I started with an "old" thought. Someone "challenged" me, quite a while ago now, to defend something I believe without reference to secondary sources. (That's a bit abstract, and it's doubtful that the person who asked the question would even recognize it as I state it -- maybe, maybe not).
I spent some time thinking about it again recently, and I came to a conclusion: I am not sure I can say a lot about anything without "secondary sources." If, by that, you mean, knowing only first-hand, and without reference to (potentially biased) intermediaries -- without saying anything on the authority of someone else, logically independent information, free of all bias and interpretation.
Most of my knowledge -- well, at least a great deal of it, comes from teachers, books by authors I trust, experience validated by other people, or just the "say so" of the general population, even generally received tradition.
For that matter, most of what I think, or believe, is of the nature that I received the information "second-hand." (What would it mean, for example, to base all my knowledge of a foreign language or, more importantly, ancient Latin, on only "primary" knowledge?)
A lot of what I know is due to an external authority, and not directly learned from the "source" -- whatever that means. The fact of the matter is that is not necessarily a bad thing.
But there is a long historical, philosophical tradition of trying to establish a bias-free compilation of all knowledge: it's called the Enlightenment, or Rationalism.
In broad, categorical, historical terms, the Enlightenment project of establishing an objective, pure knowledge has been demolished. The idea of knowing separate from any subjective context is fatuous, and futile. This is one of the main, positive results of post-modernism -- yes, I said "positive." Although, in excess, it leads to nihilism, the reaction against pure objectivism is a good thing, in my opinion.
That leads to the question of how certain I am of what I believe, and what I think I know, and what is essential, crucial and what there is to be dogmatic about. (Or, "about which to be dogmatic," if you want to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition.)
I don't think it's as difficult as all that, though I understand that it is tough for someone who may've been misled to "trust" -- "once bit, twice shy," as the saying goes.
For that matter, I recently was forced to consider some things I am uncertain about in a new light, given that I've rejected an old "authority," and am wondering with what to replace it.
This conversation will soon turn religious, but also apologetic in nature. I'm just posting the beginnings of my train of thought. I'd love to hear responses from anyone reading this.
Continuation: more to come, with elaboration, and specific examples coming soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment