# data[].attributes.body
"Disinterestedness is essential in the pursuit of knowledge". Discuss this claim with reference to areas of knowledge.

# data[].attributes.body
The scientific method incentivizes impartiality.

# data[].attributes.headline
Conditions for the pursuit of knowledge. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Conditions for the pursuit of knowledge. 

# data[].attributes.body
Aristotle's perspective on how to pursuit knowledge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Book One of his Metaphysics Aristotle gives a brief history lesson on the evolution of knowledge.

"Hence when all such inventions were already established, the sciences which do not aim at giving pleasure or at the necessities of life were discovered, and first in the places where men first began to have leisure. This is why the mathematical arts were founded in Egypt; for there the priestly caste was allowed to be at leisure." ( Metaphysics, Book I,p. 1553).

Here he describes a departure from the condition of the "practical," a condition which he uses to qualify the rest of his intellectual virtues. Even to art Aristotle prescribes a practical pursuit: to bring "into being" or to give pleasure ( Nicomachean Ethics p. 1800). In this short passage Aristotle mentions a sort of pointless knowledge, with no utility beyond that of knowing for the sake of knowing, and certain conditions for pursuing this sort of knowledge-leisure. What he describes makes perfect sense; as human societies advance the goals of human society advance. Once human life was longer solely preoccupied with survival, with necessity, we were able to look up from the dirt, wonder why the sky is blue and then actually pursue that knowledge. This seems to imply that knowledge, what we even classify as knowledge, is determined by the flux of human goals and whims of the moment.

Although today we classify Set Theory as knowledge, there was surely a time in the past that such unnecessary information would not have been considered knowledge. Which seems crazy to me. Maybe in the future there will be a time where people pursue seriously, dedicate their whole lives to chasing, knowledge which we can't even imagine or, even if we could, would consider useless. What we credit and think about has so much to do with leisure. Today all we seem to hear and believe is that "knowledge is priceless" and that "knowledge is the one thing which can never be taken away from you". Yet it seems from this passage that knowledge, like anything else, carries a worth which fluctuates with the flow and supply of resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Book One of his Metaphysics Aristotle gives a brief history lesson on the evolution of knowledge. "Hence when all such inventions were already established, the sciences which do not aim at giving pleasure or at the necessities of life were discovered, and first in the places where men first began to have leisure.

# data[].attributes.body
Einstein's quote:

“Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the temple who have offered the products of their brains on this altar for purely utilitarian purposes. Were [someone to] drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple, the assemblage would be seriously depleted, but there would still be some men, of both present and past times, left inside. Our Planck is one of them, and that is why we love him.”

# data[].attributes.headline
Disinterestedness in judging art, according to Kant 

# data[].attributes.subject
Disinterestedness in judging art, according to Kant 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to Kant, fine art follows two paradoxes: it "is a way of presenting that is purposive on its own and that furthers, even though without a purpose, the culture of our mental powers to [facilitate] social communication"(Kant 173) and "it must have the look of nature even though we are conscious of it as art"(Kant 174). In other words, Kant believes that fine art is intentionally produced, yet remains purposive without a purpose, and is fabricated, essentially unnatural, yet must appear natural to its viewers.

Kant's definition of fine art is based heavily upon his previous deductions of how beauty is judged in the natural world. He believes that true judgments of beauty share four characteristics: they are disinterested, universal, necessary, and purposive without a purpose (Burnham). Since Kant draws a distinction between rational and aesthetic judgments, he argues that aesthetic judgments are not based on concepts, or things that can be known, but on intuitions or sensations. Therefore, a true judgment of beauty is disinterested; it is not based on any known concept, simply a sensation of unconstrained, completely detached pleasure. Along these same lines, a beautiful object is purposive, containing the property or quality of purposefulness, without actually having a concrete purpose. As Freeland summarizes, Kant believes that "we respond to the object's rightness of design, which satisfies our imagination and intellect, even though we are not evaluating the object's purpose"(14).

