Implications of the Desire to Know
I was thinking about Aristotle’s claim in the Metaphysics that all humans by nature desire to know. It occurred to me that if this is true it might partially explain why people are so often susceptible to errors of reasoning like the bifurcation fallacy and oversimplifying important but difficult issues, e.g., God’s existence, abortion, gun rights, justice, etc. My thinking was that if people really do by nature desire to know, but the issue they are thinking about is too complex to admit of a ready solution, then they will be faced with some sort of discomfort or anxiety. To avoid this, they result to oversimplifying the issue so that a “solution” becomes more apparent and—Voilà!—discomfort is relieved.
None of that is done consciously, necessarily. It might be akin to unconscious rationalization. And, of course, there are presumably many other factors that affect why people oversimplify things and believe things that, after a little reflection, are clearly problematic. I’m reminded of the fact that at two different schools where I’ve taught, I’ve had students admit to me during office hours that they didn’t like philosophy because they didn’t like having to think so hard!
An interesting and important question is what makes or determines the difference? That is, if we all by nature desire to know, then why do some people satisfy that desire through oversimplification and others satisfy it by facing deep difficulties and uncertainty, ultimately not feeling satisfied with any “answer”? Surely, the answer to that question won’t be simple either.
6 thoughts on “Implications of the Desire to Know”
I think you are really onto something with this. It seems that when a person does not understand something in its entirety (which usually cannot be done without extensive and passionate analysis), that person does have a tendency to adhere to the information which he or she believes that he or she can confirm. Then one decides (consciously or unconsciously) whether one should accept for the sake of acceptance or should bask in uncertainty and the accompanying lack of satisfaction which ultimately might be necessary to continue one’s search for truth. Trying to figure out why some have the tendency to follow along the path of the former more than others is, as you said, surely an extensive venture. My initial thought is, and this is probably quite obvious, that the genetically determined role with which people are endowed is cultivated by diverse environmental influences and accordingly either extinguishes this tendency or propagates it.
Maybe Aristotle was wrong. I think, as human beings, it is our natural desire to learn, not necessarily to know. This would explain why some are never satisfied. Learning rarely ever leads to answers, usually it just leads to more questions. Maybe those who over simplify things aren’t living well because they aren’t living according to their natural desire to learn, they are living according to some other desire. I don’t know if this makes sense, its just something I have been thinking about for a while.
Amelia, I think you’re right that learning leads more often to more questions and the realization of how little one knows and understands.
You raise an interesting point about the connection between living well and our natural desire to learn/know. It presumably will depend, in part, on what view we hold on well-being. If you think some sort of objective list theory or nature fulfillment theory that incorporates such desire is correct, then presumably that would rule of living well for those who fail to achieve what’s on the list or to fulfill their natures. But if you think well-being is more subjective (informed desire fulfillment, for example), then perhaps not.
Personally, I’m in favor of the more objective versions of well-being and in favor of including the desire to learn/know as a condition for well-being. That need not, as one might fear, involve elitism. One can fully engage one’s desire to learn/know without going to school or having a lot of money. It is true, however, that if one must struggle daily for bare subsistence, then such a life might not allow for engaging such desires.
George,
I think you’ve definitely hit upon something. Whether or not we all (or most of us) have a desire to know, I think that most of us certainly have a desire—indeed a psychological need—to think we know. Psychologically, it’s quite discomfiting to be faced with confusion and uncertainty. We need to be able to make sense of our world and feel as though we have a handle on things. When we are confronted with philosophical queries, the contemplation of which call into question some of our deepest assumptions, we are often left shaken. Many of our deepest held convictions are called into question, and this is quite disturbing, not the least of which because it may call into question our confidence in our prior sources of knowledge. E.g., we may hold our religious or moral views because they were “handed” to us from trusted sources of authority. Our parents, teachers, and religious authorities told us that the world was a certain way, and because we have such faith in them (and perhaps because the evidence presented to us fit the picture, so to speak), we accepted their claims as fast and firm truths.
If these assumptions are threatened by philosophical investigation, we experience what psychologists call cognitive dissonance, which is quite uncomfortable. We’re faced with competing and seemingly inconsistent claims: I am a person who understands things; My way of viewing/understanding the world is accurate; My parents/teachers taught me certain things, and my parents/teachers can be trusted; yet, this view of mine is being called into question. The cognitive dissonance needs to be resolved. There are of course various ways to do this—as philosophers, we might argue that one ought to rationally investigate the evidence for and against a particular claim, and we would hold that admitting a mistake in belief by no means entails that a person is irrational, stupid, or that those in whom we place our trust are actually unreliable. But of course, this sort of critical investigation and reflection is taxing in terms of mental exertion and time considerations. It’s often much easier to simply reject the new, inconsistent proposition, and hold fast in our prior convictions. But of course, to be able to maintain our belief in light of what we suspect is disconfirming evidence, we will often have to engage in bad reasoning. The result is that we may be more apt to commit many of the fallacies of reasoning which you mention.
Heather, thanks so much for fleshing out what I was saying. I particularly like your point about the cognitive dissonance that results from being in a position of questioning/doubting key authority figures in our lives. I’m sure the degree varies person to person. There are those who unfortunately don’t like their parents, teachers, etc. And there are those who despite loving their parents can’t wait to reject, for example, their parent’s political views. But I’m guessing for many, it’s often hard to reject what we learn from our parents, for example, about such fundamental issues as God and morality.
No problem, George! I’m still thinking about the last question you posed. I really enjoy this blog; it’s quite inspiring.