It is rather obvious that the fate of humans is irreversibly bound to their rationality and its product — rational knowledge. If one wants to understand humans and the situation in which they find themselves, it is necessary to view them both in the light of the knowledge existing at the given time. We attach great value to knowledge because of the evident advantages it gives us. We are therefore not surprised when we see positive results of thinking. We find this normal and understandable. However, we find the opposite situation surprising and unintelligible. Such a situation exists now. It makes us particularly uncomfortable because it occurs at a time of tremendous development of knowledge. It would seem logical to assume that the progress of knowledge leads to the general betterment of the human condition, to less problematic situations, not to more difficulties and problems. Confronted with a seemingly paradoxical situation produced by the development of knowledge, it is logical to inquire about the causes of the use of the intellect. Perhaps an elucidation of this problem will throw some light on the present situation. Let us state in the first place that any attempt to reduce the reasons for thinking to only one cause will not do justice to the complexity of the use of reason. It would make the richness of rational life incomprehensible.

Generally speaking three reasons which prompt us to think. We think either because we find thinking interesting and enjoyable, or because we find it useful, or because something bothers us and we feel impelled to understand the cause of our predicament. One may, perhaps, argue that the third reason is merely a variant of the second and may be reduced to it, because both, in final analysis, have for their final aim the improvement of the human situation. It is true that both have a practical aim in sight, but there are, nevertheless, important differences between them. When an engineer conceives a new engine or an architect draws plans for a building, each one of them thinks about producing something which does not yet exist. Instead, when somebody analyzes the contemporary predicament, he tries to grasp the reasons for something which already exists. Presently, it is this latter reason which accounts for the prodigious amount of publications dedicated to the discussion of the present state of humanity. We ask again and again how it happened that the obvious progress produced in the last few centuries has resulted in a state of what may be described as the general predicament of the human species. After all, it was in the name of the pursuit of happiness, and for the betterment of the condition of human existence that the idea of progress was conceived and put into action, at the expense of great individual and collective efforts and sacrifices. Now, many begin to wonder whether all that striving was worthwhile. Have not our ancestors and we ourselves been deceived by an unattainable mirage, by a false ideal? Has not our knowledge deceived us? Can it assure us a better, happier life?

Is something wrong with our knowledge in general or with the ideals for which we have chosen to strive? Is a reasonably good life and a modicum of happiness for the average person beyond the limits of the possible? Or is this aim realistic, but the method of achieving it inadequate or simply false? These and similar questions are at the center of our intellectual preoccupations. They are not simply the result of vain, intellectual curiosity, products of an overheated mind in search of new outlets for the exercise of the excess of its conceptual capacities. Quite the contrary, they are as genuine and relevant as questions can be. What is more, they are highly revealing for the study of the relationship existing between humans, knowledge and the consequences of the development of knowledge.

Not only does the present situation force us to ask questions of the type mentioned above, but the future of humanity largely depends on the answers which will be given to them. As mentioned before, the more man knows and the more thorough his knowledge is, the more he can do, and, consequently, the more his future is shaped by himself and becomes his own product. This fact is sufficiently fundamental and general to be expressed in the form of a law:

Law VI: "Humans’ ability to determine the development of humanity is proportional to their knowledge."

 

The more humans know, the more the future will be influenced by their understanding of the situation in which they find themselves. This means that self-appraisal will play an ever-increasing role in the existence of humankind. Its destiny will be determined more and more by critical thinking. The feedback from thinking will exercise an increasingly formative function in the development of humanity. This means that the system of human-knowledge will become progressively more self-shaping, hence more autonomous with regard to outside factors. This claim, of course, will demand more ample elucidation.

In light of the increasing impact of knowledge, it is certain that the reflection on the above-mentioned problems is bound to remain a permanent and growing feature of intellectual preoccupations. Strange as it may sound, the more humans think the more they become problematic for themselves. The more they know, the more they have to understand the relationship between themselves and their knowledge and the latter’s impact on them. In the first place, they will have to understand the nature of the predicament in which they find themselves and how it came about.

The present situation of humanity with its achievements and its problems did not just happen. In contrast to meteorites, great ideas and important problems do not appear suddenly and without previous developments. Our predicament is the logical result of a long evolution. It is the culmination of a process which began with the emergence of the rational animal in a remote past. It is, however, rather obvious that all of humanity has not equal responsibility for creating the situation we find ourselves in. The condition of humanity is, to a large extent, the result of the development of Western culture and of its dominant position in the world. Like all major and lasting developments in history, the achievement of the preeminent position by this culture was not the result of an accident. The rise of Western culture to its present status is not only a very important fact in terms of human relations, it is also highly revealing for the understanding of human evolution in general.

From the ecology of knowledge point of view, the most relevant element for our analysis is the role played by knowledge in the ascent of Western culture. No matter how critical one may be about this culture and its impact on other cultures, one thing is certain. Of all the cultures which exist now or have ever existed, Western culture has developed the most propitious intellectual environment for the birth and the evolution of dynamic knowledge in its two variants: theoretical and practical. It is this knowledge which allowed the transformation of the surface of the earth. Without Western culture, humanity would have existed, no doubt about that, but it would have been a very different humanity indeed. Whether it would have been a better or a worse humanity is a matter for discussion. It is, however, rather certain that it would not have achieved a comparable level of scientific and technological development. There would have been fewer people in the world much less capable of impacting on the environment. Consequently, humans would not have been faced with the problems which they now encounter.

The relationship existing between these problems and our culture is a matter of great importance in itself as well as for our discussion of the role of knowledge. Since it is Western culture that is mainly responsible for the problems which we now face, it is necessary to inquire about the nature of that culture. In the first place, let us ask what is specific about this culture, what, if anything, distinguishes it from other cultures? Each culture is unique; no two cultures are identical. So the very fact of Western culture being different from other cultures does not set it apart from the family of cultures. It is not immediately obvious what is specific to that culture and what makes it so particular. Why, for instance, has this culture invested so much in the development of knowledge? The one thing that is evident is its rise to the dominant position in the world. How do we explain this fact? We shall try to answer this question in the next chapter. The discussion of the nature of Western culture should help understand the relationship existing between knowledge, knowers and their existential situation.