IN EXPANDING THE FIELD OF KNOWLEDGE WE BUT INCREASE THE HORIZON OF IGNORANCE (HENRY MILLER). IS THIS TRUE?

Some people think that knowledge is infinite, well, so long as we do not stop questioning. Given the limitations to ways of knowing and the indefinable universe, we may only be capable of comprehending a minuscule fraction of it. The process of exploration and study always reminds us of how little we know or what we do not know, and so every time we discover something new about the universe we remind ourselves of the amount we have not discovered (increasing the horizon of ignorance). However, does it mean that we were not ignorant when we know nothing? Can we expand the field of knowledge without increasing the horizon of ignorance? When we question what we know, we sometimes realize that there are some elements of what we previously thought that we knew are not clear or sometimes not known. Human curiosity and inquisitiveness questions what we know, hence, leaving questions of what we do not know unanswered. For instance, a teacher asked me Do you know Brian (a friend)? Without thinking twice, I replied Yes with certainty. However, thinking about who Brian really is, is not that simple; his chemical composition, cultural believes, genetic make-up, dreams and aspirations among other qualities about Brian may be unknown to me. The more we explore an area of knowledge the more we realize that there is more that we do not know that we ought to know which constitute ignorance. In this thesis, I will tackle different areas of knowledge using ways of knowing to determine whether Millers assertion is true in all cases. When dealing with ethics, from a holistic point of view someone may feel that an act such as abortions is unethical and immoral to the extent that it is not worthy to be

CHARLES MWANGI WAWERU

discussed. However, when we expand our knowledge further taking deep considerations into situations and circumstances under which people consider abortion, why people abort, and can we consider the foetus a living human? Who has the moral authority over the life of the unborn? We may find ourselves in unfamiliar grounds (ignorance) where our cultural perceptions, emotions and religion are the order of the day. In such circumstances, it is difficult to achieve objectivity since different culture hold different views for example; most members of the Luo community in Kenya consider abortion unethical while a certain communities in Germany believe that under certain circumstances it is acceptable and can justify the act with the law. Under these circumstances, one cannot help but be in wonder when he contemplates the mysteries of ethics and the society. In cases where it may be perceived difficult to obtain objective knowledge through sensory perception, and in case of objectivity in knowledge is perceived to be coincidental subjectivity. A good example is an artist who presents a piece of his work. If the art represents an aspect of his personal life and experience, it will seem difficult to analyze intended message effectively if we hardly know the artist and his culture. I experienced this when I was asked to analyze a poem Theme for English B by Langston Hughes who I never knew. I read the poem about several times but it did not make much sense until I read about his life, background and historical context in which he wrote the poem, that is when I understood his message against racism. Reading more about the poet expanded my field of knowledge that apparently decreased my ignorance by being able to comprehend the poem. However, with a lot of information, one may come up with many interpretations of a piece of art thus increasing the probability of giving a wrong interpretation of the art but this does not make them ignorant for they are aware of the other possible interpretations. For one to appreciate art, getting to

CHARLES MWANGI WAWERU

know the artist cultural perception, context and mind-set is essential in appreciating art. However, this is not always the case. Pieces of art that evoke strong emotions such as love and pain need no extra information for one to get the message. History was never or may never be completely learnable in a sense that one has an absolute account, chronological and understanding of all history. To access history in its raw form demands being present at all places at all times; this is impossible since more than two events can take place simultaneously and we are limited by time and space factors. It should also be noted that history studies selective events presented by selective evidence. Presented with artifacts of early man: bones and tools; we may figure out the physique but can we know the emotions, religious beliefs or language? Another challenge encountered in expanding our knowledge in history is the publishing and republishing of historical text. Two thousand years from now, history students may read about the World War II from text of other production. Most authors of historical text never bore witness to the events they record and analyze. Even if they bore witness, their cultural perception, bias, (individual, national, political or emotional) may blemish the history recorded since one cannot record all what he sees or hears but what one deems to be important. Subsequent historians will read the text use reason, interpret in their own ways and write other books (sources of knowledge). Due to the dynamic nature of language, some words or phrases (idiomatic expressions) may lose meaning while others may take different or opposite meanings, this may lead to misinterpretation of historical evidence. Epidemiology students are aware of the inaccuracy of historical data and events yet use these books to proof an idea and as a point of reference: increasing the horizon of ignorance. Mathematics as an area of knowledge is known to be precise and among the most objective than other areas of knowledge. This is because it utilizes theorems that
3

CHARLES MWANGI WAWERU

follow from axioms by means of systematic reasoning and logic. We use reason, logic and mathematical language (strict syntax and encodes information) in order to gain mathematical knowledge. The premises or the axioms are well founded and fool proof and the reasoning and logical processes are coherent. If we have A B and B C as our axioms, logical we can infer A C . Knowing the axioms, we can expand our knowledge to come up with the inference without increasing our ignorance. Due to the precise nature and rigorous proofs in the subject, expanding the field of mathematical knowledge hardly leads to increased ignorance. I tend to think that mathematics works in line with statement necessity is the mother of invention. With various problems that mathematicians are faced with, new branches of mathematics are developed which are also precise. The development of Calculus led to solving Zenos paradox, the development of vector analysis and graphing lead to the decrease of ignorance; it enable to people visuals the real world and space three or more dimensions. This serves as a counter example to the notion that increase in the field of knowledge increase the horizon of ignorance. Before the scientific revolution in astronomy, people knew about the earth, and other heavenly body such as the sun and the moon. They used sensory perception (observing the moon and stars at different positions and arrangements at different times of the year) and empiric knowledge to come up with an idea known as geocentric model of the universe. A system of believe developed by philosophers idealizing the moon, sun and other bodies revolving around the earth. With the improvements in technology, humans have being able to expand their scientific scope of knowledge. For instance, the discovery of the telescope, rockets and launching of satellites led to the possibility of studying some parts of the universe thus clearing some misconceptions. The developments led to a new branch of physics, astrophysics that made it possible for the

CHARLES MWANGI WAWERU

scientific community to further study distant galaxies and constellations. This expansion of knowledge led to the realization the there is more to know of which they were ignorant of before though it also reduced some ignorance. This also means there are able to see other galaxies but cannot study them in detail. However, it is not always that when we expand our knowledge we extend our ignorance. We can carry out extensive research in a familiar field and make new discoveries without necessarily introducing another dimension or area of knowledge. Studies into subatomic particles led to the discovery of quarks, neutrinos and antineutrinos among other sub-atomic particles that provided evidence of previous theories and erased some misconceptions about the subatomic particles without introducing grey areas. Having considered the evidence presented above, I feel that knowledge exist within the infinite realms of ignorance rather than the more traditional approach that knowledge serves as replacement of ignorance. The infinite quality of ignorance provides a context from which knowledge is obtained. This implies that there exists some form ignorance irrespective of knowledge while new knowledge is dependent of ignorance. Considering the reasons and human qualities, a quest to exhaust all knowledge while asking why and how will be like the childish yet philosophical question Between the egg and hen which appeared first? In some cases, Millers statement holds true in areas such as history, ethics and natural science but head for a boom burst landing when dealing with art and mathematics. Through my reason and logic, I believe Millers assertion is true. I find my position about Millers assertion ironic for I do not believe that I increase my ignorance as such when I expand my knowledge and I do not plan to stop expanding my knowledge.

CHARLES MWANGI WAWERU