A friend of mine came across a quote by Keats:
"At once it struck me what quality went to form a man of achievement, especially in literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously-I mean negative capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason - Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half knowledge." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_Capability).
Having given it a thought, he told me how interesting the quote is in that he finds the distinguishing feature of great thinkers to be their ability to paradoxically swing between relentless pursuit of truth and childlike acceptance that not everything can be resolved.
I acquiesced to his analysis on the outset with a strong exception that great thinking does not surmise right thinking. The problem is, thinking great without the right knowledge of the object of the thought itself can only produce from the mind a sterile philosophical discourse.
An acceptance by "great thinkers" that not everything can be resolved is invalid, for its premiss is based on a faulty assumption. Principles cannot be drawn from personal intellectual and experiencial limitatitons. The mere fact that "great thinkers" cannot resolve everything does not mean there are no less thinkers who may get everything right. People like to air out their opinions more than telling what they know. They shy away from their self-imposed limitations and hide behind sophistry and intellectual arrogance.
The right knowledge of reality of and about everything is the necessary ingredient for us to get everything right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
One very useful tool in commerce is the cost-benefit analysis. In this analysis, one measures the total costs of undertaking a certain project against the total benefits to be derived from undertaking the project. If the costs outweigh the benefits, the project is not undertaken, otherwise the project is pursued. What if the pursuit of truth ought to be tackled by way of cost-benefit analysis? What if we all ought to make individual cost-benefit analysis before pursuing certain truths? We all have unique circumstances to which we seek to find answers. If I suffer from a certain allergic reaction, i am compelled to find out the allergens causing my pain in order to prevent future allergic attacks. Another person not having the same ailment will not find it logical to go to all the trouble of finding out about the allergens. In other words the costs of pursuing the truth of the nature of the ailment are most likely to outweigh the benefits. His individual cost-benefit analysis informs him that it is profitable to be ignorant about the allergy - ignorance is after all bliss for him. Continuing further with the ailment analogy, if i am told i have only 3 months to live, if presented with a possible cure it will not be profitable for me to first study the nature of the cure before taking it - i will be dead by the time i am done with the study! In other words the costs of pursuing the truth about the nature of the cure (little time left) outweighs the benefits (satisfying yourself as to the validity of the cure). I therefore would like to propose that certain truths are not worth to be pursued, the quest for the truth is dictated by relative circumstances and it's by appreciating this axiom that right thinkers "would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half knowledge."
Thinking great without the right knowledge of the object of the thought itself’, this assumes that thoughts are pre-existing entities, outside of the mind that possesses them. I do find it mysterious that great minds could swing back and forth between their relentless pursuit of truth and the assumption that not everything can be proven.
I however think that this was not a swing in anyway, but an acceptance that all logic was illogical, that in fact all sense is senseless. The only way we can make sense of the world we live in, is by accepting as true, things that do not make sense at all. Once a man accepts blindly the illogical sense of nature as true, then he can think freely and mightily?
I do not agree with you that principles cannot be drawn from personal intellectual and experiential limitations. I think all principles are derived from personal experiences, be it intellectual or otherwise. This again I think assumes that ideas are pre-existing objects outside of ‘us’. All thoughts are a product of our limitations. We do not discover thoughts, we create them.
‘The right knowledge of reality of and about everything is the necessary ingredient for us to get everything right.’ The right knowledge is not necessarily a necessity to get everything right. I got this little definition of right on the net: Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality. What I found interesting about this definition of the word here is that ‘right’ is subjective. The pursuit of truth should be objective and factual.
Thato says ‘I therefore would like to propose that certain truths are not worth to be pursued, the quest for the truth is dictated by relative circumstances’.
May nature be with you.
Peace.
Modimo
Post a Comment