**We never know what knowledge may ultimately prove useful.** - It's possible that we live in a world where everything we know is something that necessarily and perhaps by definition can be used. If there's something we feel confident enough to consider as something we "know", does it follow that we'd be able to do something, in some way, with it? The case could be made so. If we are never able to use knowledge, it seems far less likely for us to have ever started referring to it as "knowledge" in the first place... - Unless, that is, I'm accidentally completely neglecting a whole lot of stuff here? I could be. I'm trying, also, to only consider things here that are more real-world, anyway, and not quite so abstract, since abstract forms of "knowledge" could easily and right away fall out of the arena of consideration of anyone who really wants to drill down to the usefulness of knowledge. - I think, however, that even if we live in a world where usefulness seems inherent to anything we can confidently refer to as knowledge, there's still a whole line of thought that could see usefulness as something that is hiding in places we _won't_ look if we don't try to think about and value more seriously a type of knowledge beyond usefulness. - For instance, it's often only apparent in hindsight what and how many pieces of knowledge were useful, and to what extent. I'd argue this might even be just a natural principle of living in a world where time moves forwards and yet we have the ability to look back once it's passed. We don't typically know how the pieces of, for example, a scientific puzzle are going to fit together until we literally see, in the future, a larger picture that includes precisely _how we initially fit it all together_, _as we went along_, in our past. Then _at that current point_ we can take our knowledge of the way we initially fit the pieces together _in the past, as we moved forwards in time_ and decide _at that current point_ if we want to try to get to our more contemporary big picture in a different way, _now_, by fitting them together in perhaps some other way. - All of which is really just to say it seems to be an almost impossibly messy process, our building of knowledge---to the point of potentially _never_ being able to drill down exactly on which parts of our knowledge were useful, and when, when they can all morph into each other in such nonpredictable ways in hindsight. - More concretely, it does seem true that history is full of randomly acquired knowledge that originally seemed unimportant at best and incomprehensible at worst. It was only later that the usefulness of such knowledge came to light or came to be understood. An example could be Non-Euclidian geometry, invented by Carl Friedrich Gauss, which is essentially [a rethinking](https://jfi.uchicago.edu/~efrati/compton/handout1.pdf) of things like points, lines, planes, for a non-flat conception of space. Gauss himself did not [acknowledge](https://www.ias.edu/ideas/usefulness-useless-knowledge) it for nearly a quarter of a century, but Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, which turned out to have virtually infinite practical applicability, would not have been possible without it. In the extreme, the original iterations of knowledge that seem unuseful might create the literal conditions for a/the usefulness of its later form to arise. - The part of this opinion that might refer to knowledge of circumstances and action in the world is a bit trickier for me to form an opinion on. Say we receive information about someone that would feel, to them, as though it had consequences for their future if they could do something about it or change something using it, but we ultimately know they can't and won't ever be able to do anything about or change anything using it even with the knowledge. Is that knowledge still valuable for them? I tend to think it is, but of course it just depends on the case and how they themselves feel about it. (They could, for instance, come upon a time where they all of a sudden _are able_ do something about it. Or, even if not, maybe they'd still just rather know, regardless of whether they could have ever ended up using it.) - Further, if I know some vital information about some happening that I may wish to, for instance, prevent, and that information would theoretically help me prevent it... but in the real world, constraints make it so that I can't act on it to ever do anything about it, then does having knowledge of the circumstance have any value for me? Is it the case that knowledge must only be valuable to me if it's actionable? It seems like it depends on the specifics of the case: If I can't do something about which I have knowledge _and_ it disturbs me that it exists and that I can't do anything about it, then I'd probably rather not know it---meaning I could consider the knowledge to lack value because of its nonactionable character and harmful rather than helpful psychological prospect.

**Knowledge for the sake of knowledge makes us human** • One facet of knowledge is that it can be used. We can apply learned knowledge to certain situations to solve problems, create solutions, and work towards something better. In society, the learning and teaching of knowledge are used to maintain structure and discipline, and to give people a sense of purpose and self-improvement. The philosophy of knowledge is called [epistemology](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/). • However, use is not the only aspect of knowledge that makes it [valuable to humanity](https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ILTIEjvbeLoC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=knowledge+value&ots=wbyzga7yxZ&sig=o9wNObamG2Cqub5cw3_beYK0AZw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=knowledge%20value&f=false). Knowledge can create joy. • Humans are inquisitive by nature. We are wired to seek out mental stimulation and enjoy learning new things. Scientists attribute our lifelong capacity for learning to [neoteny](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20120618-why-are-we-so-curious), the evolutionary theory that we have retained child-like characteristics more so than other mammals. • The Greek hedonist philosopher Epicurus argued that knowledge had no other value than to [give pleasure](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/283897.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ac80357e45f63680d34ebba0cb5173ac7) to the learned.

**Knowledge, as 'the understanding of or information about something that you get through experience or study', always has value. If it 'can be used', it has social value. If not, then it has personal value.** - We can define value as 'an object's usefulness or importance'. But trying to differentiate between which knowledge is useful/important and which is not is very difficult. What we might ultimately class as 'useful knowledge' will likely differ person-to-person, and will have been filtered through [a cognitive bias] (https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-cognitive-bias-2794963). - Humans are a naturally [curious] (https://particle.scitech.org.au/people/the-science-behind-curiosity/#:~:text=Researchers%20largely%20understand%20human%20curiosity,about%20the%20world%20around%20them.&text=%E2%80%9CCuriosity%20is%20the%20driving%20force,isn't%20limited%20to%20people.) and inquisitive species. From very young childhood, we are gathering 'valuable' information by observing and [mirroring] (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-12097-w) others — something that will contribute to our social cohesion. - When I try to think of a type of knowledge that is not 'being used', I think of someone studying a subject in great depth but doing so in isolation, and not desiring to practically apply their learned knowledge in the social sphere. But even in this case - the knowledge acquired will contribute to the individual's world- and self-perception. Like the example of how we imitate/mirror others at a young age, any 'knowledge' we acquire, whether applied practically or not, will expand and make more lucid to us the world and our place in it.