To know, don't you have to do something (action)?
To show that you have learned some knowledge, don't you have to do something like recite your lesson, pass an exam, write something involving what you've learned, etc.?
To "use your knowledge", don't you have to do something?
Is there any knowledge that exist in itself, without having to do something To make it exist for oneself.
Then, do we have to develop student's actions more than transmitting them knowledge?
Are you setting out from the tripartite account of knowledge? Because there's some "doing" involved in this already. Then there's also the distinction between declarative ("A is the first letter of the alphabet") and procedural knowledge ("boil an egg"). Does that play a part in your question? Knowledge can and should be put to use, and there's a belief that to know what a marathon is (or what the word "marathon" means) you should run one but that's open to debate. As for the "doing" part, note that this can be related to the Chicago Booth trio – inquiry, insight, impact.
Are you setting out from the tripartite account of knowledge? Because there's some "doing" involved in this already. Then there's also the distinction between declarative ("A is the first letter of the alphabet") and procedural knowledge ("boil an egg"). Does that play a part in your question? Knowledge can and should be put to use, and there's a belief that to know what a marathon is (or what the word "marathon" means) you should run one but that's open to debate. As for the "doing" part, note that this can be related to the Chicago Booth trio – inquiry, insight, impact.
As Rob Liano states, " Knowledge is power? No. Knowledge on its own is nothing, but the application of useful knowledge, now that is powerful.”
Domenico Masciotra Antoon De Rycker Reza Biria I agree, and also like the idea (Plato - the way Stephen Halliwell understands him) that we must remember that words are just representations (mimesis) of things, feelings and actions. To be able to judge the quality of the representation (theory for example) we need to apply it in some way. A good quality representation must be recognisable (estetetic similarity) , function (pragmatic) and benefit (
Thanks you all for your contribution to this debate.
Antoon De Rycker
Anything can be brought as part of the question. It's an opened question. Yes, you're right: I'm setting out from the tripartite account of knowledge. Because I believe in lived cognition.
I identify myself mostly with the perspective of enaction, so cognition is action, and vice-versa. Perception i s also action, but I don't consider it only as a guide for action.
Action is at the same time: corporeal, emotional, cognitive, social (or asocial), cultural...
We don't really "use" our knowledge: that's metaphorical. We enact it, that is we reproduce similar actions.
Reza Biria
If you consider that cognition operates in action and through action, then I agree that Knowing (more than knowledge) is powerful. Since we are living persons ("body"), this power should be spelled out in terms of the power to act.
Kjartan Skogly Kversøy
I like your point, but as I identify myself with enaction, representation is not possible: because, in this perspective, the Mind is not located in the head (brain), and the Mind envelopes the body, and is also part of the enacted environment (Damasio: Descartes' error)
Thanks, Domenico, for the clarification. Yes, I can see how conceptualising action and "use" in that way may lead to a deeper understanding of what knowledge is.
Domenico Masciotra You repeatedly suggest that thinking involved the entire body. If this is the case, do you believe that thinking is impaired if I lose a limb? Will I think less effectively if I am a quadriplegic? If I can ACT less effectively does this mean I also think less effectively?
And, if the ability to act is inexorably linked with our ability to think, do we think best when our bodies are in their prime.... say, in our late twenties?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Mental Processes
- Learning