Does knowledge make things more beautiful?
 

First off, let me define knowledge. Knowledge is the knowing of facts, or statements of truth, where as wisdom is things such as wise statements about how to live one's life etc.

Okay, does knowledge make things more beautiful? Does looking at a forest, and knowing it is a bunch of atoms, which for compounds, which react, and allow life to exist. Knowing that forest is made up of soil, with microscopic organisms in it. That the leaves on the ground will decompose and becomes nutrients for more things to grow. That those trees are sucking water up from the ground, and it is leaving them into the air, and it returns again as rain.

or is just looking at the forest for the beauty one can see in it just by looking. The colors, the sounds, the life scattering about, but not neccessarily understanding all the parts of the forest.

The same for the stars. Just looking at them in wonder or amazement? Or understanding what is going on in the starts to create them, the ball offire they are, and how incredibly far away they are.

So, does knowledge make things more beautiful, or is it not necessary to make things more beautiful?

Knowledge does not necessarily have to have only one plane.

There's scientific knowledge, yes, but there are also other means to know the world. The poetic approach will focus on the emotions the sight provokes on you. Vastness. Warmth. Cruelty. Love. A religious approach will link you to the transcendent and the eternal. A subjective approach could mean anything you want. And so on with anything you can think of.

There's not an only perspective on reality since we are always standing on a point of view, to view it. Changing the point doesn't make reality different, but it can make it mean different things.

And that isn't knowledge; at least, not knowledge in any meaningful sense of the term. "Knowledge" is, generally, statements about reality that are completely unaffected by changing points of view. Things like gravity, or "2+2=4." These things quite obviously can't be ignored; and so have to be more fundamental than our opinions.

To answer the original question, knowledge tells you how things could be, as well as what they are. How are you supposed to get anywhere if you don't know what will happen next? :P

I don't think it makes your view of something any more or less beautiful (let's say, the forest), but it gives more insight to what you may not directly be able to observe (let's say, the atoms). The same original beauty is still there, but now there is even more to appreciate, which you may find beautiful in a variety of ways.

Then scientific knowledge is good as long as it is what you ask for.

Just keep in mind that just science is not all a full human being needs as an answer (since we would be limiting a person to accepting facts coming from the outside), and that current knowledge is far from perfect. We still have to answer to questions both very specific (quantum physics) and very basic (what is a force? what is energy?).

Science and knowledge are incomplete, both speaking as being far from finished, and complementary to other forms of knowledge (or "wisdom", as the OP mentions it). It doesn't "ruin" anything as long as it is what you want to acknowledge.

Sometimes.

I used to love card magic. So I learnt a lot of it.
Not so magical anymore when I see it. :P

This is a very philosophical response :S which is fine I guess, but I was answering the first question posed. I guess you're answering the second question then, "is it/is it not necessary to make things more beautiful". Beauty is of course an opinion and anything you see or understand (or even think you understand) can effect that opinion. The second question IMO is entirely subjective.

I guess it differs from person to person. Some people might find knowledge itself beautiful, others might prefer the simple mystic atmosphere of a rainforest.

I think simple knowledge is beautiful such as looking at animal food chains and how each creature creates life for another..Also looking at all the different groups of animals and how they interact with each other and the environment makes the environment appear more dynamic and interesting then if you just saw the environment as land. So I think that observational knowledge and things that you might learn from simple experiments can benefit your idea of things being unique and beautiful.

I think personally, that if you always imagine animals as bunches of cells it would make them appear less unique and beautiful. Of course though the idea that any animal is made up of so many cells is interesting but not beautiful..

Yes, because it lets you appreciate the complexity, the variety of every single lifeform. It lets you understand the uncounted millions of years behind something as small as an insect, and how living things interact when none could survive without others.
The fact of how cellular life works shows how cells, both specialised and unspecialised, work together to do something completely different that no single one could ever do, and create a form. THAT is beautiful.

The opposite, thinking 'it's just there' is what leads to lack of concern about it, seeing it as something there specifically for humans.

