There is nothing more harmful than curiosity that tries to know grace (of God, Buddha, etc.) ahead of time when it has not yet been researched.
- “There is nothing more harmful than curiosity that seeks first to know its benefits before it has even been studied.” --- Geitaro Nishida.
modern translation
It goes without saying that philosophers should respect scientific knowledge, but they should clarify the fundamental concepts of scientific knowledge even more than scientists themselves. At the same time, scientists themselves should strive to correctly understand philosophical ideas. Of course, scientists who base their research on certain assumptions may not need to reflect further and philosophically consider those assumptions themselves. However, it is undeniable that deep philosophical thought can shed some light on science itself.
In the first place, philosophical knowledge and scientific knowledge are in different domains and should illuminate each other, not invade each other. Philosophy today does not argue for empirical laws through speculation, nor does it attempt to bend facts through concepts. One of its main functions is to deeply examine various scientific knowledge. It clarifies the basis on which each type of knowledge rests and defines its limits. In this way, it may be said that philosophy gives no content to new knowledge and is nothing more than an empty theory.
Such criticism may be unavoidable for contemporary philosophy. However, not only is the clarification of the nature of knowledge itself a most noble task in itself, but I would like to say to those who make such criticisms that there is nothing more harmful, at least as Kant said, than the curiosity of trying to know its benefits first when one has not yet studied it! I would like to say that there is nothing more harmful than the curiosity to know the benefit of something that has not yet been studied.
Original text
.
It goes without saying that philosophers should respect scientific knowledge, and should clarify the fundamental concept of scientific knowledge more than scientists themselves, and scientists themselves should also be obliged to understand philosophical thought justly. Of course, a scientist who stands on a kind of assumption may need further philosophical study to reflect on the assumption itself, but it cannot be said that deep philosophical thought does not also give some light to science itself. Originally, philosophical knowledge and scientific knowledge are different fields, and they should mutually illuminate each other, not violate each other. Philosophy today does not argue empirical laws by speculation, nor does it attempt to bend facts by means of concepts, but rather its main task is the in-depth criticism of various scientific knowledge. It is to clarify the basis on which various kinds of knowledge are based and to define the limits of each. In other words, it may be said that philosophy does not provide any new content of knowledge, that it is nothing more than an empty theory. Such criticisms may be unavoidable in philosophy today. However, not only is the clarification of the nature of knowledge itself the most precious task, but I would like to say to these critics that nothing is more harmful than curiosity, which, as Kant said, seeks to know the benefits of something before it has even been studied.
- Geitaro Nishida ・Manuscripts not included in the complete works (2) PDF
- (ii) Apology of Philosophy.
I haven’t found any text where Kant directly says that, so it could be a summary by Nishida.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/研究もせずに利益を知ろうとする好奇心は有害 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.