Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
"The pursuit of knowledge is not merely about finding truths; it is…
"The pursuit of knowledge is not merely about finding truths; it is about finding significant truths” (adapted from PD Magnus). Discuss the statement.
Significance truth
Time Period: Different eras have different requirements [depending on social climate, or temporal validity]
Ethics: Significance can be based on utilitarism or egalitarism - the pursuit of knowledge is affected because former - scope is limited; latter - every detail that could potentially be helpful is explored.
-
Significance means chasing down a limited path, because you prioritize certain truth sover others
-
-
-
Natural Science
-
-
Resources [Ecology] - do we have the ability to invest in technology that does not serve our immediate necessity?
-
-
-
Bias in what is considered significant: Medical research - no contribution to actual advancement of medicine, but helps shapes which path should be taken for advancement - E.g.: Ben Goldacre - Medical Trials that were not posted
Human Science
Temporal Validity - Where is the significance if a particular phenomena is completely limited to a specific time frame.
-
It is still valid because it is useful to that particular society at that time. If we do not serve the needs of a society, how will it progress to change? Significance will change, but it should still be pursued as long as it is considered significant because that's how the world moves forward.
E.g. The shift towards encompassing more diverse views from a cultural perspecitve [ Western concepts of love are questioned by researchers from other societies ].
Is there significance when no physical benefits can be reaped from it? - Nietzche studying philosophy and tackling issues, but there's no benefits especially to a good portion of society that does not follow philosophy
There is indirect significance, such as the questioning of beliefs and shaping of ethics, but we do not relaize this because we do are not involved in that specific area of knowledge [thus tying back to should expert or general public decide what is significant]
Greatness argued to be corrupted : important in judging historical characters like Winston Churchill as responsible for the Bengali Famine
Significance is based on society's concern: Studies based on self-esteem of minority races in schools [Dr Kenneth's case], while this is not the case in Singapore [no strong concern compared to America]
Significance is highly different for each society, and therefore the collective effort as a human species cannot be focused on - Cultures are different, so certain ideas are not the same elsewhere, whereas there are universal concepts for humans [biological/cognitive], thus shouldn't that be the focus (maximise efficiency)
History
Does the subjectivity of a certain knowledge claim affect significance? That is to say, because objectivity in history can never be attained, due to implicit biases within language and the processing of human minds, then is there any significant points on information that is not about the "truth"
This can also link with Natural Science - the world is only what we perceive of it, and therefore subjectivity is necessary because this array can help us find a midpoint of collective views, and thereby understand human experience through a range of perspectives.
When is history significant? When it has direct impact on the present - and therefore modern history is crucial [explanation behind why there are so many revisionist / post-revisionist / etc etc]
Cultural History - the sake of identity and nothing significant in terms of a societal view, but personal significance - what is important to the development of our own personalities and lives, what makes us human [can also go under philosophy]
e.g. orientalism: Significance is barricaded by bias of a society, and thus, by definition, exploring outside this perspective would be not pursuing only "significant" knowledge
Ethics
Relativism - if there is a different set views of how something may appear to be significant, based on one's cultural background, then there is no overall definition of "significance", because collectively, as a human race, we cannot agree on the same ideas to pursue,
-
Utilitarism vs Egalitarism = which one is significant? One saves resources and helps more people, the other deals with the potential.
-
E.g. Nietzsche's Slave/Master Morality - [transatlantic slave trade; American South's slavery laws compared to the [more] liberal north; Nazi soldiers 'forced' to go along with party] (their moral compass is relative - some see it as sth they create; others see it as imposed) - significance truths here are entirely based on where one sees that moral compass, and therefore, when the two bases of judgement are different, comparing two forms of ethical standpoints is unfair, and thus "significance" cannot be established as that is a judgement set upon the group
Arts
Expert opinion of themes and focus, or based on audience?
-
Could also be based on paradigms - there are literary trends that defined certain time periods, and thus, that would have been what was considered "significant"
-