Here, as promised in class [CLA/ENG 310], are two questions for your further consideration and discussion. They may look quite similar, and doubtless share much common ground, but I maintain that they are [philosophically speaking] not identical.
1. Is knowledge unequivocally good/worthwhile?
2. Are there limits to the value of knowledge?
As we discussed in class, these questions have far-reaching implications for all of our lives. For one thing, the 'yes' response to no. 1 is taken as more or less an axiom for the academy: though you might actually want to investigate that 'more or less' bit. [are there types or fields of knowledge that are not unequivocally good/worthwhile?]
There are plenty of other things to consider here as well, and I invite you to put on your thinking caps and ponder these questions some more. Some possible topics:
--- are there things that it's just better for us not to know?
--- does knowledge [as Socrates sometimes says in the dialogues of Plato] invariably conduce to virtuous behavior?
--- pushing the previous question further: is it even possible for knowledge to make you a better person?
--- are there realms of study that are not worth devoting a college course [much less a career] to? i.e. a field of study that you would effectively prohibit a person from investigating, even if s/he wanted to?
--- is practical knowledge [such as the ability to distinguish a bacterium from a virus] philosophically more important than theoretical knowledge [such as the ability to distinguish and categorize types of love-song]? If so, should every human devote h/erself only to the study of practical knowledge?
These questions should at least get you started, but please do not feel you should limit your comments only to the topics raised here.
