|
Kierkegaard said that in order to build an hypothesis worth trusting, we must first tear down all existing thought. I
don't think that applies to things like math, as there are certain areas of discipline where we build on facts already established to
increase our knowledge. But I do believe that everyone carries around with them a set of facts that they rely on, and
from which everything else grows and revolves: The earth is round and water boils on the stove and if I drop something it'll
hit the ground. All of those things are real and objectively true, and they're not going to change and they're not things
that we doubt or argue about: They are observable and repeatable and there aren't people who go around saying they're not
true.
I think what Kierkegaard meant was that if your thought proceeds from a set of pre-conceived ideas, no matter what those
ideas are, you're potentially limiting yourself to what you already know. A scientist who believes that the boiling point
of water is 212 degrees Farenheit will be correct in what he knows, but he'll also overlook the fact that a great many things
will change the boiling point of water, like soluble substances and barometric pressure. But to find this out, he'd have to
forget what he knows, continue to measure and question and observe over a period of time. He'd have to be open to new things
and be willing to question what he already understands. And most importantly, in the end, he never has to believe he was wrong:
He just didn't have a full understanding.
When you think of it in subjective terms, Kierkegaard's principle is even more crucial. Like in the movie Old Yeller,
how at the end of the movie Travis had a new dog but, still believing that no dog could ever be as great as Old Yeller, had
shut himself off from any possibility that the new dog had anything to offer him. Then he saw Arliss having fun with the new
dog, and he began to question his conclusions. And again, it didn't make him wrong about Old Yeller.
The problem as I see it is that people think of life and the universe in terms of black and white, right and wrong, believers
and unbelievers, us and them. People take comfort in being right, and to do so they have to be able to point to someone else
who is wrong.
I try not to think that way, and prefer to see possibilities instead. I don't want to make someone else wrong to be right
myself (even though I still think I'm right most of the time). I think life should be more cooperative than competetive. It's
not black and white; it's blues and silvers and reds and golds. I don't think it's about right and wrong; it's about wanting
to do right even when we screw up.
And if you don't agree with me, piss off!
(From the mailbag January 20, 2007)
Of all the things that you've written on your site (and I have read almost all of it) I think the last piece you
wrote on 'possibilities' is your most profound work to date. You start off with a slightly misleading title, but I suspect
that's done on purpose. Then you reference something classical or intellectual or scientific (in this case, Soren Kierkegaard's
tendency to dichotomize faith and history), then a pop-culture reference (in this case, the 1950s-era Disney film 'Old Yeller')
and then you tie it all together, make a statement, then contradict that statement on the last line to get a laugh. Sometimes
I suspect that you would write a ten-page thesis for no other reason than to set up a punchline, though I don't think that's
what you've done in this case.
I wonder if you understand how much you've grown since the short piece you wrote about how morality compares to math? Both pieces are well-stated and valid on their face, but one seems much more enlightened than the other, and I just
wondered if you were aware of the difference? Essentially, the two pieces are mutually exclusive: If moral issues can be compared
to mathematic equations, if there is a right and wrong and the difference is as simple as adding two integers, then how can
you say that you believe in possibilities and cooperation?
I don't mean to be critical, but I'm anxious to hear your thoughts.
~~Deb
Thanks for the email, Deb. It's a far cry from the emails you usually send me that just say how retarded I am.
Actually, I will agree with you (for once) that both of these entries express what appear to be competing viewpoints,
and also that the entry about math is not something that I would write today. But that doesn't mean I think it's wrong; just
incomplete. I don't see things in black-and-white the way I used to, but I am still aware that there is a black and there
is a white.
I think it's very sweet that you took the time to analyze all of this, but it's also kind of scary.
|
