The age of the Internet has challenged the value of our knowledge. And really: is it worth keeping in mind a map of Moscow if there are Google maps? Is it necessary to cram poems if each poem can be found in one line? Writer Leonid Kostyukov reflects.
In general, entire layers of information can be easily transferred from the brain to external media. At least it makes sense to ask the question: what do we need knowledge for (if we forget about quizzes and crossword puzzles)? I see two answers: to be able and to understand.
Let’s try to deal with the skill first. Let’s be honest: theoretical knowledge is poorly converted into direct skill. Stories about young specialists thrown into real life by research institutes and design bureaus, not to mention factories, immediately come to mind. There would be even more of these stories if it were not for the practice that all students must go through: a fragment of skill as such.
In other words, «forget everything you were taught at the institute.» No matter how much you study the instructions for working with a chainsaw or Photoshop, until we start working, we won’t learn in a good way. It remains to believe that knowledge leads to understanding. Is this the case, and does it always happen like this? And finally — why should a person understand?
Many of us know from the experience of mastering different types of knowledge that each new portion of it is easier than the previous one. It is easier to learn a fifth language than a first or even a fourth. At the same time, the volume of information about the new language does not decrease. But we grasp on the fly, finding analogies with what is already known, highlighting similarly arranged fragments, that is, our advantage is understanding.
Understanding cashes in experience, otherwise it is simply inapplicable
Literally, in the main and secondary, situations do not repeat. But, denying the similarity, we will step on the same rake every time. And arbitrarily finding a similarity where there is none, we find ourselves in a well-known fairy tale about tops and roots.
A story about a century ago about classical and real education in Russia is convincing. Initially, this division was aimed at the «production» of the humanities and natural scientists. The fact that many more philologists, philosophers and writers came out of the classical gymnasiums did not surprise anyone. I was surprised that more outstanding natural scientists and techies came out of them.
Having peered into this phenomenon, the experts came to the conclusion that the matter is in Latin. A dead and practically useless, but very logically arranged language, as it turned out, made it easier for graduates-“classics” to subsequently master accurate knowledge. So knowledge provides material for understanding, and understanding facilitates the assimilation of knowledge. Understanding cashes in experience, otherwise it is simply inapplicable. Conscious and assimilated, experience helps to make the right decision.
This is probably just a scheme — but in my life it works for some reason.