What's the point of learning?

[Mark]

It's a simple question, but I'm sure the answers will be somewhat complex. So let me start with my position, then let's see how this develops.

I'm a believer in not acquiring knowledge unless I intend to use it. Why? Because I've met so many 'knowledgeable' people who've spent so many years studying this then that subject, but who, when asked years later what they've learned, struggle to recall the details of the 'knowledge' they acquired academically. Put simply, they gathered the information, retained it long enough to qualify according to the rules of some or other exam board, then steadily 'lost' their learning with the passing years - which I believe is because they never had need nor cause to apply it. And this last point is where I stand: I feel that unless my knowledge is applied in some way, I can't truly claim to have knowledge of ... whatever it might be. In short, true knowledge (for me) must be part of the very fabric of my being, not just a theoretical exercise.

This is why I'm not at all academic, incidentally. Laying aside my lack of interest in and aptitude for lengthy, focused study, I simply see no point in learning for its own sake. And whenever I've needed to learn something, I've only ever absorbed as much information as I felt I could make use of at any given time. That way, I can prove my knowledge by way of demonstrating it in some practical form, rather than just pointing to a certificate on the wall that stands as an empty reminder of temporarily learning something which I now no longer recall with any clarity.

And what about learning simply because one enjoys the process, I hear some of you asking? I'm fine with this, if it brings a person a sense of satisfaction and achievement. But I still wouldn't term the result of this learning 'knowledge', unless it was applied. I rather prefer my own term for it: 'head learning' - something for which I have no use, even though I respect those who can retain and recall with ease information acquired through books and lectures alone.

What do you think the point of learning is?

[Ephemerid]

I'm a bit selective on what the subject might be.  I hardly claim to be a specialist in any field, but music, poetry, literature, history, art, philosophy, astronomy, anthropology, geography are things that have always interested me, and, to a lesser degree, geology, biology and other sciences. 

I don't *use* most of that knowledge in any practical sense (except music and also knowing more about these various subjects helps narrow which books or whatever to buy for further interest) and probably never will.  It just helps me deepen my appreciation for the universe we all live in, the richness and complexity of the universe and the human mind.  I'm thankful just to be a small part of that.

Of course, my knowledge in most of these fields are shaky, being mostly an undisciplined auto-didact, but it at least broadens my view of things.  I just think its interesting-- I can't help but be drawn toward it.  I'm hardly an "intellectual" though LOL and I'm a bit of a slow learner. 

But I'm totally useless when it comes to "practical" knowledge (business admin., accounting, that sort of thing). 

[The new erato]

What do you think the point of learning is?

To develop oneself. Which mean I totally disagree with you. That doesn't  mean that there's not lots of academic nonsense, arrogance and other stuff, but that's just learning gone wrong.

[Mark]

To develop oneself. Which mean I totally disagree with you. That doesn't  mean that there's not lots of academic nonsense, arrogance and other stuff, but that's just learning gone wrong.

Interesting point. I suppose I've developed myself through learning of all kinds without ever really considering that that was what I was doing. Thanks for alerting me to that. I feel I've ... er ... learned something.

EDIT: Having said this, of course, it now occurs to me that you've nicely simplified my original position. I acquire knowledge - and apply it, as I said - in order to develop myself in some way. If all I did was acquire 'head learning', would I still be developed? I'm inclined to think not. Or at least, not as much as if my learning had become part of the whole me, not just a part of me.

[Robert Dahm]

Mark, it seems to me that what you were initially objecting to is not 'learning', as such, but rather this era's obsession with qualifications. I think that knowledge is its own reward, assuming it's something that you're actually motivated to learn. Some people learn best within the framework of a university degree (I have a friend who compulsively racks up Postgraduate Diplomas in whatever field is taking his interest at the time), some people through independent reading (I myself find the structured nature of university somewhat problematic).

But on the whole, I agree with you. The push to cram the knowledge in just long enough to get your qualification seems to me somehow monstrous.

[Mark]

... what you were initially objecting to is not 'learning', as such, but rather this era's obsession with qualifications.

You have a valid point here, Robert. In the UK, for example, we've become fixated with pushing kids through the university system at the expense of valuing the non-academic abilities of those for whom such a system is inappropriate. Case in point: my brother flunked school completely. Isn't academic, didn't get any qualifications. Yet, he can erect a conservatory or partition wall in the blink of a eye, fix a leaking roof or a leaking tap, and has even earned a very good living landscaping gardens.

But apparently, we're no longer interested in 'tradespeople' in this country. Fine - just don't call a professor in the classics when your window gets smashed and there's a shortage of skilled glaziers. Because that's the reality we face if we keep turning out graduates with meaningless degrees (CBI members certainly don't value these any more), rather than valuing just as much those who want to be - or are more suited to be - our modern-day artisans.

Personally, if my daughter tells me in 16 years from now that she wants to train to be a plumber, I shall leap for joy. Not least, because I'm rubbish at fixing anything!

[Kullervo]

Because that's the reality we face if we keep turning out graduates with meaningless degrees (CBI members certainly don't value these any more), rather than valuing just as much those who want to be - or are more suited to be - our modern-day artisans.

Short shrift for those who study the classics, philosophy, art, and anything else pertaining to the study of Western Culture.

[Mark]

Short shrift for those who study the classics, philosophy, art, and anything else pertaining to the study of Western Culture.

I think you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting such things shouldn't be studied. I just know that if I was studying them, I'd need to feel I was doing so for a purpose, not simply for intellectual edification. I'd have in mind a career or perhaps just a pastime where I could apply and make use of what I'd learned. What I certainly wouldn't do is what I've known some people to do, which is to study anything at all, so long as they can get a degree at the end of it.

