I'm currently a teacher, and before that I was also a teacher somewhere else. Before that, I was a student. The only professional experience I've had is in education. So, I thought I'd start with that.
The classic Socratic paradox. May or may not have actually originated with Socrates. The best way to see the truth of this is to observe its inverse.
Something I've picked up for cursory readings of Daoism and prolonged readings of Ursula K Le Guin novels!
I can't remember where I came across it, but there is a story that illustrates the difference between a Confucian and Taoist approach to knowledge. Two people find a boulder blocking their path. The first, Confucian, analyses the situation carefully - they calculate the mass of the boulder, and apply their learning to constructing an apparatus which will lift the boulder from their path. The second, Taoist, observes that the boulder is also blocking a stream, which forks around the boulder. The Taoist sits back happily. They cannot move forward for now, but they can see that after 1,000 years the stream will have eroded the boulder and unblocked the path.
In both cases the boulder is removed. In the first it is through calculated action, in the second it is removed through inaction. Both cases are equally effective on a long enough time scale.
Knowledge, especially highly-specialised knowledge, can lead to many beneficial practical applications. It can also conceal a lot from us.