For example, Kant would say that our pleasure in viewing "Starry Night", by Vincent Van Gogh, is derived from the harmony and "free play" of our intuition and understanding that is triggered by the purposiveness of its forms. There is something aesthetically pleasing about the arrangement of shapes and blend of colors that causes us pleasure without directly applying to a concrete or known concept that we may have for how churches should look, or how the stars should be arranged in the sky. According to Kant, we do not like "Starry Night" because it contains our favorite color of blue, or reminds us of the safety and warmth of our hometown. These, he would argue, are matters of taste and "agreeableness" rather than judgment and true beauty, and only serve to pollute the disinterestedness that should accompany our appreciation of the aesthetic.

Kant's call for disinterestedness in the appreciation of beauty is perhaps the most irrational part of his theory. Is it humanly possible to be completely intuitive, to experience something through sensation alone without applying past experiences or previous knowledge? Can an observer of "Starry Night" look at the swirls of blue, yellow, and black without attaching the sensation of movement in the night sky, imitated by the painting, to previous sensations and experiences of looking up at the stars? Is the judgment of art and beauty really free from social, political, and cultural factors? Other philosophers and thinkers like Nietzsche and Freud would argue that art is related to individual will; Marx would contend that all art, as cultural production, is political in some sense, and Expressionists, like Van Gogh, would disagree with disinterestedness by affirming that art is understood in terms of affective response (Burnham).

As a work of fine art, Kant would say that Van Gogh has succeeded in fulfilling the first paradox of purposefully creating something that has no purpose, or conceptualizing a non-concept in his painting of "Starry Night". Abstract ideas of peace and tranquility are given form, although they are neither clearly nor conceptually defined. Van Gogh would be considered to possess "genius" or the "innate mental predisposition (ingenium) through which nature gives the rule to art"(174), because of his ability to capture an aesthetic concept and bring it as close as possible to a concrete form. Kant would argue that Van Gogh was guided by some visceral force to purposefully create "Starry Night" without committing it to a clear conceptual purpose.

"Starry Night" illustrates the second paradox of appearing natural despite the fact that it was obviously produced, because the painting is pleasing without bringing attention to the intentionality of its creation. In this second paradox, Kant is explaining the aversion that we feel toward art that seems forced or contrived. We appreciate fine art, he would argue, because it is so skillfully crafted that we initially conceive of it as if it were something that simply was. We can later appreciate the technique and style that the artist has used to create the work, but as an object of aesthetic pleasure, its beauty is best judged by its form, and not how that form was achieved.

Kant's theory of fine art and beauty focuses exclusively on those works that cause pleasure and internal harmony or the "free play" of the mental faculties. His definition of art is seen as limited by the standards of today's art scene, which includes works that are neither beautiful nor pleasing. However, regardless of Kant's shortsightedness in excluding things such as personal interest from the evaluation of art, he succeeds in providing an in-depth analysis of the reasons why some works evoke our appreciation and spark our imagination while others do not. His ideas of purposiveness without a purpose and appearing natural although being produced help to explain why some works of art seem to please without communicating a specific message or conveying a direct idea. Although many works of art are clearly intended to convey a social or political message, like "Guernica" by Picasso, others, like Van Gogh's "Starry Night" are simply pleasing to behold. Kant's contribution to the field of aesthetic criticism is significant, regardless of the inability of his theory to encompass everything that we now define as "art". As Freeland mentions, "Kant's view of beauty had ramifications well into the twentieth century, as critics emphasized the aesthetic in urging audiences to appreciate new and challenging artists like Cezanne, Picasso, and Pollock"(15), and his focus on significant form continues to shape the way we view and justify art.

Works Cited
Freeland, Cynthia. But is it art?. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgment. Trans. Werner S. Pluhar. Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing, 1987.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Douglas Burnham. 2005. Staffordshire University.
8 Oct. 2005 <http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantaest.htm#H2>.
by Tera Ray Expected Graduation Date: May 2006 Major: English Education Hometown: Spokane, WA
Kant's ideas on beauty and disinterestedness in art first captured my interest when they were discussed by Freeland in the chapter Blood and beauty, so I decided to take the opportunity to explore them further in this essay. I checked-out Kant's Critique of Judgment from the library, and I was very impressed by the logical structure of his theory. However, I thought that many of his ideas were necessarily limited by this structure, and I used this essay to show both the strengths and weaknesses of applying disinterestedness and "purposiveness without a purpose" to fine art.