You know tribespeople had such a deep understanding, respect and admiration of all living things and they didn't have knowledge of things on a cellular level. I hope you aren't suggesting that they have a "lack of concern" about animals and nature.

I said it's what leads to it. The difference is between seeing them as there specifically for humans (and therefore humans not being similar) and seeing all life, including humans, as the same basic type. Some people have been able to do the latter without any proper knowledge of biology, but many more people have not.

I would say that they would probably view nature as we would view a well-made watch; beauty from organisation, precise interaction, and engineering.

Nature is actually a fractal of watches; most of the components are watches all unto themselves, which multiplies the beauty of the whole.

What is beauty?
Why is something beautiful?

Knowledge is objective.
Beauty is subjective.

Does not compute.

Without facts, I look up at the night sky and I see pretty white lights.

With facts, I look up at the night sky and I see millions of suns, each of which could have their own solar system. With facts, I look up at the night sky, and I know I'm seeing into the past. With facts, I know that all the atoms of my body have once been other things (the atoms of my right hand were a different star to my left, as someone once said), and that once I die, all my atoms will become other things once again - we are all connected to the universe because we are made up of the universe.

I prefer having facts.

Most of the time this is how I feel too, that knowing what going on makes it more beautiful.

But, there are times where I might be walking along on a hike or something, and see something, maybe I come across a clearing, or whatever, something will just catch my eye, and I don't have to think about all the complexity of it, but that scene for whatever reason catches my eye, and the beauty is just stunning at face value.

So I'll say that if you are looking for beauty, you'll find just as much either way you look at it, but generally for me, the "knowing" makes it more beautiful, but not alway.

To me, that says that knowing it doesn't detract from a way to see it, it doesn't make not knowing a good thing, since knowing allows you to appreciate things in both ways :)

Exactly. The size of the universe is amazing, and it makes me realise just how arrogant humanity is to proclaim itself as special. I always think how somewhere out there, someone may be looking at Earth's sun and wondering if there's life out there :)

I would say knowledge offers more perspectives from which to observe things, so it never really diminishes the value of anything in itself. It's our subjective reaction to knowledge that influences the way we view things.

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal

In one way, humanity is amazing special, each person is their own unique snowflake. In another way, we are an entirely non-unique lump of organic matter.

a picture is worth a thousand words, and I only had 26 (if you count non-unique as 2. And, one of my words was spelled wrong)

I do think that knowledge enhances beauty of things you see..Such as the knowledge of how it works and all that..Though I wouldn't take things like spirituality, context and observation out of the equation either.

^ Exactly. Well said, Pa'li, to everything you've said in this thread. Beauty, IMO, is the sum aesthetic, existential, scientific, spiritual, etc. values that one gives to an object. They all form a complete picture.

Another PoV that I'm considering - Scientific knowledge might not add to the beauty of an object, per se, but it might make the object more precious. The environment is a good example. No one will deny the shear beauty and awesomeness of a majestic forest or a migrating flock of cranes. However, someone who might not understand the fragile mechanics of the Earth might not be so apt to protect it. The exception being indigenous people, who might not have learned about the mechanics of the ecosystem through science, but learned it through generations of experience, as Clarke mentioned.

Another, more personal example is aircraft. Aircraft "bone yards" used to bring me to tears. To see such complex flying machines rotting in the desert was just too terrible to watch.

Though again, YMMV. It could also depend on the person's mindset. A scientifically minded person will find scientific reasons to declare an object beautiful or precious. A spiritual person, spiritual reasons. It goes on and on. Going back to the age-old adage, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

So going back to the original question in the OP. Yes, knowledge can make something more beautiful, if that's your mindset.

