Is Knowledge Worth The Pursuit Of Knowledge?

Understanding is contingent upon knowledge. It is impossible to understand an idea without first knowing its foundation. The knowledge from which understanding is gained must always be derived from the observation of trends and patterns, but the understanding of the knowledge is derived from the more detailed observation of a specific example. Throughout history, humans have engaged in war and dispute. Despite the travesty, the loss of life, and the devastating effects, humans seem to be drawn to it. Through a historical lens, it is a statement of fact. It is a statistic. War happens. Perspective is changed, however, during the examination of a particular war. The loss of life seems more tragic than before. The closer examination allows for …show more content…
Some would argue that personal observation is not required for knowledge for it can also be learned through the explanations offered through the rhetoric of others. I disagree. The memorization of facts is not the same thing as knowledge. Knowledge is the precedent for understanding because personal observation and recognition of patterns allows for the more detailed examination of specific example of the patterns which leads to understanding. Once understanding is reached expansion and synthesis of new ideas can occur. The memorization of facts halts the learning process, allowing only for the regurgitation of the facts. This is especially evident in a math class. When students must learn to multiply, there are different ways to approach it. The first is to give students a multiplication table and force them to memorize it. This is rote memorization. The second is to tell the students that multiplication is the addition of a number to itself as many times as another number specifies. This is the general pattern. The third is to guide the student through a particular problem and explain to them the machination of multiplication. This is providing particular examples. The most useful of the three is the last. The first cannot be expounded upon. It is fact and can be drawn no further. The second is very abstract and may be difficult to understand without the addition of the last. The last, however, …show more content…
Understanding cannot exist without first having knowledge. Understanding is mutually inclusive of knowledge. Knowledge, however, is most definitely not consistently inclusive of understanding. In fact, knowledge is astonishingly often unaccompanied by understanding. As a result, knowledge is a thing commonly and easily found, whereas understanding is a much rarer discovery. Knowledge is obtained by those who can observe their surroundings and recognize their surroundings for what they are. Understanding arises when their surroundings are analyzed and placed within the context of their relationship with the world. Kant said, “Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. The understanding can intuit nothing, the senses can think nothing. Only through their unison can knowledge arise