Instigator / Con
0
1500
rating
3
debates
83.33%
won
Topic
#6318
Is knowledge worth pursuing?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1494
rating
10
debates
50.0%
won
Description
Knowledge has been one of the most valuable things a person can pursue for generations of different philosophy / science scholars. The stoics believed that it is one’s duty to become more knowledgeble. During the Renaissance, the humanists encouraged knowledge as a means to contribute to society. Finally, I myself have been, as far as I can remember, knowledge-oriented in every aspect of my life. Yet, I sometimes stop to ask myself: «Is it worth it though? Isn’t life easier with less knowledge? And then, if there is so much out there to know, I won’t be able to know a billionth part of it in my lifetime anyway… So why learn things? » Ironically enough, this very question is posed with the aim to gain more knowledge about whether knowledge is worth pursuing. That being said, I would like this to be more of a discussion on the topic rather than debate. I do not know the answer to this question, and whoever is interested in exploring this matter in depth is welcome to discuss it here. Thank you for reading.
Round 1
Welcome, and thank you for accepting this discussion.
I will start with some of my thoughts on the subject.
"I know that I know nothing." — Socrates
- Learning inevitably leads to realizing how much you actually don't know. Following Socrates' idea, the more you know, the less you know. I think that the overwhelming feeling of realizing how much you don't know is quite uncomfortable. Thus, the question here is, is pursuing knowledge still worth it, even though it leads to discomfort?
- Thinking further, knowledge also leads people to become aware of certain problems or issues in the society they otherwise would never knew about. Of course, not knowing here is nothing other than ignorance, but it is also true that not knowing offers more comfort. You cannot escape the burden of your knowledge once you have acquired it. However, not acquiring it in the first place offers the comfort of ignorance.
- At this point, I believe I ran into a contradiction. If knowledge burdens you and creates discomfort, while not knowing offers some kind of comfort, if you already know, there is no way back. In this context, becoming ignorant from knowledgeable is impossible. You cannot unlearn something you learned firmly. You cannot stop believing what you already believe. Furthermore, you cannot unsee what you have already seen.
- Thus another question arises: is the question of whether pursuing knowledge is worth it even relevant? I don't know.
I ended up with more questions than answers, but I think that'll do for the first 'argument'. Thanks for reading.
I now yield the floor to my opponent.
I thank the opponent for his stance. Though the description claims that Con prefers more of a discussion than debate, I respectfully remain treating this as a debate as the website suggests.
"Learning inevitably leads to realizing how much you actually don't know."
This sentence is reasonable, except this does not inherently mean that "knowledge isn't worth pursuing".
Ever since humans have begun to evolve in realms such as literature, technology, science, medicine etc.
Knowledge has always found a way to make us understand our surroundings and execute use basic materials as a source of creating tools, infrastructure, residential buildings, clothes, etc.
simply reaching the conclusion that "learning something, is realizing that you don't know the entirety of the subject" is not a valid excuse to dismiss knowledge.
With this logic, we should stop studying the human brain, due to the fact that its been proven by neuroscientists within many credible sources such as - (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10585277/), that we don't fully understand how the brain processes information.
With this logic, we should close cancer research because, "Learning inevitably leads to realizing how much you actually don't know.", and therefore, "knowledge isn't worth pursuing". As absurd as it sounds.
"Thinking further, knowledge also leads people to become aware of certain problems or issues in the society they otherwise would never knew about. Of course, not knowing here is nothing other than ignorance"
I agree with this claim by Con. This further strengthens my argument.
"but it is also true that not knowing offers more comfort. You cannot escape the burden of your knowledge once you have acquired it. However, not acquiring it in the first place offers the comfort of ignorance."
While these claims are partially true, the reason that humans may feel comfort with less knowledge is mainly due to the sense of less responsibilities.
If we do not have knowledge of how plants grow and thrive, why should we water them and place them in the sun? We don't do these tasks unless we have knowledge, but knowledge often leads to more responsibility, which can lead to mental discomfort.
Mental discomfort is not inherently a reason for knowledge to be, "not worth pursuing". This is something malleable, as most commonly human perception is a leading factor to discomfort in this case.
"I ended up with more questions than answers."
This short sentence does not prove that, "knowledge isn't worth pursuing".
In the concept of learning and obtaining knowledge, humans don't strive for perfection, but progression.
Ever since the human race has begun to evolve we have built steady progression. All the way from the stone age, to the digital age.