Thank you Tsyal. You've made some interesting points in your post that I'd like to comment on.
Firstly I think that the idea about having scientific knowledge about nature that appears to make it more precious is spot on..One recent example I can think of is the increased knowledge of the dangers of over fishing and the harm to the food chain and environment such as more algae blooms, the decline of predator fish that feed on depleted fish varieties such as salmon or herring. (http://www.ypte.org.uk/environmental/over-fishing/29)

Also I definitely agree that beauty is in the beholder so to speak..There's many different interpretations on what makes something beautiful or why it is beautiful..Although there can be commonalities such as more people being able to see the beauty in forests and the wildlife..Although nowadays I think more people seem to think that the exotic is more beautiful then the familiar..Such as people in Romania preferring a beach in Thailand over a paddock in their homeland because they like the idea of sun, sand and surf.

I also like knowing things, but it's not the knownledge that is beautiful or makes things beautiful for me. It is the lack of reason for anything to exist.

Sure it's interesting to know that we are made up of cells, sure it's interesting that stars are actually suns far away.... But "why"? That question can give me goosebumps.

It can make you ponder the question every day of your life..It's a great question to think over.

I could say on one hand 'knowledge' from a book I am reading "The Secret Teachings of Plants" enhanced my sensibilities .. so than when i had this experience last Sunday, I was prepared or more open to the sheer beauty of it. On the other hand i am reclaiming the 'natural' awe that one has a child, and so often gets 'teached' out of us, as we age and become adults.

Walk quietly up to a forest
Greet it, out loud
Acknowledging
Its Presence
and my own intrusive
Asking for help
Secret Teaching of Plants
my only guide
But openly with the trees,
all beings present
I confide
Both insecurity, uncertainty
whether I'm capable
of hearing, or listening
but I'm here, and I will try

Walking not so softly
burr grass scratching
first encounter
three deer leap up
run and hide
the matted grasses
still warm from their hides

Still trying softer gate
moss beds abound
and I lie down
Natures softness my pillow
and mattress
for a while
contemplate
fingers caress the sweet scented moss
as little creatures investigate
this intrusive being
Gratitude and apologetic
i rise after a while
going deeper into the lighted shadows

Into a grassy meadow cross
to the Solitary tree
not so stealthly
As a large white owl disturbed
and flys away
breathtaking just the same

And so I sit and lean,
after crawling too under
the hanging branches
and wait unsure
eyes closed
a buzzing passes by
just fractions from my ear
'listen' the message
imparted there
So 'tuning' in
to the sounds around
Magpies in the tops
or crows, unseen
cawing, calling
The breeze blows
the grasses whusper
and grasshoppers
clicking as they jump around
an orchestra abounds

now the 'listen'
calls me in
and I hear the tree
begin to speak
my breath is hestiant
my chest a bit tight
acknowleding
the bit of uncertainity
I introduce myself
and along the way
observe a point
I'm shy i said
I'm that way
even with people
others in new circumstances

Then what came next
hard to describe
the tree hugged me

2011

You really made my day, Mika. Beautiful.

I know the feeling. Then again, I think so many of the designs are beautiful anyway, in a functional way. Perhaps because of how people created it, and it does so much that would never have been imaginable before.

Of course. When it comes to beauty, it's at every level, from a galaxy to a nucleus.

We can talk the talk but indigenous groups can walk the walk, in my opinion.

Meaning....what, exactly?

I can't help but notice that our walk, silly and inferior as it may be, extends to the Moon...

Nice, Clarke :D

Yeah caveman, I'm a little confused as to how that's an argument :S

The argument I'm seeing is that having a greater understanding of science allows us to better appreciate the beauty of nature.

But if that's the case, then why do we treat nature with less respect than those who are ignorant to the facts? Indigenous people - despite their ignorance - live as one with nature. We don't.

So who, out of these two groups, has the greater ability to find nature beautiful? I say indigenous groups - the "ignorant" ones. We can talk the talk but they can walk the walk.

**As a side note, I'm not trying to talk down upon the civilized world or it's achievements. I'm trying to make a point that knowledge does not necessarily mean greater appreciation.**

So, because I am an atheist raised in a Western society, I can't tell what I find beautiful or not?

