Reflection about knowledge is as old as philosophy. Knowledge has always been a major problem for philosophers. In this sense, thinking about knowledge is, indeed, nothing new. What is new and surprising is the fact that concern about knowledge has extended nowadays far beyond the small circle of professional philosophers. Knowledge, its development and its consequences are of growing concern for an increasing number of individuals, governments and world bodies such as the UN and UNESCO. Thus, from being a purely theoretical, not to say esoteric issue, knowledge has become a major, practical problem.

Strange as it may sound, the present public preoccupation with knowledge has surprised philosophers. It found them ill-prepared to cope with this issue, because it results from a different perception of knowledge than that of philosophers. Traditionally, philosophers looked at knowledge as a pure perfection, a product of the most perfect of human faculties, distinguishing humans from other creatures.

Hence, knowledge has been seen as a pure advantage and its development as highly desirable. Any thought that knowledge can be a source of problems and that its development may produce ambivalent effects was foreign to philosophers. Indeed, the realization that this is actually the case will force them to review their cherished assumptions and look at knowledge more critically than they have done up until now.

The present paper is the result of an attempt to understand the reasons for the contemporary unease about knowledge and its growth. It is written from the point of view of the author’s theory of the ecology of knowledge. The theory has been developed to analyze the relation between humans and knowledge. The word "knowledge" can essentially mean two things: an act and a process of knowing or the result of this act, i.e., the body of knowledge. Traditionally, philosophers were mainly preoccupied by the former, whether from the epistemological or logical point of view. The ecology of knowledge is concerned with the latter and its relationship with knowers. The theory is based on three fundamental affirmations, two of which are obvious while the third one becomes such upon a moment of reflection:

Knowledge exists.

Knowledge increases.

The body of knowledge, i.e., the knowledge construct is an entity distinct from knowers.

 

It is the third affirmation which is the defining statement of the theory. Innocuous as it may sound, it allows us to draw many far-reaching, and often surprising consequences. Viewing the body of knowledge as an entity in itself, distinct from knowers, one can conceptualize the problem of the impact of the knowledge construct on humans and examine the nature of that impact. This, in turn, allows us to study the consequences of knowledge and its development in individuals, societies and humanity as a whole. Humans and the knowledge construct are interrelated by a positive feedback and form an evolutionary system; let it be called the knowledge system. The feedback relationship is the most powerful factor of the evolution of humanity and a source of the growing problems presently facing humanity, such as overpopulation, pollution, future shock, growing inequalities among humans, weapons of mass destruction, to name but a few. They are all the direct or indirect consequence of the development of knowledge.

Looking at knowledge as an element of the knowledge system permits a more complete perception of the phenomenon of knowledge than in traditional discussions of knowledge. Among other things, it makes possible a more detailed comparison of sense knowledge with intellectual knowledge, which is the subject of this paper.

As an object of knowledge, knowledge is obscure, perplexing and difficult to know. It is easier to know something than to know how we know it or the nature of the means by which we know it, i.e., to know the nature of knowledge. This anti-intuitive and confusing situation is the source of the multiplicity of often contradictory theories of knowledge. Since the problem of knowledge is a fundamental issue which no self respecting philosopher can afford to ignore, philosophers have either to invent a theory of knowledge of their own or to accept one of the existing solutions. In the latter case they perpetuate a particular school of thought, be it realism, idealism, empiricism or some other "ism," neatly repertoried in history of philosophy textbooks.

Among the problems which the knowledge of knowledge creates, perhaps the most important one, is the relationship of the two levels of knowledge, namely, sense knowledge and intellectual knowledge. As obvious as is the existence of these two levels of knowledge, their relation to each other is anything but obvious, as is their relative importance in the process of knowledge. Philosophers have the choice of considering both types of knowledge as meaningful, i.e., as objectively justified – a position taken by Aristotle and his followers, the moderate realists. Or they may choose one type of knowledge as significant, to the detriment of the other type, as is done by most of the other schools of thought. What motivates the choice is, in itself, an interesting question, but is besides the point of the present paper.

