I know this may come as a shock to some of you (wink), but there actually is a limit to how much we can know, at the very least conceivably, in our lifetimes. It's worth noting in this age of modern, insta-google knowledge and in which information pours out of every conceivable edifice and into our bewildered and overstimulated minds which respond by dropping the defenses out of shear exhaustion. There are only so many stories about celebrity skin rashes and so many cialis commercials we can take before it all just becomes a blur and we don't really know what it is we're taking in any more. And yet, that isn't really the point I want to make. My thoughts aren't on how much we can know (though that is a valid discussion as well), but rather on what we can know. In other words, I've been thinking an awful lot about the limits of knowledge.
This is a topic that may seem rather common-sense, and yet, I think it's easy to fall into the trap of fallaciously believing (rather purposefully or fancifully) that we can solve the biggest questions of our age. Especially as college students, and I certainly fall into this category and this trap, it is unbelievably easy to think that one is going to tackle the age-old problems that have been sitting there unsolved for millennia. When we're being really honest with ourselves, however, I don't think we can truly believe this. This isn't to say that one shouldn't try to solve the difficult problems that plague us, but I think a little bit of practicality can go a long way. What I aim for is a common-sense, middle-of-the-road approach to personal philosophy. By recognizing that there are limits to knowledge, but in quantity, and in substance, we can hopefully avoid some of the vain pursuits which have quite often taken over metaphysical speculation.
My aim here is what Socrates strove for in the first place: philosophy in humility. The ability to ask questions and approach sensitive topics with humility and grace, and yet with the eagerness of a child. Along with this, comes realistic expectations in terms of gain. It is both unuseful and unfruitful to aim at something which will have no practical matter to it in the slightest, for if nothing else, philosophy should be attempting to get at what really is, and how to understand it. Therefore any speculation which has no greater application to life as we live it than making our minds run round a track like thoroughbreds is fit as a mental exercise and no more.
All of this is to say, I'm starting to think that a practical philosophy by itself is the most wise course of action, and that prolonged discussions and arguments about things we will never be able to get to the bottom of, though at times fun and mentally stimulating, is very often pointless. Reading back over this (I originally wrote most of this very early a couple mornings ago...) I realize this is really quite a disorganized jumble, and I apologize. Any thoughts? Critiques?
2 comments:
Well, I think I agree. Though on some subjects I would assume that we do not yet know the limit of knowledge in substance in many areas, and so while it may be limited, should still be pursued.
In a recent discussion I had, the practical benefits to believing or not believing double predestination arose. I would argue that any truth , especially revelation (Truth), must have value, even if the only value we may see currently is the glory of God. Such pursuits are for us to understand our God better, and that is practical enough, is it not?
Perhaps you are referring more to philosophy to which I am sure there are dozens of impractical questions. Yet, I wonder, perhaps the practical application of understanding and pursuing the questions, for a Christian, is to be able to enlarge your sphere of influence so as to witness more efficiently to the lose...just a thought I have entertained before regarding philosophy.
D. Schmidt -- I didn't want to sign in to my account.
You're absolutely right. I actually even thought about putting in a sort of caveat, saying that some fields obviously are just really difficult. The hard part is knowing which ones fit that description versus those that fit the profitless ones. One of my professors openly voiced the opinion that some aspects of modern metaphysics, for instance is just so far about our sphere, there really is no way we can reach an answer about them; particularly when the only way to attempt an understanding is to essentially pretend to know the mind of God, which much of it does.
I'm going to sort of answer both your second and third paragraph together, because my thought fits along the same lines here, and you sort of jumped ahead of me a bit, which is great. I would say that yes, I would place a sort of curtain between philosophy and theology here. Not a huge one, because I think they can and should talk to each other, but I think there is a difference that should be noted. Predestination is actually a great example, and the first one that came to mind. In philosophy, the question of how liberty/determinism is a hot one, and one which at this point is fruitless. Because there is no basis for what causes (or doesn't cause) what, we are stuck in an endless loop whereby anyone arguing for liberty can always be asked hte question "why" and take it back a level, and even a full libertarian falls to the notion of themselves "determining" their actions. So, Philosophy is locked in an endless struggle with, at least in my opinion, a default position of hard determinism. Now, in theology, we have something to appeal to: We have scripture. And I think we have evidence there that is very clear in favor of, at the very least, a hard/strong idea of compatiblism, if not a light form of determinism. The concept of predestination is very clear, and I think double-predestination, though less clear, still has plenty of support. Thus, I think in theology, we can be a little more stodgy in our beliefs where we have scripture on our side. We still need to act with humility, but I think there is a little more give in terms of practicality.
And just a quick thought on your last point, because I think it is both a very valid and a very good one. We do still need to be well-versed in even "fruitless" discussions, if only to be able to speak more ably in confession and witness. Did I spur any more thoughts?
lol...Good to hear from you. Doing alright?
Post a Comment