Adam asked:

What is knowledge and how does one obtain it?

============

There are four classes of knowledge:

1. Tacit.This covers the large segment non-specifiable knowledge which is transmitted mostly by
example. The teaching of skills like violin playing, or surgical diagnosis or artistic photography,
belongs into this category, where instruction relies on demonstration rather than precept and where,
as a pupil, you acquire the knowledge you need by trial and error and a close involvement with your
materials. Hence it is the kind of knowledge in which judgement is all-important and where no one
person is in possession of the complete range of knowledge that pertains to any single knowledge
area.

2. Skeletal and/or Unfocused.This kind of knowledge arises when you absorb focused information,
but owing to its complexity or sheer volume, you remember it as a generalised, unfocused structure of
knowledge. It is the kind to which the proverb, 'Knowledge is not the having of it, but the knowing of
where to get it', applies. So you hold fast to outlines, blocks and general patterns as well as,
evidently, the means of acquiring the details to flesh out this skeleton.

3. Articulated.This type of knowledge is detailed and focused. This is where you command not only
the structure, but the content as well. A memorised poem or train timetable will serve as examples.
Obviously this cannot, on the whole, do without Item 2 also being available, because human minds
can only hold so much detail. Of tremendous importance to this type of knowledge is, in addition, the
means of hanging on to it. Depending on which area of knowledge is covered, this might entail laying
it down in books, using abbreviations and aides-memoire etc.

4. Symbolic.This covers areas which we employ quite generally, though we are rarely explicitly
aware of it. We use signs, allegories, indexicals, metaphors constantly; and these are an indubitably
form of knowledge. It comes out, for example, in such a common adage as 'birds of a feather flock
together', which is not an ornithological statement, but a general statement reflecting a certain
knowledge of human behaviour.

These are matched by four knowledge acquisition systems, respectively:

1. Phyletic,concerning inherited memories, genetically transmitted characteristics, archetypes,
subconscious conditioning and so on. A lot of knowing 'how to' is passed on through such means, as
any mother of a baby will know from the day it is born. 2. Cognitive,which relates to understanding
and comprehension. 3. Aesthetic,in the two-fold meaning of sensation and perception. Finally, 4.
Prehensive,which is concerned with the physical objects, but since most of these do not come with a
handle by which to grasp them, it also serves as a term to embrace the classification of knowledge
under rubrics like weight, mass, volume, density, distance and so on.

Jürgen Lawrenz

Sydney

A clever question, because almost everybody takes the word 'knowledge' for granted. Knowledge is
in my view that part of a fantasy that you share with others. So it can be seen as a shared fairytale, or
a shared game.

This it not to discredit knowledge, but my relative view. Knowledge to me is not 'absolute'. In fact it is
not really important, it's the process of acquiring it that it is all about.

Studying philosophy is not meant to gather knowledge, but to acquire means to grasp it. Professors
are not meant to lecture you their views only, but above all to give you means to construct your own
views. And to teach you ways to evaluate these and those of others.

Knowledge is not to be obtained, like for instance money. The process of acquiring it makes you
owner of the knowledge. In fact the two cannot be separated (they form a mathematical unity). To
posses knowledge you need to have acquired it, and after personal acquiring you automatically own
knowledge.

Compare it to the noun 'work', that includes effort, and without effort there is no work. Only you can let
others do your work, but you can't just take their knowledge.

You can have workers killed after their effort, but killing wizards would be like killing the hen with the
golden eggs. Without hen no golden eggs, and without wizards no knowledge. That is why Merlyn the
wizard always was save, while knights were exchangeable.

Wizards never explain you how they realize their tricks, and as well you have to gather your own
knowledge.

Henk Tuten