The systemic approach to the phenomenon of knowledge chosen by the present writer entails a closer study of the body of knowledge, the knowledge construct. The development of the knowledge construct is the result of the externalization of the consequences of personal acts of knowledge and of their accumulation outside of knowers. It takes time to produce a knowledge construct and many brains. The knowledge construct is the accumulated product of countless generations and of a sophisticated social system making the growth of the knowledge construct possible. Let us mention at this point that intellectual knowledge in itself is not material, but is anchored in materiality. It is an integral part of concrete human existence and impossible without it. The study of the knowledge construct makes us aware of the importance of the externalization and accumulation of knowledge. Taking into consideration these two acts allows one to perceive specific aspects of sense and intellectual knowledge, often overlooked by philosophers, and thus to compare the two levels of cognition more thoroughly than usually is done.

Before attempting the comparison, let us stress that the knowledge construct is a growing and evermore important factor of the human environment, and, in turn, is itself environmentally conditioned. It is an essential device of cultural evolution, i.e., of the process of the humanization. The more knowledge there is, the more knowers can act efficiently, cope with problems and the greater are their chances of survival, in contradistinction to animals. The latter not only have no intellection, but, moreover, live in a steady state knowledge situation. They have no continuously increasing wealth of knowledge to profit from and thereby improve their situation. Inborn knowledge, i.e., intuition, useful as it is, is not an evolving, growing body of knowledge. Animals are locked into an invariant, species specific mode of knowledge. A fly or an elephant today know as much as their ancestors thousands of years ago and behave accordingly in an essentially changeless manner over long periods of time. A comparison of the effects of human knowledge with those of animal knowledge helps to understand the consequences of intellection and to distinguish it from sense perception common to all animals, rational or irrational.

Let us first of all make it clear that the comparison is mainly made in the context of human knowledge for a better understanding of human cognition, but also will be useful for comparing human knowledge with animal knowledge. Let us hope that the comparison will be a contribution to the discussion of the place which humans occupy in the living kingdom in particular, and in the earth system of which they are an increasingly important part, in general.

First, among the many questions which can be asked about the nature of the two levels of knowledge is which of them comes first, which is more basic. The answer is clear and independent of epistemological preferences. Sense knowledge is more basic. It is first in the order of biological evolution and first to become operative in the growing up of the human individual. It is as old as the animal kingdom and common to all animals. Whether plants have sensation is an interesting but debatable question. Some eastern cultures assume that plants have senses; Western culture rejects this idea. Intellectual knowledge is a newcomer in the process of evolution and is still developing under our eyes. This much is obvious. What is perhaps less easily perceived is the fact that sense knowledge is always individual. It cannot become impersonal, it cannot be externalized as such. (More about this further on.)

Because sensation is always individual, it is "mortal." It is the product of our bodies, it is born with them and dies with them. It is biodegradable, absorbable by nature. There are no depositories of sensations of past generations. A visit to a library suffices to convince us that this is not the case of intellectual knowledge. Indeed, cultural evolution presupposes the ability to externalize acts of thought and preserve them outside of human brains. Thus intellectual knowledge can survive the death of its creators and is not biodegradable. Because of the role of the externalization and preservation of intellectual knowledge, the great stages of the development of humanity are clearly marked by the invention of means of externalization of knowledge such as writing, printing and electronic technology.

Sensation, whether animal or human, is the product of biological evolution over which neither of them have much say and remains the same for the duration of the species. This is emphatically not the case of intellection. Sense knowledge is a means of adaptation of the organism to a natural environment. Intellectual knowledge allows the individual to cope with a natural environment and operate in society. While nature remains essentially the same, the social environment becomes increasingly more complex and imposes on individuals evermore sophisticated challenges forcing them to evolve intellectually. Sense knowledge is more or less the same across the species whether animal or human. In contrast, intellectual knowledge varies widely due to individual and cultural differences.

Sensation cannot be improved significantly through training. Fortunately, this is not the case for intellection. Nor can sense knowledge be influenced significantly by another knower. No amount of persuasion will change my perception of red or of shape. But intellectual knowledge can, fortunately, be influenced by another knower. Which is why professors can earn their salaries.

Having compared the above aspects of the two kinds of knowledge, let us now concentrate on their cognitive properties. The fundamental and well-known difference between sensation and intellection results from the fact that sense knowledge is a knowledge of concrete material entities. It perceives the singular objects as singular. Thus, it allows organisms to cope with their natural environment, so to say, on equal terms. Organisms are singular and the environment is made up of equally singular objects. When a dog sniffs out a bone, he finds a particular concrete bone, not a bone in general. Such a bone would be of little nutritive value to him. Sensation allows animals to live, but not to explain things. It has the same function in humans. Whatever additional function it has in them, is due not to sensation as such but to intellection. Sensation does not allow, by itself, to form judgements and reasonings. It does not admit logical rules and is not reflexive and self-critical. Instead, sensation is in itself and by itself more certain than intellection. It is more directly related to the outside world than the latter, and more necessary for physical survival. This is why, in everyday life and in science, we verify judgements by perception. The ability to do this assures science its value and makes possible science’s advancement.

