A Quote by David Roochnik

Even before Plato, techne was conceived as knowledge of a determinate field that could be mastered by "the expert". Such a person becomes an authority to whom laypersons should, in their dealings with that field, defer. Techne typically results in a useful result.
It may well seem that Plato does suggest techne is the best model for moral knowledge. In other words, it may seem that his goal is to establish an expert or authority in the field of the good-bad, just-unjust.
The image is not a closed field of knowledge; it is a whirling, centrifugal field. It is not a field of knowledge like any other; it is a movement demanding all the anthropological aspects of being and time.
A good scientist can understand the current state of a field, pick interesting questions where a success will actually lead to useful new knowledge, and push that field further through their work.
A person might be an expert in any field of knowledge or a master of many material skills and accomplishments. But without inner cleanliness his brain is a desert waste.
Every day you spend becoming an expert in a field, you become more useless in that field.
We have to reconcile ourselves with philosophical questions in every field. Every field should be open to inquiry and knowledge.
If you spend an extra hour each day of study in your chosen field you will be a national expert in that field in five years or less.
The result can be quite new - perhaps a tendency to judge that something we've never conceived of is possible, or to feel sympathy for a trait or a type of person whom we've regarded with indifference or even hostility.
It is exceptional that one should be able to acquire the understanding of a process without having previously acquired a deep familiarity with running it, with using it, before one has assimilated it in an instinctive and empirical way... Thus any discussion of the nature of intellectual effort in any field is difficult, unless it presupposes an easy, routine familiarity with that field. In mathematics this limitation becomes very severe.
I believe in giving more than 100% on the field, and I don't really worry about the result if there's great commitment on the field. That's victory for me.
What constitutes a good manager in this field? He must be knowledgeable in the art with which he is concerned, an impresario, labor negotiator, diplomat, educator, publicity and public relations expert, politician, skilled businessman, a social sophisticate, a servant of the community, a tireless leader - becomingly humble before authority - a teacher, a tyrant, and a continuing student of the arts.
It can be lonely as a manager out there. You are on the field, yes, but you are not really on the field with them. Yet I have to share with my players my experiences and my knowledge.
Think of your life as a field. The field is the field of action. What a mystic does is set up their life as a field of power.
The genius of the Word of God is that it has staying power; it can stand up to repeated exposure. In fact, that's why it is unlike any other book. You may be an expert in a given field. If you read a book in that field two or three times you've got it. But that's never true of the Bible. Read it over and over again, and you'll see things that you've never seen before.
My definition of an expert in any field is a person who knows enough about what's really going on to be scared.
Knowledge is indivisible. When people grow wise in one direction, they are sure to make it easier for themselves to grow wise in other directions as well. On the other hand, when they split up knowledge, concentrate on their own field, and scorn and ignore other fields, they grow less wise - even in their own field.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!