The Illusion of Knowing.
Why secondhand knowledge falls short and experience reigns supreme.
“You can keep on harping on about it a thousand times: “Yes, I get it, I know this but…, I know, I know…”
No, you don’t know jack until you’ve been through it yourself, until you’ve slammed your finger in the door, you have no clue what it feels like.
You can say you’re in the know till you’re blue in the face because you’ve seen movies where people scream bloody murder and hold onto their finger to keep the pain at bay, but until you’ve been in those shoes yourself, you’re just shooting in the dark.”
— Martin Heiland-Sperling, Morning Musings, 08.11.2022
Aristotle, John Locke, Immanuel Kan, William James, Jean-Paul Sartre, Paulo Freire, Michael Polanyi, Confucius … while diverse in their approaches, all converge on the idea that while secondhand knowledge can provide a foundation or a starting point, it is through direct experience that we truly come to understand and internalize knowledge.
Experience allows us to contextualize information, test theories against reality, and develop the kind of nuanced understanding that cannot be conveyed through words alone.
It’s the difference between reading about riding a bicycle and actually balancing on two wheels for the first time — the visceral, embodied knowledge gained from the latter is irreplaceable.
A final touch of romance and food for thought from the movie “Shadowlands”:
Joy: So you may ask when was I ever in Madrid. The answer is never.
Jack: Personal experience isn’t everything.
Joy: I disagree. I think personal experience is everything.
Jack: So reading is a waste of time?
Joy: No, it’s not a waste of time, but reading is safe, isn’t it?