This steady progression has significantly increased factors such as lifespan, transportation, safety, etc.
" You cannot unlearn something you learned firmly. You cannot stop believing what you already believe. Furthermore, you cannot unsee what you have already seen."
While I agree with Cons claims in the above sentences, this does not dismantle my argument that knowledge is worth pursuing.
The concept of not being able to reverse what you already have knowledge of is unreasonable within this argument, due to the fact that knowledge doesn't lead to harm.
PTSD may have worked with this argument, as it's cannot be unseen and damages a human's well being. Knowledge however, is not a threat to human wellbeing.
If you teach a man to fish, will he regret learning it?
If you teach your son how to ride a bike, will he regret learning it?
If you teach your child about religion or politics, would you regret that they've formed their own opinion?
Most answers to these questions would be "no".
" is the question of whether pursuing knowledge is worth it even relevant? I don't know."
It seems as if my opponent has either forgotten his stance or flat out abandoned it.
However, I look forward to his attempt of rebuttal.
Round 2
Forfeited
I remain with my previous points
Round 3
I thank my opponent for his argument.
I would like to start with acknowledging that it was misleading from my side to create a discussion rather than a debate as it is not the purpose of this website. Also, my first argument was some sort of 'thinking out loud' rather than something well-formulated, which indeed is not expected to be seen in a debate.
Now I would like to emphasize that I do not argue against the kind of knowledge referred to by my opponent that has allowed us to invent science and medicine, build infrastructure, cure illnesses and learn more about how our bodies work, improving overall quality of life. That is an undeniable fact. My first argument was ambiguous and my opponent can‘t be blamed for understanding it that way.
I do not believe that all knowledge isn't worth pursuing. I think that some knowledge is not worth pursuing.
I will start with the different scales of impact knowledge can produce. I think it is obvious that there is knowledge that impacts society as a result of one‘s pursuing it, as well as knowledge that does not impact anyone except the person. As for the former, a person‘s professional knowledge, for example, is of major value to the society for its productive impact, which, of course, makes it worth pursuing objectively. For the latter, any kind of knowledge a person chooses to pursue for its own sake that has no potential impact on anyone but this person is justified subjectively as worth or not worth pursuing. One could argue here that since each individual is a part of society, all knowledge in one way or another does impact society. However, I would say that if knowledge only affects the person, it should be viewed as a purely individual issue.
Pursuing knowledge almost always involves discomfort, and that is of course by no means an excuse to declare it not worth pursuing (as my opponent correctly reasoned) when it comes to science, medicine and any other field that plays a role in humanity‘s progress or is productive and helpful. However, a kind of knowledge that only impacts the person can be justified by the person as either worth or not worth pursuing because of that discomfort or for any other reason. I can see a person who has read several works on metaphysics and has found it depressing or counter-productive for their life choosing not to study it further just because they do not see enough positive impact on their life. One could argue that metaphysics is ultimately a knowledge worth pursuing because it can expand one‘s perception of the world and give them space for more thought and insight, but I am of more individualistic views in this matter.
On a bigger scale, knowledge that leads to negative consequences for society is primarily that which cannot be called worth pursuing. Of course, knowledge itself is arguably neutral, so the motivation behind the acquisition of that knowledge also must be taken into account.
Conclusion: We have established that there are kinds of knowledge that are not worth pursuing either on societal level (judged objectively by their ultimate impact with the motivation taken into account) or personal level (justified subjectively based on individual reasoning), and so not all knowledge is worth pursuing.
Closing note: I didn‘t clearly state my opinion in the beginning and am now, after finally giving it enough thought, making another claim, which is also hard to debate against. For that reason I will understand if my opponent would not like like to continue this debate as well as if the voters will choose to vote against me due to ambiguity of my initial claim. Regardless of the outcome, thanks to my opponent and everyone reading for your time and the opportunity.
Rebuttal: All Knowledge Is Worth Pursuing — Even the Kind That Hurts:
I appreciate my opponent’s thoughtfulness. It takes humility to revise your position mid-debate. But while the tone has softened, the core idea remains:
that some knowledge just isn’t worth it.
And that’s where I fundamentally, and unapologetically disagree.
Let’s break it down.
Let’s break it down.
1. There’s No Such Thing as “Useless Knowledge”
You draw a line between “knowledge that helps society” and “knowledge that only helps the individual.” But here’s the problem: knowledge doesn’t stay in neat little boxes.
