On Knowledge and Education

True under­standing requires true education and true knowledge. There are those who would assume their compe­tence in the form of academia, with super­ficial knowledge of theories and concepts. Others attempt to command a higher status by demanding their creden­tials be observed and respected. These are the types who lack true knowledge and understanding.

Many people are impressed by those who can quote from books of poetry or chapters in a textbook. They view this as intel­li­gence and extend this impression to assume that they are educated. A conve­nient example comes from a favorite film of mine, Good Will Hunting.

It is inter­esting that Will Hunting, anti-hero in said film, makes a point of having original thoughts in order to demolish and humiliate an intel­lectual opponent. He does so despite the fact that he himself shows no evidence of having any original thoughts of his own. To para­phrase his begrudged ther­apist, “If I asked you about art, you’d probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written…but I’ll bet you can’t tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel.” In other words, Mr. Hunting is lacking in authen­ticity and expe­rience. His knowledge, while super­fi­cially intim­i­dating, is nothing more than an exhi­bition of his remarkable memory and academic capabilities.

This is a far cry from what I would consider to be true knowledge. Mr. Hunting lacks the emotional and spir­itual aspects of life expe­rience that completes ones education. He has book smarts, there is no doubt about that. But his knowledge is not grounded in the real world. Rather, it is a mere reflection of the books he has read. Perhaps he too does no more than the Michael Bolton clone in that he merely reads voluminously.

But before I turn this into a char­acter study of Will Hunting, this is an example of what I mean by having real knowledge. It is akin to the soldier who reads, theo­rizes, and concep­tu­alizes about war but whom has never stepped foot onto a battle­field. He can preach the virtues of Sun Tzu’s Art of War, he can vouch for the effec­tiveness of von Clausewitz’s tactical genius, but without ever being in the line of fire himself, he will never gain that intan­gible quality of authen­ticity and authority.

Theories and concepts are the stuff of those who assume authority without having the expe­rience to justify such a station. In my expe­rience, this is largely manifest in those who use their diploma as a tool for intel­lectual bullying. Fancy rhetoric, the slick ability to recall large amounts of infor­mation from text­books and case studies, and tech­nical language serve to obscure the fact that they have nothing in the way of expe­rience, where it really counts.

There is a certain sense of cama­raderie amongst those who have shared a particular expe­rience, whether it was together or not. Soldiers who have seen combat, women who have been victims of sexual assault, children who have been abused, people who have suffered addiction, people who have dealt with or are dealing with a mental disorder; these people have seen the reality of such diffi­culties. These are the people who have seen the truth of such matters, first hand. Their expe­ri­ences are invaluable, far more educa­tional than any textbook or class.  Those who are expe­ri­enced see through those who can only lay claim to academic theorizing.

A deep under­standing of some­thing can be defined as having a grounded perspective gained through expe­rience and exposure. A police cadet may learn the concept behind community policing, a salesman may learn the premises of gaining compliance, a therapist-in-training may learn the theories of depression; but none of them can claim to have a deep and true under­standing of their respective fields without having first performed in their position’s capacity.

But expe­rience is only part of the equation. To become well-versed in anything, one must have a compre­hensive knowledge of the prac­tical. One must be able to under­stand how theories and concepts actually apply to the real world.

Anybody who points to creden­tials as proof of authority cannot be trusted. If one were truly author­i­tative, then ranks, titles, diplomas, number of classes taken, lectures attended, and certifi­cates earned would not be used as symbols of authority or compe­tence. Authority and compe­tence is self-evident and, when true and earned honestly, silently speaks volumes to the integrity of the speaker. A soldier who leads by title is one who will lose his men, either due to mistrust, incom­pe­tence, or lack of respect. Those who rely on creden­tials and the like in order establish supe­ri­ority in fact have no substance. Creden­tials are but mere words where actions count.

Modern academic insti­tu­tions do not educate. Rather, they inform its students. Knowledge can be attained easily. Ency­clo­pedias contain massive amounts of knowledge. But they do not contain education. Education takes place in the minds of the students. There is a big difference between knowledge and education. Unfor­tu­nately, the general public seem to easily confuse the two, mistaking being knowl­edgeable with being competent or educated.

The truly educated are those who question and think. Critical thinking, some­thing sorely missing from the majority of American society, is the mark of an educated man. Intel­li­gence as well as verbal and written acuity are also further signs of a man who is in command of a mind that is fine and refined. Diplomas, degrees, and titles may serve to fool those who do not know any better, but the educated mind sees through such a ruse.

It is a sad day for American society when a mishmash of obscure (or even not so obscure) ideas that are barely profound passes for intel­li­gence. It is disap­pointing to see that anybody would assume that an academic degree would be worth more than expe­rience, that such things would confer any degree of authority so powerful that it would crush the ideas and consid­er­ation of those without such a conve­nient title.

This is a work in progress.