Essay

"I know the answer! The answer lies in the heart of all mankind! The answer is twelve? I think I'm in the wrong building." Poor Charles Schultz encountered a difficult situation in this quote. He knew an answer, but it wasn't the kind of knowledge that the people around him appreciated and expected. Why is that? He knew something, so shouldn't his answer be legitimate on some level? Unfortunately for Mr. Schultz, it seems that there are different types of knowledge, and the knowledge that he had didn't seem to be the most appropriate for the situation. How does his reasoning and the reasoning that led to "twelve" differ, and why? Is knowledge something that we can define as a certain thing, or are there multiple approaches to it? Perhaps we can think of some answers to these questions, though I doubt that any of them will be "twelve."
When we get very familiar with someone, we say that we "know" them; in a way, it's like knowing an answer that lies in the heart of all mankind, but knowing a friend won't tell us how to swim or ride a bicycle. This kind of knowledge is totally different, but we still use the same word. Why? Are these two ways of thinking really interchangeable? They must not be, since we see so many differences from person to person in how much they "know" and learn in these areas. My brother, for example, learned how to ride a bike a good year or so before I did, and he's been a better rider than I since then. However, I doubt that he could tell you his best friend's favorite color, like I could. We both "know" what we're doing, but we don't apply this knowledge in the same ways, or we would both be good at the same things. Neither of us can explain how we know what we know, we just do. Perhaps this is because these two kinds of knowledge come from different styles of knowing. I am a very perceptive knower, which helps me pick up on the little things that my friends do and say all the time which lets me figure out how they think and act, helping me "know" them more easily. My brother is a more reason-based person, so he reasons that when he gets on a bike, he van ride it well, since he's done it before. These two kinds of knowledge show our differences, and the differences in these two ways of knowing.
We don't restrict our use of the word "know" to these two forms only, though. In Charles Schultz's quote, the questioner's answer is "twelve," but that conclusion would be reached in a very different way than it would take to ascertain that the 1930s was a difficult decade. In theatre, most people know their lines like someone who knows that six and six is twelve. They know what the other characters in the scene will say, and they know the correct response to that. However, three years ago, I was in "Lend Me a Tenor" with someone who knew his lines like he knew about the thirties. He knew the general idea of his lines, and he would take your line, process it, and respond with the general idea behind his line. This was very frustrating for a memorizer like me, but I learned how to deal with it, and I think it was very good for me in the end. It's important to have both kinds of knowers in the world, though. One of these knowers helped us out of a tight spot in our production of "God's Favorite" last year. At one point during a performance, the reasoning knowers got lost in a maze of missed and incorrect lines, at which point we turned to the character of David, the emotional learner of the cast and basically said "David, do something." To our amazement, he was able to take our hopelessly lost scene, felt out a few lines, and got us back on track. He had trouble with the strict synchronization in that play, though, but the rest of us were able to support him through that part. All of these knowers have a sense of what the scenes are about and how the words fit together to form lines and thoughts, but we use this knowledge in very different ways.
These many types of knowledge suggest that knowledge is a very versatile and changeable thing. We say we "know" a song, but does that mean that we could tell you all of the lyrics, notes, and rhythms in the song, or does it mean that we've studied the different techniques that went into the making of the song, or do we have a good sense of the feelings behind the song, and the meaning that it's trying to convey? These are all ways of knowing, but they are incredibly varied. No one is more or less important than the rest. They all go together to make a beautiful piece of music, and it wouldn't be the same if the artist didn't have some understanding of all of those elements.
So, while Mr. Schultz didn't necessarily have the correct answer to the question that was being asked at the time, there was still legitimate knowledge behind the answer that he did have. People know many things in many different ways, from knowing how to ride a bike or relate to people, to memorizing or feeling out your lines in play, everyone knows lots of things in lots of different ways. So, if your answer isn't twelve, just try a different way of thinking, and maybe you'll come up with a new, and no less correct answer.