There is no such thing as the definition of what knowledge is, but knowledge can be said to be produced by one or more individuals which allows the possibility to separate it in personal and shared knowledge. Personal knowledge is said to be “knowledge by acquaintance” , this means that it can be attained by experience, memory, imagination and intuition. It refers to all knowledge that a person learn through their experiences, and how they learn about themselves. On the other hand, shared knowledge “tends to be systematic and highly structured” , it is the contrary of personal knowledge as it does not depend on experiences but is built in subject disciplines which aim to explain things we know. This refers to school subjects for example in which a person learns about historical events, or researches and theories previously created by men. After defining both types of knowledge it can be …show more content…
The play consists on criticizing the attitude of the 19th century society in the aspects of marriage, women and the ideology of separate spheres. I was given an example of how a group due to their different ethical ideologies, decided the ending of the play. When the play was first performed in December of 1879. The play ends with Nora, the main character, leaving her husband and children for her to grow as a woman. For the 19th century audience this was such a controversial ending that due to society’s disapproval, Ibsen was forced to write a different ending for the play to be performed. This is an example of how society disapproved a play ending which they did not considered to be ethical at the time and obliged the writer to change it. This allows us to see how ethics is shared knowledge as all society had the same opinion towards the play as it attempted against their values. According to some critics, the ending was unrealistic as “no real woman would ever make that choice”