Curiosity killed cat essay

An older person would not put their hand into a hole in an unknown rock as there could be venomous biting wildlife etc: this population would be risk averse. However DUMB university students, because of their age, think themselves invulnerable and frequently take very unreasonable risks. Even on a "dare" they might plunge their hand into that unknown hole with unknown consequences while an older person would value the use of their hand (and their life) far more than any silly curiosity. Another example of this is the much larger rate of STD infections amongst those wonderfully STUPID ("invulnerable") university students as opposed to the general population.

Of course religious, especially Catholic, thinkers would condemn curiosity; anyone curious enough to look behind their curtain would find a faulty system, one based on received knowledge long discredited by (here it comes) science. Such inquiries are a shell game with no actual basis and no actual use, save to aid in the repression of human knowledge. The final arbiter is not a demonstrable, indisputable fact, but rather a totally irrational faith, which, if followed, leads to a dark corner. If I must have a religious basis to my epistemology, I prefer the one which values the inquiry “why ruin a perfectly good question with an answer?”

Curiosity killed cat essay

curiosity killed cat essay


curiosity killed cat essaycuriosity killed cat essaycuriosity killed cat essaycuriosity killed cat essay