What shapes one person’s mind can reshape the whole world. A quiet thinker in a library today can spark a revolution tomorrow. Einstein didn’t build rockets — but his thoughts, once dismissed as abstract daydreams, got us to the Moon. The chain of impact is real, even if it’s invisible.
So when you say “this kind of knowledge only affects the person” — I say, give it time. Ideas spread. Always.
2. Discomfort Isn’t a Reason to Turn Away
You say if knowledge makes someone feel worse — like metaphysics being depressing — it’s okay to stop pursuing it. I get that. We’re human. But growth often hurts. Wisdom is not always warm.
Darwin was haunted. Oppenheimer was broken. But that pain didn’t make their discoveries worthless, it made them honest. We don’t get to run from truth just because it’s heavy. Sometimes the knowledge we most want to avoid is the exact thing we need to face.
3. “Dangerous Knowledge” Is a Lazy Argument
You mention knowledge that leads to bad consequences. Sure, there’s no denying science can be misused. But that’s not the knowledge’s fault. That’s human misuse, human corruption.
Blaming the idea is like blaming the fire for the arsonist. What we need is moral responsibility, not intellectual cowardice. Refusing to pursue knowledge because of what might happen is how civilizations stagnate.
4. We Don’t Get to Choose What Becomes Important
The most beautiful, and terrifying thing about knowledge is that we never fully know where it’ll lead. What seems useless now could become critical tomorrow.
That’s why we pursue all of it. Not blindly, but bravely.
Conclusion:
You say not all knowledge is worth pursuing. I say: show me a society that cherry-picks its truths, and I’ll show you a society that falls behind. The cost of ignorance is always higher than the cost of discomfort.
Knowledge isn’t just power. It’s possibility. And the moment we start labeling ideas as “not worth it,” we stop being curious — and start being afraid.
That’s when progress dies.
Round 4
I appreciate my opponent continuing this debate.
I have a feeling that my opponent is either willingly misinterpreting my argument or seeing only what he wants to see, and here‘s why:
1. There’s No Such Thing as “Useless Knowledge”
Absolutely. I wasn‘t claiming that there is useless knowledge per se. What I was trying to point to is that there is knowledge that is irrelevant or of no sufficient positive impact on one‘s life and consequently society as a whole. For example, take a person who is very much into linguistics. They study it every day and they find it extremely fulfilling. However, they have no interest whatsoever in chemistry. For them, the knowledge of chemistry isn‘t worth pursuing subjectively, but it most certaintly doesn‘t make that knowledge itself ‚useless‘ or ‚not worth pursuing‘ for everyone else. There will be someone who will find chemistry so interesting they would dedicate their life to it, it’s just that it won’t be this particular person. Einstein too, as brilliant of a mind as he was, pursued only the knowledge he found meaningful and valuable to pursue. He was choosing the knowledge he wants to pursue. Otherwise he wouldn’t ever become such a genius in physics and mathematics. If we lived by standard of ‚knowledge is always worth pursuing‘, we would end up without division of labour and, most likely, in a much less developed society in many regards.
2. Discomfort Isn’t a Reason to Turn Away
Again, my mentioned discomfort refers to discomfort on a subjective level. I agree that discomfort can be motivating and encouraging and that growth always involves pain. But my issue with my opponent‘s claim is that I believe that a person should have liberty to choose whether they still want to pursue this knowledge despite the discomfort. Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes it is no. If we will follow my opponent’s reasoning further, I assume it would mean that we must create an intellectualist society where everybody is forced to soak in every knowledge they possibly can, which doesn‘t look pretty at all.
3. “Dangerous Knowledge” Is a Lazy Argument
It is indeed, but I wasn‘t making that argument. I specifically referred to the neutrality of knowledge and the importance of the motivation behind it in this sentence:
Of course, knowledge itself is arguably neutral, so the motivation behind the acquisition of that knowledge also must be taken into account.
My opponent continued:
You mention knowledge that leads to bad consequences. Sure, there’s no denying science can be misused. But that’s not the knowledge’s fault. That’s human misuse, human corruption.Blaming the idea is like blaming the fire for the arsonist. What we need is moral responsibility, not intellectual cowardice. Refusing to pursue knowledge because of what might happen is how civilizations stagnate.
Well, nothing to add. Completely agree. Knowledge itself is not to blame for its misuse. The person who had vicious intentions acquiring the knowledge is the issue.
