Classifying knowledge

Nowadays, knowledge is used to be understood through two different and unconnected parts. On one hand, humanistic studies, which consist of all aspects related to human thought, the internal side (for example: arts, literature, language, philosophy or history). In contrast, scientific studies tend to concern with the external side, often referred to natural phenomena (chemical, physic, biology). Actually, it's true that some people is used to develop more properly at grammar than at biology -it's my case-. Therefore, choosing between culture and nature (in other words: specialization) could be a suitable way to put in order an universe of possibilities that is lied at research. Experience and common sense always have confirmed it so: a chemist will develop more properly his job whether he spends his time on practising laboratory's tasks, instead of playing guitar. Obviously, this chemist, for himself, has the unavailable right to choose his own career, because individual will and natural talent must be above State rules.

However, this classification “nature – culture” is not the only one way to organize knowledge. There couldn't exist only this type of organization, because knowledge must be thought through an open-minded view. Otherwise, knowledge would be carried out both a decreasing and a breaking-up process, so that it would be unavailable to imagine a whole extension of the concept apart from its ramifications (nature - culture). For example, in the Middle Age, career was perfectly structured in a qualitative way in order to find a common sense and join energies in spite of differences. Whereas our quantitative Cartesian view tends to build barriers and set up isolated blocks of knowledges -in plural-, Middle Age career was characterized for its brilliant confluence. This will was concreted on the Seven Liberal Arts, that consisted of two main parts. On one hand, Quadrivium, that was composed of Arithmetic, Geometry, Music and Astronomy; on the other hand, Trivium, composed of Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric. But, following the mentioned qualitative -and not quantitative- characteristic, how was thought this structure? And why? Nowadays we tend to separate each other, defining Quadrivium as “science” and Trivium as “sociology”, but we must know that these words were born in 19th century! Actually, the point of view lied at Ancient and Middle Ages was completely different. At first, both Quadrivium and Trivium were conceptualized on the same level: art and science were synonymous. Both were related to a supremacist wisdom. However, whereas Quadrivium was defined as the intelligence (Logos), Trivium was understood as the expression of the intelligence. There couldn't exist one without each other. Therefore, they were intimately associated, carrying out an universe of symbols. This universe reached at all aspects: for example, Music didn't consist not only in playing instruments, but also in learning the platonic concepts of harmony, order, rhythm and well-being, above all.

In conclusion, it's important to be focused on reaching not only several forms of knowledge's organization, but also what reason causes it so. Our society could be proud for its material development. It's true. However, instead of Ancient and Middle Ages, nowadays we suffer an important lack of reflection to relate our career and its sense and, above all, to find out a reason to explain why we do what we are doing.

JOSEP