"It is more important to discover new ways of thinking about what is already known than to discover new data or facts". To what extent would you agree with this claim. ” Most philosophers observe the world around and perceive to outline rules to explain the human condition. Their observations do not come from a pre-determined knowledge, but rather from what they sense from the natural world. Their ideals, form perception, are to allow the advancement of the human condition. However, as the human race and understanding evolve through time, the philosopher’s ideals also change.
We rediscover their perception of the past world, to allow the advancement of the modern world. This clearly shows how we need understand both aspect of knowledge, reevaluations and completely new understandings. The importance of discovering new facts and data as opposed to new ways of thinking lies in providing availability. Adding on to what we know can help us better analyze a certain situation and come to a conclusion on truth. As of 2006 many astronomers believe Pluto to no longer be a planet.
This conclusion was brought to light because Eris, an object with 25% more mass than Pluto, was discovered. This new discovery lead to a change in our way of thinking. This shows the importance that gaining new data plays in developing a new way of thinking. Without this new knowledge, there would be no possibility that we could come to a conclusion that Pluto was not a planet. In this case, by only trying to discover a new way of thinking on an old data we lacked evidence and justification and operate on mere assumptions that discovery of new facts can helpfully provide, us with further understanding.
Apart from many science movements that clearly show the balance of both reengineering and advancement, we can see it in technological advancements. The computer might seem a brilliant recent advancement; however it is based on the past discovered knowledge. In ancient times the abacus was used as a counting tool, for ages. The use of the abacus was solely on the necessity of advance math. Like I stated before, after some time the abacus was outdated by the continues advancement of the human race.
Fast forward, a few thousand years and we create the computer, which basis its internal programming on the essence of the abacus 1’s and 0’s. So even though the computer had never been invented before, part of it was due to the reengineering of prescribed knowledge; allowing for even further advancement of human understanding and technology. Even beyond, the sciences, the ideal of reevaluating can be also implemented in the arts, like the Cubism movement from 1920-1940. Artists had already painted cubes before. But this movement was based on the previous knowledge of 3-D shapes and old techniques in art to create something new.
Artists in this movement made paintings of facets of cubes intersecting with one another; objects were broken up, analyzed, and reassembled. Instead of depicting objects from one point of view, artists painted the many faces of the object in cube-like structures to represent a multitude of viewpoints and to make it have depth. Thus, while Cubism itself is a new movement with new ideas, it didn’t really originate from new ways of thinking. Cubism took what was previously known facts and techniques and compiled them together into a new way of thinking. Thus, allowing for the advancement of modern arts.