The immediate, foreseeable and practical use of knowledge alone is an inadequate benchmark to judge its value. The knowledge gained to land a man on the moon produced practical applications years later.

The immediate, foreseeable and practical use of knowledge alone is an inadequate benchmark to judge its value. The knowledge gained to land a man on the moon produced practical applications years later.

Art can have intrinsic value for the beholder of it; it can be appreciated for its own sake. Likewise knowledge can be appreciated for its own sake. People buy books of recreational puzzles and take delight in arriving at a solution, which consists in knowledge of an answer. There need be no practical benefits of solving a chess puzzle or a Rubik's cube. And returning to art for its own sake, appreciation of art also has an epistemic dimension.

All pure (as opposed to applied) research is entirely based on the intrinsic beauty of the knowledge itself. Sure, there are sometimes future applications but that is not the motivation for continued work.

I'd say for sure, knowledge has intrinsic value. But not just intrinsic value, because knowledge expands the mind, even if you can't put it to (immediate) use. It also has intrinsic value because that knowledge might be indispensable in the future. Or it might lead to a quicker solution to some future problem, based on similarity. Or it might be useful to avoid going down a blind alley, in some future quest.

I don't think it is possible to "waste knowledge."

Whether all perceive it or not knowledge always have value (intrinsic).

If come to practical use all can not get the value immediately.

Religious issues (knowledge) are totally different from this, those who believe/have faith only feel that they have value.

@ C. Lewis Kausel

RE: "In a way, we need knowledge in order to have any memories."

Actually I think it's the other way around. Knowledge presupposes retention of something or other in memory. Sensory inputs must have effects that are retained long enough for them to result in belief formation. The having of a complete thought requires retention of what goes into it for long enough to see you through to completion of the thought-formation process. Of course, as you correctly intimate, the knowledge that results from such initial retention, itself constitutes part of our conscious or introspectable higher-level memories.

Yes, when the knowledge is well managed and optimally put into positive use.

Of course, knowledge has an intrinsic value which is often nurtured before its real life application in most cases.

The value of knowledge is not tied to prerequisites, apart from the fact that it builds on existing knowledge, even if new knowledge differs from it. This is only the case in dictatorships.

From theological perspective Prof , it must and should have practical value !!! Else what is the need to build societies , we could have stayed in the jungles and ran around there . What was the need to be"civilized" to develop a code of conduct / go to temples/church/masjid, why have rituals that are rule based , why pray in the morning or in the evening , why value what we have so many answerable whys !!!!

It needs practicality , yeah here and there , we did try do cover ups :)

This is why , in my religion "Knowledge" is "Atma Jyana" - the understanding of the self in a context that is appropriately defined by the rule book or may god :(

I am an Engineer , so I need practicality for making things work , knowledge is embedded there !!!

Much depends on the culture in which you are brought up, from your religion, from theological foundations. It is difficult here for an unambiguous answer.

The question assumes a hierarchical view of types of knowledge; i.e., "pure knowledge" and "applied knowledge." Building on Piotr Bętkowski's observation about the role of culture, "applied knowledge" is likely to be valued by technology-based culture or profession while "pure knowledge" is likely to be valued by an information-based culture or profession. Other cultural perspectives on knowledge emerge when we explore the use of language. For example, some languages appear to distinguish between cognition (e.g., connaître (Fr.), conocer (Sp.)) and experiential knowledge (e.g., savoir (Fr.), saber (Sp.)). Thus I agree with Prof. Bętkowski that it is difficult to provide an unambiguous answer.

For me, Intrinsic value of knowledge is to have its practical usefulness.

It depends on the definition of "value" used. For instance, all knowledge has value in the sense that it is the driver of the evolution of our systems of signifying, thus structuring our interpretation of reality and therefore our existence in general. Here I am including the interaction within a society.

If you mean economic value, then the situation is different, because it should fill two basic conditions: it should serve to some purpose so it will be demanded, and second it should be scarce, so it can be marketed. I think this is the worst way to treat knowledge, albeit one that is currently growing fast in the "knowledge-based economy"

In the Socratic dialogue "Meno" by Plato, Socrates asks the question: why is knowledge more valuable than mere belief, implicitly defining the notion of the primary value of knowledge. The essence of knowledge is to guide us through the pitfalls of illusions and insinuations. In this sense, intrinsic value of knowledge is a practical use.

“Only a part of our behavior – although a very important part – is practical. … The rest serve simply to express ideas that the organism yearns to express without practical purpose, without trying to satisfy any need other than the need to complete in external action the brain's symbolic process.

How else shall we explain man's love of talking? From the first moment that a child recognizes that words can express something, talking is a dominant interest, an irresistible desire. As soon as this avenue of action opens, a whole stream of symbolic process is set free in the jumbled flow of words – often repeated, disconnected, random words – that we observe in the "chattering" stage of early childhood.” *

-- Susanne K. Langer, Philosophy in a New Key (1942), Chapter 2.

________________

* And a lot of what is going on on RG is like that too. 😏

I don't think the two can be separated. If a thing has an intrinsic value, there must be something, some quality in it that makes it valuable. But then the criterion used for judging whether such thing is indeed valuable can be nothing else but the benefits that accrue from it. Without the benefits I can hardly see how a thing can be valuable in itself. Take gold for example. Many think it is inherently valuable because it can hold its value without losing it at all in the market. But there are some planets in the universe that are full of gold, and theoretically we can compute the total value in dollars of all the gold there, but that is only because we can imagine that all that gold can be brought here and sold in the market. That is there must be benefits. If we realize, as is indeed the case, that all that gold is forever lost to us, we have to admit that the gold there does not have any value for us. Zero dollars.

The value of knowledge resides in potentiality for practicality. Certain forms of knowledge are of direct practical use and their value is clear. Other forms may still have value in their indirect link to practicality and, in some instances, the understanding or realisation of that link, may not be known until a period in the future. Furthermore, certain forms of knowledge may seem useless in isolation, but may form a critical component necessary for completion of a gestalt state (and so paradoxically is not useless after all).