Intellection is everything which sensation is not. Being abstractive and universalizing it allows the formation of universal concepts, judgements and reasonings. It admits logical rules, is reflexive and can be self-critical. However, being directly a product of the human brain, not of the outside world, it is subject to error, more than sense knowledge. The qualities of truth and falsity apply formally to judgements precisely because they are man-made. There are no judgements in nature, nor in human sensation. The wide ranging consensus about the superiority of intellection over sensation is due not only to the realization that intellection is a specifically human property, or to the fact that it gives humans greater power over the world than sensation. It is also due to the fact that intellection allows us to reflect about sensation but not vice-versa. Moreover, we can increase intellectual capacities through education and acquire more and more knowledge individually and collectively, but we cannot do the same with sense knowledge.

This last observation brings us to the problem of externalization, communication and storage of knowledge alluded to earlier. The big difference between the two modes of cognition lies in their respective capacities of externalization. Sensation cannot be externalized, i.e., communicated directly in an adequate manner. Sensations of smell, taste or color, etc., remain invariably in the knower. To manifest them one must use words or body language which are indirect expressions. This is why sensations as such cannot be stored outside of individuals and cannot be communicated diachronically. Consequently, they are not additive nor cumulative beyond the capacities of memorization of the individual. Hence, they do not form knowledge constructs and do not become distinct elements of the human environment.

For the above reasons, there is no feedback relationship between humans and an increasing body of sensations. Sensations do not form an evolutionary system with humans. This is why sensations be themselves do not produce culture nor do they produce in themselves human evolution in a significant manner.

Sense knowledge is insufficient to engender conditions necessary for the development of complex, highly efficient behavior. Thus, it does not allow the rise of large, sophisticated, and evolving societies requiring such behavior, very different from fixed animal societies such as ant and termite colonies. This is also why sense knowledge, by itself, does not alter nature significantly and does not disrupt the ecological balance existing in nature outside of humans. In light of the above, it is understandable that sense knowledge does not elevate humans above nature nor does it allow them to view themselves as being superior to nature. Primitive humans, who rely mainly on sense knowledge, see themselves as being an indistinct part of nature.

In contradistinction to sensation, intellection can be communicated directly and adequately by means of language. In other words, it can be exteriorized efficiently and stored outside of the knower, therefore it can be communicated diachronically. Ideas are additive and cumulative beyond the capacities of memorization of individuals, forming knowledge constructs, which become distinct elements of the human environment. These elements are growing at an ever faster pace and influence human existence evermore profoundly, producing culture, allowing the development of societies and the growth of the human biomass. As noted above, intellection also produces major problems threatening the future of humanity. It is by means of intellection that humans could conceive the idea of human superiority over nature and alter the environment to such extent that they disrupt the ecological balance on which their very existence is based. In light of the above remarks, it becomes understandable that, from the biological point of view, the two levels of knowledge are not only quite distinct, but, moreover, play different existential roles and have different consequences. They are both vital for human insertion in the ambient world and their well-being. Finally, they are essential for the actualization of the human potential leading to further evolution of the human species.

Earlier in the paper, I said that knowledge, as an object of knowledge, is obscure and difficult to know. Moreover, there is always the danger of looking at knowledge in itself, apart from its existential role, considering this approach as an adequate way of studying the phenomenon of knowledge. As if knowledge were not a part of a bigger totality. But knowledge is an element of the life of an individual, of a concrete being inserted in the ambient world. It fulfills a vital role not only in the life of the individual, but also in the process of evolution. This is why we must not reduce the study of knowledge to logic or to playing games with words. If we care to find meaning in our study of knowledge, we should consider seriously both levels of knowledge. Reducing knowledge to one level may seem a simpler, more attractive solution. But a simpler solution will not explain the phenomenon of knowledge in its existential complexity and its causality.

Philosophers should try to speak to the world. To tell the world something relevant about knowledge, they must acknowledge and explain both the nature and the role of sense knowledge and intellectual knowledge. Knowledge is now too powerful and growing too fast to allow us any alternative.