“ IN EXPANDING THE FIELD OF KNOWLEDGE WE BUT INCREASE THE HORIZON OF IGNORANCE ” ( HENRY MILLER ) . IS THIS TRUE?
Knowledge is the opposite word of ignorance. When we are faced with two antonyms, the general impression is that if one increases the other is bound to diminish. Take a pigment for illustration. The darker pigment you add to your pigment, the less lighter it would acquire.
To understand this stance, we must foremost understand the definition of cognition and ignorance. However, cognition is excessively extended to be defined in one sentence and discussed in one essay. Therefore, I will be restricting my authorship to few countries of cognition such as faith, linguistic communication, scientific discipline and mathematics to implement my rating. Henry Miller negotiations about the addition in the skyline of ignorance and I feel that skyline is the perfect word for depicting ignorance.
Karl Popper stated that, “ Our cognition can merely be finite, while our ignorance must needfully be infinite. ” I support his premiss because the range for ignorance is every bit huge as that of cognition. As we obtain more cognition, we merely find more Fieldss that could be developed even further, thereby, increasing our ignorance. Barring few exclusions, we can link this to about all countries of cognition because, merely like the skyline, as we get closer to it and we think that we have found the concluding reply, merely to recognize that, in world, we are still far off from the terminal point.
A common sentiment is that as we increase our cognition, we get less nescient because we learn more. Mentioning environmental scientific discipline, as we learn more about planetary heating, we find out the damaging effects of objects which we were incognizant of earlier, thereby, diminishing our ignorance on this issue. However, we realize that we are unmindful to so many other issues, which we ne’er knew about earlier, merely to detect that our field of skyline has increased.
The more acquainted we get with faith, the more aloof we get to the prevailing norms in society. To derive spiritual cognition one has to lose, till a certain extent, contact with the outside universe. This is because if one really has to follow one of these books diligently, he ought to compromise with the present imposts of society. Looking at Hinduism, there are so many traditions such as Sati that have been abolished by society. Most faiths stress the importance of simpleness and abbreviation from mercenary goods. The great sages and priests of the 21st century stay as far off from civilisation as possible, to acquire off from the “ existing offenses ” and seek consolation in the stray countries. The chief ground for this is that these books have been written so many old ages back that it is impractical for most of the people to follow most, if non all, traditions encrypted in these books. Hence, in deriving this cognition one gets nescient and becomes unaware of the scenario in the existent universe.
Looking at a simple arithmetic job ; since kindergarten we have learned that when one and one is added, the terminal consequence is two. However, as we study farther on and larn about other base theorems such as the Base two theorem where one plus one is non two, it is ten. Merely so do we detect that we have so much more to larn approximately, like other base theorems and how we were nescient about other base theorems apart from the base 10 theorems used chiefly in day-to-day life. On larning more theorems, we realize that there are so many Fieldss that we have non even looked at. Hence, are n’t we ignorant?
Isaac Newton discovered Calculus in the 17th century. Merely after this find did we larn the significance of this find in other Fieldss such as scientific discipline, technology and even mathematics itself. Calculus enabled us to mathematically depict the dimensions of the physical existence and lead to the find of Modern scientific discipline. Once the great bookmans of the Renaissance period understood the working of Calculus, it opened up doors to facets of Mathematicss and Science that were ne’er even dreamt about earlier. The farther development in these countries of cognition facilitated us to spread out our cognition in computing machine scientific discipline, concern surveies and technology. On find of these comparatively new Fieldss of cognition, we now understand the potency that lies in forepart of us to spread out our cognition even more, but this would merely open up new countries that we would be nescient to.
“ As we get more cognition, things do non go more comprehendible, but more cryptic. ” This statement byAlbert Schweitzer is disposed for about all countries of cognition. As our cognition increases we do understand so many new constructs and theories.
Space has ever been connected with enigma. The development in the field of infinite scientific discipline has been enormous. Forty old ages back, Man went to the Moon for the first clip. Since so, we have developed some astonishing infinite birds and projectiles to hike the progress in the field of uranology. But as we discover more about our Solar System, we merely realize that we are nescient to so many issues about farther planets that we would ne’er believe about if our cognition had non increased. Mentioning the illustration of the first infinite bird to set down on Mars, when we hardly had adequate cognition about the planet, we ever thought that life on Mars would be impossible and discounted life on any other planet, beside Earth, excessively. However, on more research and expeditions, Man found hints of H2O on Red planets that could bespeak the possibility of life in Mars. Thereby, increasing our field of cognition has shed visible radiation on so many issues. We learn about so many new facets as exemplified in the above illustrations that we merely acquire more baffled because of the outrageousness of cognition or possible cognition that could be acquired available to us.
Looking at the flipside, we must understand that even before geting more cognition, we were still nescient to all the possible developments that increased our skyline of ignorance. It is merely that we were cognizant of what we are nescient about, after deriving more cognition. The lone difference is that we now know that we are nescient about these new Fieldss we do non hold any cognition about.
Human existences have invariably evolved from premature cave mans to sophisticated and complex work forces. The ground for this is the thirst for more cognition as we merely acquire more funny to larn more. Our wonder has been the chief motivation factor for us to oppugn our mind and discover more. This thrust to cognize everything pushes us to get more and more cognition. The lone manner we can spread out our current cognition is by cognizing more about those Fieldss that we are cognizant about but are nescient of. As we try to larn more about these subjects, we finally cut down the ignorance that increased when we foremost discovered about these topics.
Language is one country of cognition that goes against Henry Miller ‘s sentiment, peculiarly when we improve our vocabulary. As we stumble across new words, all we need to make is look up a dictionary to happen the significance of that word and we have acquired new cognition without acquiring more nescient. After happening out the significance, we have gained cognition about that word and our pursuit is over.
Knowledge is the expertness and accomplishments acquired by a individual through experience or instruction. It is the theoretical or practical apprehension of a topic. Experience is a journey from the uterus to the grave. Hence, throughout our life we keep on geting cognition, it is a ceaseless procedure. Analyzing both sides, I comply with John F Kennedy that, “ The greater our cognition additions, the greater our ignorance unfolds. ” I feel that when we span across new countries or develop any bing theory or cognition, we merely find new waies that could take to more developments. Merely so do we recognize that we are nescient to so many topics that we would hold ne’er come across before, if we had non increased our cognition. We likely would ne’er be nescient of anything if we had non started our pursuit for cognition because if we were ignorant we would non be nescient to anything, we would likely non cognize the significance of ignorance itself.
- answers.yahoo.com/question/index? qid=20080404212819AAxaEPM – 53k –
- answers.yahoo.com/question/index? qid=20080517080546AAv8hzF – 62k –
- forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/expansion-of-knowledge-29878.html – 35k
- hypertext transfer protocol: //www.math.wright.edu/People/Richard_Mercer/Classes/Common /WhyCalculus.html
- hypertext transfer protocol: //www.thinkexist.com
- hypertext transfer protocol: //www.wikipedia.org