Does knowledge make things more beautiful?

[Theorist]

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?

[ZenitYerkes]

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.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

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?

[Moco Loco]

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.

[ZenitYerkes]

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.

[Moco Loco]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

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.

This is a very philosophical response 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.

[iron_jones]

Sometimes.

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

[Advent]

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.

[Pa'li Makto]

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..

[Human No More]

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.

[Pa'li Makto]

Originally Posted by Human No More

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.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Pa'li Makto

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 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.

[Theorist]

Originally Posted by Human No More

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.

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.

[Fosus]

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.

[Human No More]

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.