a tree is… Einstein worked out light and
what it is, but he had to rediscover what light actually is…he was told, very young
what light is and where it came from… now whether or not that information was
true or not, doesn’t matter… it comes from the collected knowledge we humans have…
we know the earth is round… and mathematically, we can figure it out, but,
the real understanding that the earth is round comes from those who have
traveled the earth… Sailors who sail around the globe, gave us concreate
information that the earth is round…and they passed that information down…
and finally at some point, our dad or our school teacher will tell us that the earth is
round… we certainly didn’t work it out and our dad or school teacher didn’t work it out,
that information comes from someone, somewhere who by experience, math can
help confirm it, but experience helps us understand it…
we learn from the collected experiences of everyone who came before us…
we don’t work anything out ourselves and thus lies a problem…
what if the collected information of everyone gives us information that
is somehow, in contradiction to the information we get from someone else?
science is really the collected information of people who has gone before us,
who researched that information with a method and purpose…
let us take a look at this contradiction between the collected information
and the information we see for ourselves…
let us say, that my parents told me that there is a god… (BTW, they steered
clear of theology because of different faiths, mom was protestant and dad was
catholic) but lets us think about this… and in time after many years, of
being told there is a god, I discover the problem of evil… which is how does a
perfect and good god allow evil in the world…after some time trying to reason it out,
I may begin to read the many, many books about this issue… and after some thought,
I come to a conclusion that there is no god…the contradiction between god and evil
is too great for me to allow belief in a god…for whatever reason, I no longer accept
believe in god despite being told by the state and the church and my parents, that
there is a god…I have overcome my initial teaching of biases and myths and
prejudices and superstitions… I have gained new knowledge…
and that knowledge is from thinking and comparing experiences I have had
and other people who I read about, have had about this issue about god and evil…
the path to knowledge is really the path of overcoming our original
source of knowledge which is this collective knowledge of humans
which was gained over a million years from hard experience of humans
in the world… experience that may or may not be right about things…
our collective experience/knowledge of the sun for example, was
wrong… for thousands, if not millions of years, we thought the sun was
either a god or was circling the earth or was very, very close to the earth…
our knowledge, our collective knowledge of the sun was wrong…
it has only been recently in human existence that we have found out
what the sun was and how it operated in space…
now some of this collective knowledge is correct… the stove is hot,
treat people as you want to be treated, don’t walk into walls…
but don’t think that we have gained this knowledge by some studious
application of reason and thought… most of our knowledge is from
this collective knowledge we humans have, and it may or may not be right…
the “great” human beings are great because they went beyond the
the collective knowledge we have and tried to understand the knowledge
they have with the facts as they know it…and if the collective knowledge we
have contradicts the facts we have, then one of them is wrong…and chances
are, it is the collective knowledge we have that is wrong…
they compared the collective knowledge with the facts we have…
and often, often it becomes clear that facts conflict with the
collective knowledge we have…most people would simply ignore
the facts and go with the collective knowledge, but that is the greatness
of those human beings, they ignored the collective knowledge
and tried to make sense of the facts… which has lead them
to the theories and idea’s that make them great…
With Darwin for example, evolution was in the air and had been
in the air for hundred years before he wrote his book in 1859…
but Darwin didn’t just accept the collective knowledge that was
there… Man came about because god created the heavens and earth
and man… No, Darwin saw the collective information and the facts
were in contradiction… they didn’t agree with each other…so, does
Darwin just simply accept the collective wisdom/information/ knowledge
of his culture/people? no, tried to make sense of this conflict between
the collective information/knowledge of his “tribe” and researched it
for himself… he tried to rise about the knowledge given to him by
his parents, the state, the church…the collective knowledge of
his time was wrong…and he didn’t just accept it like most people…
he was able to make connection between objects, living and inanimate
objects… connections that lead him to his theory…
and the means he used was experience… his experience of his travels
and of his breeding of birds…and of other people experiences…
his research wasn’t theoretical or abstract… it was practical and
immediate experiences…
so, how do you understand knowledge?
Kropotkin