This part of the argument requires a lot of specificity. That is to say, „when exactly is knowledge not worth pursuing on a societal level?“. „Well, when there‘s evil intention behind the pursuit of that knowledge, from society‘s point of view it isn‘t worth pursuing…“This is a topic of debate, because not everyone (I am assuming that my opponent too) would call knowledge not worth pursuing here, but to be honest I would rather go deeper into knowledge on a personal level, if my opponent does not suggest otherwise.
4. We Don’t Get to Choose What Becomes Important
Good argument, and I can agree to some extent. But I would argue that we still make choices (even if small or unconcious) about what knowledge to pursue and what is more meaningful to us. We can‘t possibly pursue all knowledge, because we have many limitations like time and cognitive function, so we absolutely must filter out what is meaningful for us and what is not. That is not to say that we only pursue easy or interesting knowledge. Sometimes it can be very random type of knowledge. But there is still something that led us to make that choice.
Conclusion: Society that ‚cherry-picks its truth‘ is certainly bound to collapse. Society that divides its labour is likely to prosper. When we find what‘s most meaningful to us, we can contribute to the fullest to our community and society while also remaining fulfilled. Ignorance is not a virtue. Mindfulness about what knowledge is valuable to me is a virtue of big impact.
My opponent has crafted a rhetorical profiterole - puffed up, logically appealing superficially, but hollow at its core. Buckling under the weight of scrutiny.
Let's dissect this carefully:
Establishing the Definition of Knowledge and Worth:
- Knowledge = understanding of or information about a subject that you get by experience or study, either known by one person or by people generally:
- Source of definition: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/knowledge#google_vignette
- Worth = to be enjoyable enough or to produce enough advantages to make the necessary effort, risk, pain, etc. seem acceptable
- Source of definition: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/worth?q=Worth
Rebuttal 1: Addressing Straw Man fallacy accusation:
"I have a feeling that my opponent is either willingly misinterpreting my argument or seeing only what he wants to see"
- My opponent desperately clings to his vociferous conclusion that I'm being fallacious and intellectually dishonest.
- The intrinsic issue within this accusation lies upon the fact that Con has yet to establish his definition of "Knowledge", and has only provided a semantic debate.
- Con is defending a version of "knowledge" that merely exists within his mind.
Rebuttal 2: Straw Man Fallacy on Parade:
"But my issue with my opponent‘s claim is that I believe that a person should have liberty to choose whether they still want to pursue this knowledge despite the discomfort."
- I never suggested, or implied that one should be stripped of the liberty to choose whether they pursue knowledge despite discomfort.
I stated:
"You say if knowledge makes someone feel worse — like metaphysics being depressing — it’s okay to stop pursuing it. I get that. We’re human"
- This is concrete, clear evidence of the fallacious nature of Con's argument.
Rebuttal 3 - (P1): Lack of Reasoning and Elaboration:
"If we lived by standard of ‚knowledge is always worth pursuing‘, we would end up without division of labour and, most likely, in a much less developed society in many regards."
- The closing of P1 can be effectively dismissed.
For the Following Reasons:
- Why would we end up end up without division of labour land?
- Why would we end up in a much less developed society?
These are very bold claims, lacking - basic reasoning, support and elaboration.
Failure to Provide Burden of Proof:
- The essence of Con's arguments lie upon "subjectiveness" masquerading as unworthiness.
- Con has failed to provide his Burden of Proof - the very foundation that is needed to support his official stance - "Knowledge is Not Worth Pursuing",
- This is at least - intellectual irresponsibility in prose, and at worst - neurological delusion. Whether that be a mistake or deliberate.
Another Flawless Straw Man to Finish the Argument:
" We can‘t possibly pursue all knowledge, because we have many limitations like time and cognitive function, so we absolutely must filter out what is meaningful for us and what is not."
- These interpretations of my contentions are so warped that this belongs in a Pablo Picasso painting.
Reasoning:
- My stance does not state nor imply that 'we have to pursue all knowledge'.
- My stance, along with both arguments support that all knowledge is worth pursuing to some extent, and has possibilities of increasing in relevance over time.
Conclusion:
- Con is intellectually dishonest, accusing me of crafting fallacious arguments, while hypocritically practicing it himself.
- He misinterprets my arguments, and then attacks that warped version with sheer desperation.
- Con does not provide any Burden of Proof, nor coherent rhetoric behind many bold claim. And most laughably, takes a different stance from the one he's taken.
I look forward to an attempt of rebuttal.
Round 5
Forfeited
Forfeited