Why Is Knowledge Unconditionally Good

942 Words2 Pages

Is knowledge unconditionally good? Some people would say yes but I would say no, knowledge is not unconditionally good or at least not all the time. Knowledge does have its limitations on being unconditionally good where it starts to make people less happy. Nietzsche would say that knowledge is “only valuable insofar as it serves life” (7). He also would say that we shouldn’t have an excessive amount of knowledge because it gets in the way of life. So by just having the knowledge we need we can be content like the herd who has little to no knowledge but are happy. Nietzsche says we become less happy and we become more inward when we seek more knowledge. This type of knowledge would have intrinsic value which means that it’s valuable for its …show more content…

Even though the intrinsic knowledge may seem useless and you’ll keep it to yourself, I don’t feel this is true. Zagzebski brings up a good point saying that we desire knowledge and we tie it to what we care about. So something we care about might be intrinsic for Nietzsche or others but there are other people who care about the same thing we do. So this means that we would have someone to share and talk to about this knowledge that doesn’t have use for anything else, therefore not making you more inward. I think knowledge with intrinsic value is unconditionally good if you see it as just wanting to gain knowledge about things you like or care about, for example, gaining more knowledge on the band you like. Where knowledge starts to lose its’ goodness, is when you acquire negative knowledge, as in things you don’t want to …show more content…

He says “Every living thing needs to be surrounded by an atmosphere, a mysterious circle of mist: if one robs it of this veil, if one condemns a religion, an art, a genius to orbit as a star without atmosphere: then one should not wonder about its rapidly becoming withered, hard and barren” (40). So by acquiring more knowledge we’d destroy this illusion that he believes is necessary for life. Zagzebski would disagree and say that because we desire true belief and knowledge we will want to know the truth even if it isn’t pleasant but it’s still worth knowing. So this gets to how knowledge is not unconditionally good because it ruins this illusion of life and it leads to unpleasant things like there being no god, assuming that religion is an illusion. This is where knowledge has its limits on being good because it ruins this idea that brings them happiness. Since they crossed that line and gained this knowledge they ruin this illusion, which sometimes is good to have but other times it is not. Due to the fact that knowledge can cause unhappiness it is not unconditionally good because it has its limitations. It is inevitable that people will always want to cross those limitations because of the point that Zagzebski makes that knowledge is prima facie

Open Document