Thank you, Sajad Ali, for this interesting question.
Aristotle famously believed that virtue is a mean between two extremes—for example, courage is a mean between recklessness and cowardice. Does this work for the desire for knowledge, too? In particular, can there be an excess of such a desire?
There is no name for the virtue that corresponds to the desire for knowledge, so I propose this one: “proper curiosity.” To be properly curious is to desire knowledge at the right times, with reference to the right objects, with the right motive, and in the right way. It’s obvious that we can be deficient with respect to our curiosity; regretfully, lots of people are incurious. What’s less clear is whether we can be excessive in our curiosity.
I can think of two ways in which curiosity might be considered excessive—in a sense, greedy. First, we might want to know things that we ought not to know. For example, we ought not to know the secrets that people share with their closest loved ones. To pursue knowledge of those secrets would be to violate the privacy that is absolutely crucial to maintaining those relationships, which are themselves part of having a good life.
Second, excessive curiosity might cause us to ignore other things that make life worth living or our obligations to others. Imagine a scientist who, obsessed with her work, spends most of her time in the lab, in effect abandoning her family and all other pursuits for the sake of scientific knowledge. Such a monomaniacal desire for knowledge might very well constitute a vice.
It may also be a vice if our desire for knowledge aimed only at knowledge of trivialities. Someone who only cares to know a lot about baseball statistics might be an example of this sort of vice.
So, there are a number of ways in which the desire for knowledge can be considered greedy, if by “greedy” we mean “excessive.” In another sense, however, it’s hard to see how the desire for knowledge could ever be greedy. “Greed” usually refers to the desire for more than our fair share. But talk of our “fair share” only seems to make sense with a particular kind of good: a finite good. In John Locke’s words, we can’t enjoy a finite good while leaving “enough and as good” for others. For all practical purposes, however, there is no limit to what can be known, and my knowing something does not exclude anyone else from also knowing it. In short, we can’t take more than our fair share of knowledge, and so we can’t be greedy for knowledge in the same way as we can be greedy for other things.
What do you think? Can curiosity go too far? Let us know in the comments.
If you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You can find us on Twitter (@armchair_o) or fill in this form.
Be sure to check out our podcast!
If you like what we do, you can support us by buying us a coffee!
Image: Pan Twardowski and the devil, by Michał Elwiro Andriolli. In this Polish folklore legend, Pan (a sorcerer) sells his soul to the devil in exchange for special powers (or knowledge), but eventually meets a tragic end…
I received my BA in philosophy from the University of Chicago and my PhD from the University of Notre Dame. I specialize in ethics, with a particular focus on the nature of normative reasons and the ethics of hypocrisy in its myriad forms. My favorite philosopher is Henry Sidgwick, since I believe—to borrow a line from Alfred North Whitehead, speaking about Plato—that much of analytic ethics in the 20th century is a series of footnotes to Sidgwick.
Thank you ! I’m very happy and satisfied from your answer
Thanks for posting this. I’m doing a little study on “The Seven Deadly Sins”, which greed is considered one of, and thinking about how I seem do go all out in my pursuit of knowledge, constantly googling stuff, and wondering if that’s greed (though it could also be lust or gluttony — or pride?) You gave a good answer. Thanks again.