Knowledge and Literacy, Desire and Action

In comparisons among individuals, and in elevating one above another, appeal to their knowledge and learning has always been a solid support. The sages of old have always regarded knowledge as one of the most important symbols of perfection, and for them the superiority of the learned over the ignorant, or of the more learned over the less learned, was self-evident. The expressions “perfection” and “self-evident” contain a point indicating that, in order to believe in the value of literacy, there is no need to rely on anything of the sort of achievement, result, benefit, and the like. Just as Damavand is desirable for its height, and there is no need for its elevation to be of any use, knowledge too is a perfection and, in and of itself (that is, regardless of any function), is a source and basis of worthiness.

We generally respect anyone who possesses literacy, regardless of whether their knowledge is, for example, mathematics or psychology, pure or purely applied. It may be that we have no knowledge at all of the ins and outs of a particular science, yet still, upon merely learning of someone’s mastery over it, we feel a sense of reverence and awe toward them. Often, the more difficult the acquisition of a science and the higher the peak of specialization within it, the greater our acknowledgment of the lofty standing of its possessor.

With all these details, it is also the case that we sometimes inquire about the utility of knowledge as well. Knowledge, whether in its absolute sense or in the sense of the recognized disciplines old and new, has been a subject of debate regarding the measure of its worthiness, and indeed its very value, from this perspective. We all know that some of the most eminent people of spiritual insight have ridiculed worldly knowledge, from jurisprudence and philosophy to medicine and geometry, on the grounds that these instrumental sciences have nothing up their sleeve for genuine needs; rather, worse, they often become a source of pride and corruption.

Conversely, judges, physicians, astronomers, and geographers have also directed a reverse taunt at the people of gnosis, to the effect that the knowledge those people claim leads to no village and cannot and does not untie any knot from the affairs of God’s creatures; that is, they have considered the measure of knowledge to be not perfection but its usefulness. Sometimes, too, it was not the essence of a science, but the extent of it, or the extent of its fruitfulness in a particular scholar, that became a subject of discussion and a point of contention.

Thus, three types of questions can be distinguished: whether this is fundamentally knowledge at all; assuming it is knowledge, what is the extent of so-and-so’s share of it; and further, assuming both that it is knowledge and that this person is knowledgeable, in what form and to what extent has that knowledge borne fruit in this scholar, or through this scholar in this world.

On this basis, we would not be far wrong even if we were to claim that the element of utility is taken into account in the concept of knowledge. Such that if someone were to say, “I know the number of leaves on every tree, and the weight of the sands at the bottom of every river, and the frequency of the births and offspring of such-and-such, and the transformations of the possessions and chattels of so-and-so, and the grammar of forgotten languages and the morphology of squandered fortunes, and the like,” a reasonable listener might well say that this is not knowledge at all; and their meaning would be that knowledge gains its splendor and yields its fruit not by the attribute of discovery but by the attribute of usefulness; otherwise, who is supposed to gain what advantage from this sort of knowledge? Beyond this, a science might be described not by the attribute of uselessness but by that of harmfulness; whether in and of itself, or in the hands of someone; and also, of course, after all this, for beneficial knowledge too, the predicament of its possessor resembling a bee without honey is a cause for concern. So, applying the measure of earthliness and purity to knowledge as well has its subtleties, and thus it is not easily set right.

When inauspicious manners issue from someone, one can ask whether this was thanks to their knowledge or despite it. If the former, then from that point on, the less knowledge one has in one’s bag, the better; and if the latter, then whatever it may be, it is, at any rate, no mark of pride. Also, there is a tremendous chasm between the world of knowledge and the world of action. It is rare for a meticulous scholar to become an effective manager, or vice versa. One who becomes renowned for both often proves incompetent in at least one. Hence, measuring the man of action on the scales of knowledge is not as permissible as it seems; unless by knowledge is meant information, experiences, and a multifaceted understanding and the ins and outs of affairs. A degree, in the midst of this, is certainly no sign of understanding.

The schism between knowledge and action is sometimes so great that some discerning people do not believe that running an institution requires theoretical knowledge of its subject matter. Even more, some hold that it ought not to be necessary. The Minister of Agriculture need not hold a doctorate in agronomy, nor the Minister of Health a doctorate in medicine. His ability should revolve around management and the utilization of expertise, and he should be familiar with the fundamentals and generalities of economics, international relations, law, history and geography, and suchlike information. Now, if this is the verdict on academic knowledge, the matter of principles, mysticism, and the rest is clear. Its presence is neither a crown upon the sultan's head nor ivory upon his throne, and its absence is neither a disgrace nor a touchstone for his assessment. The standard for rulers is righteous action and the knowledge that serves it; and the portion of righteous action is peace, which brings kindness and success.

It is not improper that I hold someone dearer who is familiar with the knowledge I cherish, but this is more akin to loving someone who is beautiful according to my particular taste; no matter! Above all, it is better that I not suppose this to be a criterion to be presented to the public; nor that the tone of expression be as if it were the most self-evident of axioms. It is not; nor is the literacy of the masses indicative of the literacy of the great. Suppose one is so learned that history recalls no equal. A mystic has said: these come with a creed and go with a creed, and in sum, their coming and going is not to be relied upon.

A great thinker has noted that the art of reason is that it finds a path for desire: a grand vizier in the service of a sultan. The principle in man is not reason, but desire. If you disagree, just look within yourself for a moment; with truthfulness and fairness, of course. Yes, the distinguishing feature of humanity is thought, but if this thought does not serve the work of desire, it often becomes spells and talismans. The value of knowledge, like reason, lies in aiding action; so that a greater share of pleasure may come to oneself and others. Thus, if we pass over pure knowledge, which is often mere diversion, both specialized knowledge and general knowledge are worthy of admiration and pride insofar as they teach the art of giving and taking pleasure. Ethics is this second aspect as well. Therefore, in terms of value, that knowledge is superior whose practical outcomes are lofty in these respects: the production, distribution, and consumption of pleasure (or satisfaction).

Wisdom is for the sake of ability. By itself, it is no more than a pastime; and ability is good when it is directed toward living and enlivening, not toward raising the lament of the slain and stifling the song of life. It is also worth saying in passing that if tyranny befriends life and joy, it is not as bad as they say; the evil lies not so much in the essence of tyranny as in its outcome. The core of our problem, not its shell, was and is perhaps not tyranny; it was and is enmity toward progress and joy. Security, development, pride, and success; the record of politics, from caliphs to emperors, and from kings to ministers, is accepted or rejected based on this score. Understanding and knowledge, it seems, are a source of pride only to the extent that they aid this.

.

---

.

Knowledge and Literacy, Desire and Action

Author: Morteza Mardiha

Source: Morteza Mardiha's Telegram Channel

.

---

.