少点错误 09月02日
知识与智慧:理解学习的真正含义
index_new5.html
../../../zaker_core/zaker_tpl_static/wap/tpl_guoji1.html

 

文章探讨了知识与智慧之间的区别,指出仅仅获取大量信息并不等同于智慧。作者通过举例说明,即使是阅读复杂书籍的人,也可能只是“信息丰富”而非“智慧”。真正的智慧在于运用知识解决问题、理解世界的能力。文章强调,学习是一个持续探索和实践的过程,不应被视为终点,而应是通往更深层次理解的起点。作者鼓励读者分享观点,共同探讨学习的本质。

📚 知识的获取并不等同于智慧:文章通过举例说明,即使一个人能阅读像《芬尼根的守灵夜》或《摩诃婆罗多》这样艰深的作品,并因此积累了大量信息和语言技能,这也不必然代表他拥有智慧。作者认为,知识仅仅是可供解读的信息集合。

🧠 智慧在于应用与理解:真正的智慧被定义为“获取和运用知识与技能的能力”,以及“在特定学科或广泛学科中拥有显著信息、事实或专长,并能有效运用这些知识来理解、解释或解决问题”。这超越了单纯的信息积累。

💡 学习是一个持续的过程:文章暗示,即使通过阅读两本书就能成为“知识渊博”的观点是片面的。学习被看作是通往智慧的组成部分,而非终点。作者还提到,没有人能完全以创作者的视角理解复杂作品,这进一步强调了理解的深度和过程的重要性。

🌍 文化多样性与知识的广博:通过引用孟加拉的谚语“Jaha nai bharat e, taha nai bharat e”以及对印度次大陆文化多样性的描述,文章暗示了知识的广度和深度,并将其与《摩诃婆罗多》这部史诗的包容性联系起来,以此说明知识的丰富性。

☕️ 思想分享与开放性:作者以“一杯黑咖啡”为喻,表明这些观点源于个人思考而非专业研究,并鼓励读者参与讨论,分享不同见解和潜在的错误,体现了对开放式交流和共同学习的重视。

Published on September 1, 2025 8:17 PM GMT

https://open.spotify.com/track/5T8Qmcwch4KzE8uDvAKJ42?si=1cf81addaefd401f

 

Everyone’s hungry. Hungry for knowledge. Some more, some less. But at the end of the day, when you ask a group who wants knowledge, every single hand goes up.

Blind hands, that is.

Now, ask the same group why they want knowledge. How many do you think would have a real answer?

Zero. Absolute zero.

Why?

Because at the end of knowledge lies emptiness, so vast and so full it’s inconceivable.

Knowledge does not equal intelligence; it does not make you clever. Knowledge is simply a herd of information you’ve learned to interpret. And anyone can do that.

Get a guy, any guy with zero experience with literature, someone who hates reading, for example. Hand him a copy of James Joyce's Finnegans Wake, one of the hardest pieces of literature ever produced by man.

It explores the collective unconscious and the interplay of myth and history, something we still can’t grasp to this day. The language in the book follows such a dream-like narrative that to even try to read it, you need to know three languages— Irish, English, and German, and even then, some words are so phonetically written that it is said that to understand it, you must read it out loud.

Or, if you want to focus more on the quantity of information, hand him a copy of the Mahabharata, the whole thing, not just one division(out of 18). In Bangla, we say,

“যাহা নাই ভারতে তাহা নাই ভারতে” [jaha nai bharat e, taha nai bharat e]
(What’s not in Bharat, is not in Bharat)

Here, the first Bharat is referring to the Mahabharat, and the second Bharat translates to India, in direct translation, but when it was written, they would’ve been talking about not just the India we know today, but the entire Indian subcontinent from before.

This subcontinent was divided into three main parts: Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India. Among them, Bangladesh was the smallest. Yet if you just look at Bangladesh, you’ll find all four major religions well established, more than fifty indigenous communities with sizable populations, and even within the Bengali people, an ancient lineage that is deeply diverse. Just imagine the cultural heritage packed into this smallest piece of the subcontinent.