And I actually find that people who DO know about nature actually care about it. But given the knowledge isn't general, I'm not sure you can say that 'all of the cultures-with-science know about nature and treat it badly', because it's not a culture-wide thing. There is 'us, as in the people talking' and 'us, as in our culture'. I think in this, we are talking 'us, as in the people talking'.

What does that have to do with anything?

What? No. Of course you can decide for yourself what is beautiful and what is not. I think you misunderstood my post, or I'm not making myself clear. If that's the case then I apologize.

My argument is no, knowledge does not necessarily make things more beautiful. It can for you; it does for me. But I think it would be ignorant to say that I can appreciate flowers more than someone else, simply because I have more knowledge in biology.

As for the different societies - I was just trying to point out that the most scientifically ignorant people can also have an astounding appreciation for nature and it's beauty.

Take the societies in Avatar for example.

The RDA have a better understanding of physics, biology and chemistry.

The Na'vi are oblivious to these fields, but they demonstrate a greater appreciation for nature than the RDA.

This isn't to say that knowledge is bad. Or that the RDA are incapable of knowing beauty. No. I'm just trying to make a point that anyone can appreciate beauty, regardless of their educational background.

Us; We have access to an artifact that no civilisation before us has produced. I would say that it is one of the most important products of, if not of the entirety of science, certainly of all of space exploration. IMO, and I'm sure many people would agree with me, that when you fully understand what it means, it is more mind-shattering than all religious revelation put together.

It is, quite simply, this image, the Pale Blue Dot. Everyone who has ever lived - including everyone you have ever heard of, and everyone you will ever know - has lived out their entire lives on that dot; everything anyone has ever wanted through their whole lives is contained in that image, as well as everything anyone has ever worked for, lived for, or died for. The greatest warlords conquered fractions of that mote of dust, and the influence of the most powerful leaders ever known stops after less than a single pixel of that image.

The only exception to this tiny, insiginifcant, vulnerable mote of dust is those beings who soared in imagination, exploited that imagination, and flung themselves and their machines into interplanetary space. No civilisation before us has ever conceived of, let alone succeeded at, escaping Earth and as a consequence, realised how insignificant we are in comparison to reality.

There isn't much point in being in harmony with one forest, if it stops you noticing the cosmos; it would be like ignoring the forest because you're found a particularly nice tree and managed to delude yourself into thinking it is the only one in existence. It is very hard to imagine all the crazy things that things really are like, but it's completely impossible to even try without science. You can't see any beauty but the most superficial if you don't understand what you are looking at.

It's funny the kind of cognitive dissonance that our society seems to have. Pale Blue Dot and even other images of Earth from space can fill us with such feelings of wonder and sacredness for our little world, it's true value to us (insignificant as it may seem in the universe, it is still our homeworld, our one and only home, that must be worth something, no?), but then we turn around and continue to pollute it, overpopulate it, bomb it, and generally, slowly but surely, destroy it.

Which is why I think beauty and value are separate ideas, and are relative to the eye of the beholder. Sure, we may be able to see the beauty of the Earth from whole new angles, but that beauty, outside of existential, intellectual masturbation, has become little more than the sum value of it's natural resources in the everyday world. Indigenous cultures on the other hand, even if they have horizons much closer to the Earth, at least practice the harmony that we extol but never practice.

Each culture, hi-tech or indigenous, has it's strength and weaknesses. IMO neither is "superior" to the other, each just has a different value system. One wishes to fly to the cosmos, even if it means destroying it's roots and home in the process, the other is content with the sense of wonder it gets from viewing the cosmos from a distance, but seeks to preserve and become One with it's roots and home.

IMO a truly superior culture can only emerge if we find a way to become One - both scientifically and spiritually - with not only the Earth but the universe that cradles it. A spacefairing species with the mindset of...say?...the Iriqouis, would be the closest thing to Enlightenment that any mortal species could ever hope to reach.

Why do we have to be spiritual? I really don't get this point.