Useless knowledge?

The problem with dealing with philosophers is that they set high standards for everything. There you are, complacent in the thought that your intelligence is enough to make you seem a shining light to the world. The philosophers pooh-pooh the idea of mere intelligence being enough unless it has been deployed to, at least, acquire knowledge. THEN you flaunt the fact that you have acquired knowledge - and the philosophers get into the act, differentiating between whether you only have information or you have knowledge. At last you HAVE acquired knowledge and THAT's the time they come and tell you why they said 'at least' when they talked of using your intelligence!

So, yes, Tiru has not been left behind in telling you why mere knowledge may be considered useless. As in this...

Arivinaan aaguva dhundo piridhin noi than noi pol potrakkadai - Tirukkural

What use is knowledge if you know not to empathise with other people's suffering? - Loose Translation

So there! But, first, let us get that translation of 'arivu' out of the way. 'Arivu' is a word that CAN translate to just intelligence; can translate to intelligence+knowledge+competence; can translate even to wisdom. Depending on the context. Here, the second translation seems most appropriate to the context.

The obvious understanding of the Kural is that it says that knowledge that does not serve others, and is merely self-serving, is useless. Useless to whom is normally the question and the answer IS useless to society.

In fact, knowledge that is put to the sole use of serving one's own self is actively harmful to society, Adam Smith notwithstanding. Because, those conditions of free markets - one of the MAIN ones being that the players in the markets do not have the power to set and modify the rules by which they play - are too Utopian to achieve in the real world.

Note that I speak of 'sole use of serving one's own interests'. People like that gravitate generally to the rent-seeking end of the economy. You know, like buying up resources cheap due to inside information about value-enhancing govt. action; insider trading etc and so forth. Anyone who does legitimate business has ALSO to think of legitimate needs of Society to address...after all, they need to put out a product or a service.

In addition to that, it is ONLY the knowledgeable people who CAN think of the sufferings of others in quite a few cases. I mean, it is easy enough to know that what the suffering of the other would be if you cheat your neighbor. But, in quite a few things, it is not that easy. When you participate in a stock market scam, it is difficult to visualise the losers and the possible impact on them, right? When you default on a loan, deliberately sometimes, you really do not think of the bank as a sufferer and you have no idea about other sufferers, true? If you grant a subsidy as a politician and, because of that, slow down or stop development, are there sufferers and who are they?

You see, the PURPOSE of a lot of knowledge IS to identify suffering where it is not readily visible, avoid actions leading to that suffering or take action to redress that suffering. If knowledge is not deployed accordingly that knowledge itself may be considered to be useless.

Who said life is easy? Certainly not Tiru!