Starry Night by Van Gogh

Guernica by Picasso

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kant and the Problem of Disinterestedness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to Kant, fine art follows two paradoxes: it "is a way of presenting that is purposive on its own and that furthers, even though without a purpose, the culture of our mental powers to [facilitate] social communication"(Kant 173) and "it must have the look of nature even though we are conscious of it as art"(Kant 174).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"The knower's perspective is essential in the pursuit of knowledge."​ To what extent do we agree?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the process of pursuit of knowledge, countless knowledge has been developed, discarded and rebuilt; such phenomena are still ongoing. Meanwhile, the knower's perspective has been playing a pivotal role in constructing more knowledge in the shared area that belongs.

# data[].attributes.body
"no disinterested pursuit of knowledge and no intellectual education for its own sake"

# data[].attributes.body
What role do emotions play in the production of knowledge?
Is it possible to have impartial personal knowledge?
What are the stages of the pursuit of knowledge? Is it possible to be disinterested at every single stage of the pursuit of knowledge?

# data[].attributes.body
Disinterested(ness): the lack of personal interest, any self motivation which ultimately avoids the creation of bias
Knowledge: a belief that is proven to be true with evidence
Pursuit: attempt at discovering/creating something new

# data[].attributes.body
We are driven by curiosity, and our curiosity is limited by the things we like.
The pursuit of knowledge chases a prey that might not exist.

# data[].attributes.headline
The norms of science and the role played by disinterestedness 

# data[].attributes.subject
The norms of science and the role played by disinterestedness 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since much of what I write about the responsible conduct of research takes them for granted, it's time that I wrote a basic concepts post explaining the norms of science famously described by sociologist Robert K. Merton in 1942. [1] Before diving in, here's Merton's description:

The ethos of science is that affectively toned complex of values and norms which is held to be binding on the man of science. The norms are expressed in the form of prescriptions, proscriptions, preferences, and permissions. They are legitimatized in terms of institutional values. These imperatives, transmitted by precept and example and reinforced by sanctions are in varying degrees internalized by the scientist, thus fashioning his scientific conscience or, if one prefers the latter-day phrase, his superego. Although the ethos of science has not been codified, it can be inferred from the moral consensus of scientists as expressed in use and wont, in countless writings on the scientific spirit and in moral indignation directed toward contraventions of the ethos. [2]

Let's break that down:

The norms Merton has in mind are statements of what scientists believe they ought to do, and what they believe they are allowed to do, and what it would be good for them to do. In other words, by "norms" we're not identifying whatever it is scientists normally do; sometimes what scientists normally do falls short of what they know they should do.

Scientists aren't handed a rule book that includes the norms Merton is about to describe. Rather, they figure them out by paying attention to other scientists in their community to see what behaviors they reward and what behaviors they punish.

Members of the scientific community do spend some time talking about the norms -- or at least, gnashing their teeth at what they view as egregious violations of the norms. But mostly scientists talk about the norms either when a scientist violates them or when someone outside the community of science attacks that community's reputation. When scientists are more or less living by the norms, scientists tend not to talk about them.

The distance between what we think we ought to do and what we end up actually doing is so much a part of the furniture of our lives (both as members of the tribe of science and as human beings) that I'd like to hold off on objections to the norms in terms of real behavior of scientists for now. I will be writing a follow-up post on scientific anti-norms -- sort of the evil twins to Merton's scientific norms -- at which point comments about the values that seem actually to be guiding scientists' behavior will be welcome.

As a sociologist, Merton was interested in understanding science as a social group. He wasn't primarily concerned with providing some independent justification for how scientists conduct their research. It's worth noting, though, that he seemed to think the norms of science were good ones to have if you're interested in building good knowledge about the world:

The institutional goal of science is the extension of certified knowledge. The technical methods employed toward this end provide the relevant definition of knowledge: empirically confirmed and logically consistent statements of regularities (which are, in effect, predictions). The institutional imperatives (mores) derive from the goals and the methods. The entire structure of technical and moral norms implements the final objective. The technical norm or empirical evidence, adequate and reliable, is a prerequisite for sustained true prediction; the technical norm of logical consistency, a prerequisite for systematic and valid prediction. The mores of science possess a methodological rationale but they are binding, not only because they are procedurally efficient, but because they are believed right and good. They are moral as well as technical prescriptions. [3]

(Bold emphasis added.)

