Americans have always been accused of being anti-intellectual. Nothing new there. However, I'm noticing an upswing in remarks that question the value of knowledge, understanding, and education. Admittedly, those four terms (intellect/intelligence, knowledge, understanding, education) are distinct but overlapping in their meanings, and how something is valued properly also has multiple interpretations. I vaguely remember somewhere unlocatable in my backblog having proposed some definitions for those terms, but I hardly have the last word on epistemology. Suffice it to say for the purpose of this blog entry that intelligence is raw processing power (typically in the mind, often linguistic, mathematical, and/or abstract); knowledge is possession of information without resorting to, say, Google search to look up something; understanding is how knowledge is organized and contextualized; and education is the process, whether formal schooling or informal throughout life (e.g., experience), of acquiring knowledge and understanding. Any one of these terms can certainly be picked apart, but I'll settle on these provisional statements so that I can get to the main point of this post.
Without providing links, the number of times in just the past week something has come to my attention questioning the value of knowledge has surprised me. Motivations differ, for example, as to whether one might in some ideal circumstance know the approach of death (i.e., to see the metaphorical bullet coming). That foreknowledge is unavailable for most of us absent the diagnosis of some terminal illness and given some ballpark days/weeks/months to live. Foreknowledge of death is of course part of the human condition, but most are arguably content putting the prospect out of mind until infirmity lands the inevitability squarely within a fairly immediate timeframe. Given the doomer nature of this blog, a similar question might be asked about foreknowledge of the collapse of industrial civilization. Is it important to know and understand the circumstances that are currently leading to collapse (only the most recent of many) or should one bury one's head and live in ignorant bliss (were that possible)? To answer my own questions, I'm content knowing nothing certain about the how/why/when of my death but can't pretend not to be simultaneously fascinated and horrified by the death spiral in which civilization finds itself. Frankly, the incompetence and apparent disconcern of those who might be in positions not to keep it from happening (that ship sailed long ago) but at least to prepare and diminish anticipated suffering surprises me. Instead, civilization is careening heedlessly and headlong into catastrophe. At least, that's my assessment.
For stakes lower than life and death, the question has arisen anew whether knowledge and understanding are self-justifying, valuable in and other themselves beyond any sort of monetizeable consideration. Individual responses differ widely, of course, but if one surveys the wider American scene, those clamoring to develop themselves with a rigorous breadth of understanding (as distinguished from a money-grubbing professional specialization) are remarkably few or are at least laboring in anonymity. I'd venture that popular entertainments (TV, cinema, team sports, video games, jousting on X, etc.) are far more widely sought as objects of attention, enjoyment, and devotion. But wait, it gets worse. Through a variety of influencers, mostly in journalistic media and government (who are all mysteriously supplied the same scripts and talking point), individuals are directed not to think for themselves, not to do their own investigations and research, but instead to simply swallow the predigested narratives shoveled at them as so much slop for the hogs. And for those with the temerity to defy approved narratives out in public and beyond the confines of the dinner table, well, those folks come under heinous attack like knowledge itself. Shouting matches in media are not uncommon, though the emotional fury with which an opinion is prosecuted does nothing to strengthen one's arguments or convince.
Among the intractable debates in the marketplace of ideas, the one now disrupting society most vehemently is the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. It has a long, tortured history that has become enflamed in the past few months, and it has the potential to engulf the Middle East and indeed the world in a new world war. Most take one or the other side of the debate, either excusing bloodshed as necessary or at least empathizing with reasons for it to occur. The conflict is also the occasion of no small amount of propaganda, which muddies the waters considerably. Since escalations have been raging, quite a few experts on one side or the other have told and retold the history, advocating for one action or another. Sympathy with the underdog in this wholly mismatched contest make far more emotional sense to me considering many reports of events (told by the victors, as history always is) have been shown to be outright fabrications. The hapless public, if the party line is not adopted uncritically, is thus forced to decide whose narratives are more or less true and whose are garbage.
As a pacifist (why are there so few of us?), anyone who advocates or excuses further bloodshed and destruction loses my support, though in truth I'm only a passive observer. It aggrieves me that the U.S. government is up to its neck in this conflict. But I nonetheless form opinions best I can, sorting through conflicting characterizations of events in search of reliable reports. Calls to mind the remark "The first casualty in War is Truth," another instance of knowledge under attack during the epistemological crisis I've been writing about for years (see, for example, here).
No comments:
Post a Comment