Now take that scale and think bigger. The Mahabharata weaves all of that knowledge, all of that cultural heritage, into a single creation. It captures so much that people call it the greatest epic of Hinduism.

Can he read these? What do you think?

Of course, he might struggle. He might get lost, he might need to look up explanations, ask people, or reread passages ten times. It might take him years to work through it. But if he keeps at it, he has a one-hundred percent chance of being able to read them. Maybe he won’t understand the work the way its author did, but that’s true for everyone. No one can see a piece with the eyes of its creator, especially something this intricate.

So then what?

Technically, at this point, he has more knowledge than most people. Not just from the books themselves, but from the resources, papers, and conversations he had to push through just to understand them. Does that suddenly make him intelligent? If so, why don’t more people do it? It’s not impossible. If anything, it’s more than possible for most people. Are they just lazy?

And what about those who spend their entire lives chasing intelligence? Why don’t they just sit down with two books and call it a day, if that’s all it took?

The more you think about it, the clearer it becomes: this can’t be the answer to knowledge or intelligence. At best, they’re just components along the way.

But that leaves the question: when exactly do you call someone knowledgeable?

The Oxford Dictionary defines “knowledgeable” as intelligent and well-informed.

We know our subject—the guy who read the books—has done enough to be called well-informed. But intelligent? What does that even mean?

The Oxford Dictionary again tells us that intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Okay, so our subject has definitely acquired knowledge, he’s probably mastered some amount of skills in literature as well as the languages needed to read those books, and he’s already applied them to read and interpret those works. So that means knowledgeable, right?

But wait, that sounds off. How can someone become knowledgeable by reading just two books? That has to be wrong somehow.

Okay, let’s try a longer definition. Here’s what I found from Google:

“You call someone knowledgeable when they have significant information, facts, or expertise in a specific subject, or a range of subjects, and can use that knowledge effectively to understand, explain, or solve problems.”

Woah! A lot of words there. Let’s break it down, bit by bit.

This can be split into two parts:

    Have significant information, facts, or expertise in a specific subject (or a range of subjects).Use that knowledge effectively to understand, explain, or solve problems.

We can already tell he’s well-equipped with facts and information from those books, as well as expertise in literature and multiple languages, so there’s nothing to argue there.

The second part might raise some questions, but notice the definition says “specific subject or a range of subjects.” That means if we narrow his expertise down to literature or bilingualism, then yes, he has clearly shown he can use those skills effectively to understand the books.

You could run through a hundred different definitions, but from what I see, there’s always a way to fit our subject into the conditions.

So, what do you think? Is this a new kind of knowledge paradox? Or are we just reading the whole thing wrong?

Thanks for reading Rudaiba's Thoughts! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Psst, just a quick sidenote, this is all coming from pure thought, not professional research. That’s part of why I called it A Cup of Black Coffee instead of something knowledge-related. These are simply ideas I toss around over a cup of coffee.

That being said, I love hearing different perspectives. I love contradictions. And I love a good stop-and-think moment. So if at any point you notice a mistake, see something I missed, or have an opinion to share. let’s talk!

Have a great day!

 

If you liked reading it so far, be sure to check out my other blogs at: https://rudaiba.substack.com/



Discuss

Fish AI Reader

Fish AI Reader

AI辅助创作,多种专业模板,深度分析,高质量内容生成。从观点提取到深度思考,FishAI为您提供全方位的创作支持。新版本引入自定义参数,让您的创作更加个性化和精准。

FishAI

FishAI

鱼阅,AI 时代的下一个智能信息助手,助你摆脱信息焦虑

联系邮箱 441953276@qq.com

相关标签

知识 智慧 学习 理解 信息 应用 过程 深度学习 文化 见解 Knowledge Wisdom Learning Understanding Information Application Process Deep Learning Culture Insights
相关文章