There is an interesting scene in Tails, a story of some dogs met in a pool waiting for adoption or slaughter. One of the dogs, newly dumped in the pool, was asked what talent it had. Obviously the new guy did not know a dime of their question. So the rest of dogs showed it what they conceive as a talent. One could jump high enough to reach some house stuff; one looked beautiful and was a show dog; still one could roll on the ground. The new guy got confused at first, because it was a fighting dog and had never been adopted before. But after a few minutes of brainwashing the new guy concluded its talent was to fetch things back quickly. The dialogue of the show was designed to completely show their judgment of a dog’s value. It looked funny to have it based on the talents that all aimed at pleasing dog master. But as the story went on, it became more and more serious. No other way except being adopted could lead them out of slaughter. Thus talents to please dog master were indeed vital to them. You may laugh: what the heck those things are? Does it counts without a dog master feeding dogs from birth to death? But wait a minute. Ask yourself the same question. What are you good at? Are you going to say “I am a computer engineer” or “a lawyer”? Does it counts without people using this stuff and give you daily bread? What makes you better than those dogs? I guess you will hesitate to boast before a dog after thinking it though. Your talent, or your knowledge, using a loftier word, depends much on your master, as dog’s does.
A deeper metaphor, which is also the reason that you were ready to laugh at those dogs, is that you know it is possible for dogs to live without dog masters. However, they were ignorant of such a seemingly simple fact. If we apply this insight to our own life, we are probably ignorant of the same thing as dogs were. We can live without artificial complicated rules，such as what lawyers live for. Lawyers’ knowledge is no better than a dog’s talent of fetching a tennis ball, if we treat it honestly.
You may make differentiate you from dog after a long time of thinking. “My knowledge is good for the society, while dog’s only pleases its master.” Think twice. What good does your knowledge do to the society? Have you seen anyone benefit from it? Or isn’t it better without your knowledge in the society? Lawyers may loose their eloquence or began to fool themselves.
Nevertheless, you did touch an import question: how we judge, evaluate, measure our knowledge depends on the social setting. In Tails, the only criterion to judge knowledge is whether it pleases dog master; while in the human world, we might judge with a sense of utility, in other words, demand from others.
As dog’s talent merely points to the dog master’s pleasure, our knowledge sometimes points just to market needs. And market needs could be anything as ridiculous as a dog master’s pleasure. For instance, someone may have special knowledge of how to make lady’s nails as long as possible. It does come from market needs, but few people will agree that it is more meaningful than a dog’s skill of jumping through a window.
