186 Morten Tønnessen
MT: It might be that we should not implement all the technologies we develop
until we have done research – maybe even for twenty years.
JD: We do have this to some extent with regard to, for example, drug
administration. But the main thing is, we always need to know more. And
that is exactly what you are saying too.CONCLUSION
MT: (pauses) In one sense, yes. I am just not – I am not saying that you are – but
I am not an Enlightenment optimist in the sense that I think that knowledge
in itself necessarily improves society. Sometimes, when this knowledge is
technical knowledge, or knowledge that enables us to carry out new physical
activities – economic activities – sometimes it solves problems, sometimes it
creates problems, and most times it does both. I see no necessary connection
between the intrinsic value of knowledge, on one hand, and the
consequences of knowledge, on the other. I think it is interesting that our
form of society is based on capitalist exploitation of scientific knowledge.
Naturally you could imagine other paradigms of science in which the
intrinsic value of knowledge, rather than some second-hand use of scientific
results, was the purpose of science. The value of knowledge is somehow
disrespected in today‘s society, exactly in that it is all too often made into
commerce.
JD: It is the same thing that is done in the school system of the United States.
They think the purpose of education is job training.
MT: Right – so they are small adults, they are not children learning, but small
adults being prepared for professional careers.
JD: Right. And that is really a disaster. Of course you are going to have to make
your way in the world, at some point. But the education process has an
aspect of an end in itself. The person who wants to learn to be fully human
has to become aware. You cannot have freedom, you cannot have
responsibility – you cannot have any of that stuff without the framework of
education.
MT: When we talk about knowledge, I think it is crucial to combine this talk with
a concept of understanding, because I would be inclined to state that
knowledge without understanding is worthless. Albert Camus once said that
faced with ethical problems, there is nothing at all the person with the best
intentions could achieve without at the same time having enormous levels of
knowledge. So, it is extremely challenging. Then there is Heidegger, who
with reference to his own experiences said that one who thinks big, fails big.
There is a danger to having a naïve belief in knowledge, isolated from
understanding or wisdom. It is possible to portray modern history as the
further consequences of a naïve Enlightenment era. These are consequences
of the fact that we have believed in knowledge, and in rationality, and
ignored exactly the real-life consequences of our way of life that we are now