Ecclesiastes “He who increases knowledge increases sorrow.” As we learn more about the travesties, malevolence, and evil acts commit across history, the more we come to see the potentiality humans have to cause suffering to others. The more we learn about the suffering which everyone undergoes, that we too experience, the more we potentially can feel disheartened as to the experience of life, and thus result in a sorrowful existence. While knowledge of this sort can cause debilitation, and a negative mode of being for the individual, it doesn’t necessarily have this effect across the board. Many people can spin a different perspective with the increase of knowledge of this sort, and look at the potential for humans to attempt to alleviate it, and if the individual finds that desire within himself, he can view the human condition as essentially compassionate, rather than malevolent, producing the opposite effect, of hope and virtue.

This quote is true in regards to some situations, yet is too broad to cover the set of all experiences, and all individuals. In line with the quote, the more knowledge you have in regards to understanding the effects of our actions, and their implications in the wellbeing of ourselves and others, the more you notice your own deficiency in acting in the optimal method, producing more moral shame than the ignorant moral agent. In times when passions override reason, and we fail to hit the mark, we suffer in relation to how high that mark is, in how well articulated it is, in how much knowledge we have as to a better way of Being. Thus you increase in sorrow from every mistake because you understand it as a mistake, you understand that rationally you knew the better thing to do, yet emotions or competing values over rode the conscious thinking process and you thus acted from a base that isn’t in line with a higher value. An increase in knowledge results in a better understanding of what has and is taking place, and causes the individual to be distraught over their lack of discipline over making more optimal rational decisions, as well as noticing the mistake for what it is and how it was caused, and this nature of humans, is natural, and at times can make one sorrow for how little control our “ego” or consciousness has in overriding the unconscious, or external effects, which are more powerful at times.

On the other hand, in regards to morality, an increase in knowledge can produce a more virtuous agent, and in virtuous actions, comes pride and happiness in accomplishing what we have uncovered as being right or meaningful, at least to us. Does this compensate for the moral shame in developing virtue? Does the happiness outweigh the sorrow? In general, probably not, and Ecclesiastes is right. But this quote doesn’t give us an imperative to not strive for knowledge regardless, and I would argue that the acquisition of knowledge in regards to moral questions and their implications is worth it as the meaning and the results outweighs the individual experience of sorrow, whether or not that sorrow in acquiring it outweighs the pleasure in virtuous action or not.

The increase in knowledge of causality enables the individual to see many things the ignorant would otherwise profit in the short term of not knowing, but in the long term, and in the implications, the knowledgeable gains the upper hand. The foundations and implications of actions and speech in regard to morality can be extrapolated to a further than optimal direction, potentially causing suffering in “overthinking” and can become overwhelming to the degree of causality explored as the potential negative down river effects can cause stress to the moral agent. Here, knowledge of morality, and the nature of suffering and satisfaction, and the causes and experiences related to them, also can become a burden to the individual in this scenario of “increasing in knowledge”. The burden of responsibility in relation to knowledge of the effect of actions, can be debilitating and stagnating the mind that has more knowledge of the subject, and thus his sorrow can be understood as a production of such conflicts.

Certain realizations outside of the realm of morality offer a source of further inquiry into the beneficial or detrimental experience in the knower. Such truth revelations such as in the full complexity of the issue of freewill, and its incompatibility with the actual experience of life, can be a source of great dissatisfaction for him who once thought he contained “freewill” in the libertarian sense. The uncovering of the truth of strict determinism can cause the individual to feel a lack of purpose, or choice, and can be a source of sorrow. On the other hand, it can be relieving, and remove anger, cognitive dissonance, and pride, in cases where it would otherwise be manifest (if viewed correctly).

The relinquishing of illusions of a personal God, or of an afterlife, can be extremely sorrowful to the naïve seeker, and may cause great distress and depression as a result. The meaninglessness of the universe, objectively, can be hard to cope with, and the proper response and compartmentalizing of such truths is no easy matter. Where, after time, integration will prove useful to the individual, and ultimately produce greater heights of wellbeing and potentiality for a moral virtuous life (I believe!) the initial adoption of responsibility and acceptance of non-desirous truths can break the unprepared individual, and everyone may not be endowed with the requisite mental capacities to wrestle with such ideas. While these are potential situations in which an increase in knowledge can cause an increase in sorrow, it is entirely possible for a more positive interpretation, and actual an actual reciprocal effect to take place in him who gains the knowledge. One may feel profound pleasure in uncovering insights into the nature of reality, and may feel themselves better attuned to who they are and the reasons why they do things. The openness to being fallible, and the corrective nature of novel knowledge in improving the individuals understanding, doesn’t always need produce dissonance or distraught, but can prove to springboard the individual to greater heights of wellbeing through a better use of his speech, it can prove to clear up previous dissonance, and to grant clarity to the individual. So an open generalization such as stated in Ecclesiastes is interpretable in respect to certain experiences, and in situational accounts, it is in no way possible to generalize it across the set of all possible acquisitions of knowledge. While certain knowledge in relation to individuals can cause sorrow, it can, in other individuals, provide a useful and beneficial effect. The state of the individual, the type of knowledge, the circumstances for its adoption, the framework in which it is revealed, all are integral factors in determining the beneficiality of knowledge. We would be wise to consciously discriminate in which knowledge we share, and attempt to uncover for ourselves, in addition to being prudent to whom, and in what fashion, and in which circumstances, we receive or give said knowledge. This is truly informed by experiential knowledge, contemplative reasoning, and overall, wisdom.