If the tribe of science is a community defined by a common project -- building a body of reliable knowledge about the world and how it works -- the norms Merton identifies are something like the shared values of that community, values that are taken to be essential to the project of the community.
Merton thinks the values of modern science boil down to a set of four norms:

Universalism
This is the idea that the important issue for scientists is the content of claims about the world (or about the phenomena being studied), not the particulars about the people making those claims.

In other words, the tribe of science is committed to investigating knowledge claims made by graduate students as well as those made by Nobel Prize winners, those made by scientists at small colleges as well as those made at famous universities with huge endowments and buckets of grant money, those made by scientists in other countries as well as those made by scientists in one's own country.

Since the shared goal is building a reliable body of knowledge about the world we share, all the scientists engaged in that project are to be treated as capable to contribute. Disregarding another scientist's report because of who he is, then, is a breach of the norm of universalism.

"Communism"
Writing in 1942, Merton was careful to put this in scare-quotes. He's not talking about Marxist-Leninist Communism, but about the view that scientific knowledge is a resource to be shared by the whole tribe of science, regardless of which individual scientists produced which particular bits of knowledge.

In other words, ideally, if you establish a finding, you get recognition within the tribe for finding it, you may even get your name on an equation, but then that finding is public knowledge that anyone in the tribe of science can use to build additional knowledge (which itself is to be shared by the tribe of science).

One of the things a scientist needs to do to live up to this norm is to communicate her findings to other scientists. If a result stays in your head, or even your lab notebook, it's not ending up in the shared body of scientific knowledge. Knowledge that isn't made public doesn't help the tribe with its shared project.

Disinterestedness
One way to think about the norm of disinterestedness is that scientists aren't doing science primarily to get the big bucks, or fame, or attractive dates. Merton's description of this community value is a bit more subtle. He notes that disinterestedness is different from altruism, and that scientists needn't be saints.

The best way to understand disinterestedness might be to think of how a scientist working within her tribe is different from an expert out in the world dealing with laypeople. The expert, knowing more than the layperson, could exploit the layperson's ignorance or his tendency to trust the judgment of the expert. The expert, in other words, could put one over on the layperson for her own benefit. This is how snake oil gets sold.

The scientist working within the tribe of science can expect no such advantage. Thus, trying to put one over on other scientists is a strategy that shouldn't get you far. By necessity, the knowledge claims you advance are going to be useful primarily in terms of what they add to the shared body of scientific knowledge, if only because your being accountable to the other scientists in the tribe means that there is no value added to the claims from using them to play your scientific peers for chumps.

Organized Skepticism
This is the value that balances universalism. Everyone in the tribe of science can advance knowledge claims, but every such claims that is advanced is scrutinized, tested, tortured to see if it really holds up. The claims that do survive the skeptical scrutiny of the tribe get to take their place in the shard body of scientific knowledge. This is also the norm that makes disinterestedness work -- without organized skepticism, you might actually have a reasonable expectation of putting one over on your scientific peers for personal gain.

Merton sees these four norms as the values that scientists themselves take to be definitive of the scientific enterprise. However, Merton himself identified tendencies pulling in the opposite directions from these norms. He thought instances of scientists criticizing other scientists for not resisting these pulls were good evidence that scientists as a group were serious about the norms.

The countervening norms Merton noted were largely from outside the tribe of science. In my promised follow-up post on scientific anti-norms, I'll look at these, plus the anti-norms that seem to come from within the scientific community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since much of what I write about the responsible conduct of research takes them for granted, it's time that I wrote a basic concepts post explaining the norms of science famously described by sociologist Robert K. Merton in 1942.

# data[].attributes.body
The reason why to pursuit knowledge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A few weeks ago I found myself sitting in the upstairs room of the local coffee shop, having just hung up the phone with a designer who I had interviewed for a podcast episode. As I glanced out the window, and watched the people below, sipping at macchiatos, taking a puff on their cigarettes, and sharing new ideas formulating from recently acquired information, or a long thought of dream yet to be lived, I looked back through the conversation I had just had, and was amazed at how many subjects we had covered, the plethora of ideas that we discussed, and the many things that I had learnt, all in a one hour call.

There is something about the way we interact as people, about what we say and why we say it, about how we share the things we've just found out, and talk about what's important to us.

