Reading Response to: “The Work of Knowledge”
Shared Knowledge
“Discussing differences while standing on shared ground, we work towards understanding.” This simple yet profound statement captures the collaborative nature of knowledge creation. Philosophers are often solitary thinkers, engaging in deep and structured reflection. However, conversations bring a unique dynamic. In a discussion, thoughts are less edited, released in an incomplete state, and open to collective refinement. In contrast, a philosopher’s paper is meticulously crafted to convey well-formed ideas.
As the author puts it, “Paper drives thought into our head,” while “web releases thoughts before they are complete, so we can work on them together.” This evolving process recognizes that knowledge is not singular, unified, or final. It reflects the dynamic and miscellaneous nature of the universe, where the messiness of conversations fosters shared understanding.
The Howard Dean campaign serves as a powerful example of this. Its success in building shared knowledge and trust stemmed from its “letting go” approach. However, its ultimate failure was due to policy, organizational, and personal reasons—not the lack of collective input.
Knowledge Unchained
“Genius is topical.” A person may be a genius in one field but not in others. In a world where knowledge spans a sea of books, we naturally question the expertise of someone claiming mastery over an expansive topic. At the same time, fields of inquiry that are too narrow may struggle for recognition.
Books, like knowledge, are valued based on their content but are constrained by their physical properties. For example, Britannica meticulously curates its topics to fit within its physical limits, sacrificing breadth for depth. Wikipedia, by contrast, thrives in the digital realm, where space is limitless. It follows a many-to-many model of knowledge creation, allowing countless contributors to pool their expertise and passion.
While Britannica delivers concise, authoritative articles, Wikipedia offers endless links that connect topics and encourage further exploration. This “miscellanization” of knowledge transforms information into an engaging, ever-expanding web of discovery.
Complexified Knowledge
In the “miscellanized world,” knowledge is rarely simple. As the book highlights, politics, marketing, and science often simplify complex ideas for public consumption. Politicians deliver speeches with clear solutions, marketers craft catchy slogans, and scientists provide elegant formulas for universal truths.
However, once these ideas hit the internet, they are dissected, debated, and reconstructed in more complex forms. Online, knowledge is no longer static—it is dynamic and open to interpretation.
The Place of Knowledge
Facts—those things about which we no longer argue—are like nails, holding our understanding in place. Knowledge itself has become a commodity, a product in high demand. Platforms like Google and Wikipedia have commoditized knowledge, making it accessible at the click of a button.
This commoditization, however, doesn’t diminish its value. Instead, it “frees us to understand.” True understanding arises when we see how the pieces of knowledge fit together. As David notes, “Understanding is metaknowledge.”
Suggested Sources:
- Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous: The power of the new digital disorder. Times Books.
- Sunstein, C. R. (2006). Infotopia: How many minds produce knowledge. Oxford University Press.
- Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. Penguin Press.
- Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. Doubleday.
- Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press.
Mikhail Oparin 