Why would some do this? Because too many corporate graduate training schemes basically say that what you studied doesn't matter - all they need to know is that you got a degree. Seriously, I'm not making this up. I've written enough graduate scheme literature (and interviewed literally hundreds of graduates over the past nine years) to make me more than a little cynical about the educational motives of some - though not all, I grant you - graduates.

[Kullervo]

I think you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting such things shouldn't be studied. I just know that if I was studying them, I'd need to feel I was doing so for a purpose, not simply for intellectual edification. I'd have in mind a career or perhaps just a pastime where I could apply and make use of what I'd learned. What I certainly wouldn't do is what I've known some people to do, which is to study anything at all, so long as they can get a degree at the end of it.

Why would some do this? Because too many corporate graduate training schemes basically say that what you studied doesn't matter - all they need to know is that you got a degree. Seriously, I'm not making this up. I've written enough graduate scheme literature (and interviewed literally hundreds of graduates over the past nine years) to make me more than a little cynical about the educational motives of some - though not all, I grant you - graduates.

Oh, I'm sorry. I assumed that you held that education should be strictly utilitarian (i.e. if it doesn't lead more or less directly to a career, it's useless), a view that I see as part of the growing standardization of man.

The point of learning? I can only speak for myself, and for me the pursuit of knowledge is to gain a greater context of my Being. I don't see this as something in which there are "points" or "goals", but something that continues as I grow older and stops only when I'm dead. For me gaining knowledge is unconcealment of the truth. 

P.S. I apologize for making this an existential problem. 

[Jupiter]

A silly question. Human beings are hard-wired to learn. It is the job of new-born infants to bond with the mother and learn. Learn as much as possible about the world. What's the point of learning? You may as well ask: What's the point of being human?

[Szykneij]

I'm a believer in not acquiring knowledge unless I intend to use it.

The more I learn, the more I discover how little I know, and this discovery makes me wiser. I'm not yet wise enough to know what knowledge I'll need and what I won't, so I keep on learning what I can.

[DavidW]

Because I've met so many 'knowledgeable' people who've spent so many years studying this then that subject, but who, when asked years later what they've learned, struggle to recall the details of the 'knowledge' they acquired academically.

Mark might not be here anymore, but the thread lives on... so let me reply:

College is about spiritual development and learning is more about intellectual growth and acquiring logical reasoning and writing skills.  I have never taken one class that was nothing but memorization.

Higher education is about gaining wisdom, not knowledge. 

[DavidW]

The more I learn, the more I discover how little I know, and this discovery makes me wiser. I'm not yet wise enough to know what knowledge I'll need and what I won't, so I keep on learning what I can.

Also it's not at all obvious what knowledge is useful and what is not.  And it's short sighted to only place value on knowledge that has immediate use.  I can't count how many times I learned something in math that seemed abstract and useless at the time only to need it frequently just a few years down the road.

[Dana]

But on the whole, I agree with you. The push to cram the knowledge in just long enough to get your qualification seems to me somehow monstrous.

      Yet it is something that academia has foisted upon us. My second musicology course at Michigan was focused almost solely on pre-classical music; in other words, vocal music. Being an instrumentalist, the application of this knowledge is limited for me to say the least. So I got my qualification, and moved on to subjects with more value to my own music making.
      With that said, however, I find that that is the exception more often the rule since I left grade school; usually subjects that seem inane at first reveal themselves to be valuable in some way or another.
      Sometimes, too, some knowledge is only useful for a certain period of time anyways. I may never write counterpoint or four-part harmony again once I leave college. Knowing how it works, and being able to figure it out, however, enhances my score studies, and allows me to go more in depth with them.

[BachQ]

Q: What's the point of learning?

A: The point of learning is to accumulate sufficient knowledge about Saul's modus operandi such that a person will not delete his/her account merely because Saul is acting according to his true nature (which he does consistently and unremittingly).  The point of learning is thus to develop the capacity to ignore Saul's posts and antics while enhancing one's immunity to Saul's tactics.

[The new erato]

Q: What's the point of learning?

A: The point of learning is to accumulate sufficient knowledge about Saul's modus operandi such that a person will not delete his/her account merely because Saul is acting according to his true nature (which he does consistently and unremittingly).  The point of learning is thus to develop the capacity to ignore Saul's posts and antics while enhancing one's immunity to Saul's tactics.

Good answer. I'm getting sick of the religious soapboxing on this forum myself, but on the other hand one can't leave the fora to the crazies, so just ignore. I mostly do.

[Sarastro]

Saul

Who's that?

[Florestan]

I'm a bit selective on what the subject might be.  I hardly claim to be a specialist in any field, but music, poetry, literature, history, art, philosophy, astronomy, anthropology, geography are things that have always interested me, and, to a lesser degree, geology, biology and other sciences. 

I don't *use* most of that knowledge in any practical sense (except music and also knowing more about these various subjects helps narrow which books or whatever to buy for further interest) and probably never will.  It just helps me deepen my appreciation for the universe we all live in, the richness and complexity of the universe and the human mind.  I'm thankful just to be a small part of that.

Of course, my knowledge in most of these fields are shaky, being mostly an undisciplined auto-didact, but it at least broadens my view of things.  I just think its interesting-- I can't help but be drawn toward it. [...]

But I'm totally useless when it comes to "practical" knowledge (business admin., accounting, that sort of thing). 

Nice post, Josh. Thank you for expressing my thoughts.

[The new erato]

Who's that?

A figure in a Handel oratorio I think.

[david johnson]

'What's the point of learning?'

i can't support being unlearned.

dj