It's because were driven by curiosity, and an inquiry into each others lives; in fact, this is what we live for: the pursuit of knowledge.

We often think of knowledge as information gained by experience, or data which is shared with us by those who have been "through the trenches," as it were, but while this is true, it is also much more.

Knowledge is not only the practical understanding of a subject or way of thinking; it is a clear and unquestionable comprehension of that which exists. It's the discernment and perception of the connection between the agreement or disagreement of our ideas, it's what we all yearn to have more of, and will all gain to some extent, over the course of our lives.

With knowledge, we are able to build upon the foundation of understanding until we have a solid structure, around which to form the infrastructure of our ideas, to put face to our beliefs.

Knowledge is gained by exercising wisdom through the experiences that you allow yourself to walk through, and the people you spend your time with. The pursuit of knowledge, therefore, stems from a hunger for learning that envelopes your mind, and pushes you on to new horizons. In a day like the one in which we exist, there are many ways to look for answers to questions, so avail yourself of every opportunity to learn. There is a virtual database which is literally at our fingertips, that we could explore and examine until we went insane.

But why do we have this desire and urge? Because the discovery and sharing of knowledge with one another is a pillar in the mansion of life; it is a function of our being that will only discontinue when there is no breath left in our lungs. And it's because of the small amount of knowledge that we actually have - and the realization of this fact - which drives our curiosity, and inquiry into each others lives; again, this is what we live for: the pursuit of knowledge, because knowledge, as Plato said, is food to the soul:

"And what, Socrates, is the food of the soul? Surely, I said, knowledge is the food of the soul."

Undeniably, there are two paths that are presented to us, and the decision we must innevitably make is which of the two we ought to travel on. They both have their respective benefits, but the one certainly has advantages over the other.

If you decide to take what is commonly known as 'the hard way' - that of personal experience - you step into a world of unknowns that only time will show you.

If you choose to learn from another who has been there, and done that, the road will usually, although not always, be much easier. Wisely and cogently choosing which road to take can be the difference between life and death, or at least save you the pain of many heartaches, backtracks, and wasted moments. The paths will not always be so clear. In times of confusion, it can be hard to determine the correct path, but in the end, the way you choose will teach you lessons that you very likely did not expect to uncover.

When I first began in the field of design, there was, and always will be, so much I didn't know. Thankfully, growing up in the later 90's-2000's, media was beginning to be, and now is, all around me, and when I decided on my career, there was plenty of information available to draw from. But cut and dry information alone is not enough, and often will turn a person off from seeking to attain a greater level of understanding in the career they are pursuing.

A huge plus in my situation, was the opportunity to intern for, and be mentored by, a good friend and designer, who had been in the video/design industry for over 20 years. I was able to work along side one who, in comparison to me, had a great amount of knowledge and insight into the owning and managing of a business, the day-to-day communication with clients, and the "how-to" in dealing with the many challenges one is faced with each day. The opportunity to draw from someone's knowledge, and have them there to walk you through, from their own experience, everything they went through so you can avoid the pitfalls that tripped them up, is almost incomparable to any other experience I know of.

I have received many emails with questions on how to get started in this field, and where to look for advice and teaching, and my answer is usually consistent with the story I just shared. If at all possible, seek out that mentor who can direct you through the early stages of your career life, as it were, and point you to the good sources of information, understanding, and inspiration.

In Conclusion

Life is a road traversed by all, but it does not go on forever. At some point or another, the twists and turns will cease to come, the span of your life will reach its appointed limit, and your road will come to an end.

They say we're always learning something new, so be sure to take advantage of every opportunity, not only in partaking, but also in opening yourself up as a source of information and inspiration for those who are not as far down the path as yourself.

We are on a journey with a destination; choose each path well, and always be prepared to learn. Don't worry about genius, or not being clever, there will always be someone who knows more than you. Instead, work hard, stay hungry, and don't be foolish. I'm on this journey with you; I enjoy being with those that I admire and love, and I look forward to seeing where we all end up. In the meantime, let's share what we know, and learn from one another - and may the odds be ever in our favor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pursuit of Knowledge - James Fletcher - Medium

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A few weeks ago I found myself sitting in the upstairs room of the local coffee shop, having just hung up the phone with a designer who I had interviewed for a podcast episode.