It's certainly thought-provoking to consider how something as seemingly abstract as information or knowledge could be considered "dangerous" or "harmful." The sources touch upon this idea from several angles, suggesting that not all truths or pieces of information are seen as inherently good or beneficial for individuals or society. It seems this isn't just about physical harm, but also about potential damage to our understanding, our social structures, or even our capacity for certain kinds of experience. One prominent idea is that certain truths or theories might be **pernicious to society**. This perspective suggests that even if a philosophical theory or proposition is true, if it leads to practices or beliefs that are considered dangerous or detrimental to the community, it might be best kept quiet. The idea here is that the potential negative consequences of widespread belief in such a truth could outweigh the value of the truth itself, at least from a social standpoint. It's suggested that truths that are "pernicious to society" might even be intentionally overlooked or silenced in favor of "errors which are salutary and advantageous". This highlights a tension between the pursuit of knowledge and the maintenance of social order or well-being. Related to this is the notion that revealing certain kinds of information can be **socially disruptive or morally problematic**. For instance, it's mentioned that while lying is wrong, it's "not always right to blurt out the truth". There are "unprofitable disclosures, unseasonable, harmful, and wrongful". This suggests that the context and consequences of sharing information matter a great deal, and possessing the truth doesn't automatically create a moral obligation to disclose it, especially if it causes harm or infringes on privacy. Revealing private evils, for example, is typically not society's concern unless they impact social order. There's also the idea that some secrets, even if they can be known or communicated, should not be deciphered or disseminated in order to protect the "other" or maintain a "differential remainder" of autonomy and intimacy. This points to information that, if widely shared or understood, could violate personal boundaries or obscure crucial differences. The sources also explore how certain knowledge or ideas can be seen as **psychologically damaging or leading to undesirable behavior**. For example, some worry that casting doubt on the existence of free will, by having people read arguments against it, might make them "more likely to cheat on a subsequent exam" or be "less helpful and more aggressive". This raises the concern that certain philosophical or scientific insights into human nature, even if true, could have "unfortunate psychological and/or cultural consequences". Similarly, it's suggested that knowing about certain "great evils" or "inhumanity" doesn't automatically tell us what the good is. This kind of knowledge, while important, might primarily highlight vulnerabilities and what goes against flourishing, potentially leaving one without a clear path towards promoting flourishing. It's also noted that focusing too much on apocalyptic scenarios or existential risks, even if the risks are real, can have serious downsides. It might lead to "apocalyptic thinking" which causes undue fear, paralyzes action, dilutes the sense of urgency for more certain problems, or leads people to despair and think "humanity is screwed," thereby concluding they should just focus on themselves and those they love rather than sacrificing to mitigate risks. False alarms about catastrophic risks can even trigger actual dangerous actions. Another aspect is the potential harm that comes from the **abstract nature of certain information or knowledge**, especially when it becomes detached from lived experience or concrete reality. The rise of abstract, objectifying scientific perspectives, particularly in the human sciences, is discussed as having the potential to reduce complex situations or human values to abstract resources to be weighed against each other. This kind of abstract thinking, while framed as objective, can overlook the meanings, significances, and values available from the perspectives of those directly involved. It's argued that this can lead to an "impoverishment" where, for instance, economic values are balanced against aesthetic or cultural values in ways that lamentably prioritize abstract metrics. Similarly, the idea of "information" itself is presented as potentially distinct from "meaning". An increase in information doesn't necessarily lead to more meaning; in fact, it's suggested that information can "devour" its own content, communication, and the social itself, leading to a kind of "implosion of meaning" and the dissolution of the social into unformed or merely "informed" masses. This suggests that too much raw or abstract information, unmoored from meaningful context, can be damaging to our capacity to make sense of the world and connect with others. Even applying abstract concepts like "violence" metaphorically to things like Internet trolling or consumerism can be problematic for "moral reasoning" because it lumps together very different evils and hinders understanding their causes and how to reduce them. The sources also touch on the idea that some knowledge is **dangerous due to its potential misuse or power effects**. The "essence of technology" is discussed as treating nature as "standing reserve," raw material to be manipulated. This form of revealing, "enframing," carries the danger that man risks taking himself as standing reserve too. Knowledge and technology can be seen as intertwined with power. The very development of certain scientific knowledges, particularly in the human sciences, is linked to techniques of surveillance and objectification that produce individuals as subjects who can then be controlled. This perspective suggests that knowledge isn't simply a neutral tool, but can be a force that constitutes and reinforces power relations. The concept of "knowledge-enabled mass destruction" highlights how certain types of knowledge, amplified by technology, can pose an "existential threat" or enable "extreme evil" by empowering individuals to cause immense harm. This leads to the suggestion that there are some things we are "better off not knowing," and potentially calls for bans on research into certain technologies. Finally, the idea of dangerous knowledge is linked to **challenging established beliefs or customs**, especially for those unprepared to handle the implications. Questioning the "foundations of popular morality" among the "incompetent and the incapable, and the passionate and the prejudiced" is seen as dangerous, potentially overthrowing, perplexing, confusing, and awakening evil passions rather than confirming good purposes. This suggests that for the majority who rely on tradition and custom for moral guidance, philosophical debate or questioning of deeply held norms can be harmful. Unmasking the rationalizations of the powerful, while potentially positive, inherently involves challenging established ideas and systems. Similarly, exposing "false" ideas or "harmful ends" often involves confronting deeply held beliefs which can be a difficult and sometimes contentious process. In summary, the sources present a varied landscape of reasons why information or knowledge might be deemed dangerous or harmful. It's not just about literal harm, but also about the potential for social instability, psychological distress, moral corruption, the erosion of meaning, the justification of power, or the capacity for unprecedented destruction. This pushes us to think beyond a simple "knowledge is power" or "ignorance is bliss" dichotomy and consider the complex relationship between truth, consequence, and the human condition.