THINK ANEW!
-Be not the slave of your own past. Plunge into the sublime seas, dive deep and swim far, so you shall come back with self-respect, with new power, with an advanced experience that shall explain and overlook the old. (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
MY IDEAS are radical. They are unorthodox. They are, perhaps, even strange. But this is only how they appear; in truth, you already know them.
They appear this way – radical, unorthodox, even strange – because conventional, orthodox, and what some oddly call "normal" ideas have saturated our minds and thus drowned our creative common sense. In other words, we have gotten so used to prescribed doctrines, absolute dogmas, traditional philosophies – all of what I call "textbook thinking" – that we see no need to invent new foundations, new frameworks, new paradigms for thinking about the world. We dare not question established theories – especially ones promoted by powerful men. We give others authority too easily.
"But," some will say, "why reinvent the wheel?" (to borrow from a cliché). Or worse, some will say, "Many wiser men and women have lived before I, who am I to challenge tradition?" I say, every man deserves, at the very least, freedom of thought: he who does not challenge tradition is its slave. Ironically, while physical slavery is excruciatingly painful and humiliating, mental slavery is easy and fun. We feign humility for the sake of ease and comfort – ease for our minds, comfort for our bodies – and continue in ignorance, or, at best, in "lesser wisdom," because of it.
Be humble in the way you present your ideas, not in the way you think. In your mind there are no restrictions society can place on you, no tax the government has the right to collect from you. No one is offended when your voice is only in your head, when your actions occur behind your eyes. Einstein will not be upset if you prove him wrong, nor will Shakespeare object to your unique turns of phrase; in fact, they would, if they were true seekers of wisdom, be delighted if you disabused mankind of the inferior foundations upon which they have given us to stand. Provide us with superior foundations! As long as you know that whatever happens in your head, and thus everything you say and do, is fallible – only a single perception of an infinite truth – you will truly be humble in your conduct, and truly be capable of great things.
Yes, hundreds of books are being written every day, and I by no means intend to criticize, ignore, or belittle the accomplishments of the myriad great minds of the past century and today. But, when I read newspapers, magazines, websites, blogs, academic journals and books, and, especially, when I hear debates in the media, I am disappointed that most great minds today frame their ideas and arguments in traditional paradigms, constantly referring to the labels provided by archaic schools of thought to both couch and validate their thoughts. (And, tragically, some do it just to show-off: "Look at me! I can make obscure references! That means I'm smart!")
In no other field is this kind of textbook thinking more prevalent than in philosophy and the greater social sciences, especially as they are reflected in the media. The physical sciences, by contrast, are filled with innovations and are continuously awash with new ideas. Though, of course, general principles remain, new things are always being invented. Technology continues to evolve at a faster rate every second, whereas it is especially hard to "invent new things" in philosophy or any social science because matter is easier to manipulate than thoughts, which are without form and thus imposssible to "control" for an experiment. This is not to say one science is easier or harder than the other (I failed algebra and chemistry in college!), but the process of evolving our thoughts to move closer to the absolute truth happens to be manifesting more quickly in the physical sciences (especially technology) than in the social sciences. And this is because of the nature of truth: the truth of matter is, to a large degree, incontrovertible; the truth of thought is, to a large degree, inconclusive. Hence the dependence on already-agreed-upon and pre-conceived notions, which act as the closest thing we in the social sciences can get to 1 + 1 = 2. But some of us depend too heavily on such old paradigms; we are not bold enough to challenge the great thinkers of the past.
Some, especially young men, are too bold and reject great thinkers of the past altogether; the most vehement attacks on Shakespeare I've heard – worse than Tolstoy's – have come from 13 year olds (I was one of them!). These people are also slaves – slaves to their own ignorant pride, whereas the other kind of slaves rely too heavily on tradition either for sentimental purposes or because they are lazy.
Both extremes are futile. The middle way is always the most fulfilling path to take in your thoughts, though it is the most difficult and complex – and the most dangerous to present to the world, which loves its slave-master: tradition.
Ralph Waldo Emerson once said: "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
And this is what I intend to do in the intellectual field of political science, or, as I like to call it, political philosophy.
And this is why I said you already knew my seemingly radical ideas: They are based on very simple and general assumptions – universal truths that have for so long been slaves to traditional lies.
MY IDEAS are radical. They are unorthodox. They are, perhaps, even strange. But this is only how they appear; in truth, you already know them.
They appear this way – radical, unorthodox, even strange – because conventional, orthodox, and what some oddly call "normal" ideas have saturated our minds and thus drowned our creative common sense. In other words, we have gotten so used to prescribed doctrines, absolute dogmas, traditional philosophies – all of what I call "textbook thinking" – that we see no need to invent new foundations, new frameworks, new paradigms for thinking about the world. We dare not question established theories – especially ones promoted by powerful men. We give others authority too easily.
"But," some will say, "why reinvent the wheel?" (to borrow from a cliché). Or worse, some will say, "Many wiser men and women have lived before I, who am I to challenge tradition?" I say, every man deserves, at the very least, freedom of thought: he who does not challenge tradition is its slave. Ironically, while physical slavery is excruciatingly painful and humiliating, mental slavery is easy and fun. We feign humility for the sake of ease and comfort – ease for our minds, comfort for our bodies – and continue in ignorance, or, at best, in "lesser wisdom," because of it.
Be humble in the way you present your ideas, not in the way you think. In your mind there are no restrictions society can place on you, no tax the government has the right to collect from you. No one is offended when your voice is only in your head, when your actions occur behind your eyes. Einstein will not be upset if you prove him wrong, nor will Shakespeare object to your unique turns of phrase; in fact, they would, if they were true seekers of wisdom, be delighted if you disabused mankind of the inferior foundations upon which they have given us to stand. Provide us with superior foundations! As long as you know that whatever happens in your head, and thus everything you say and do, is fallible – only a single perception of an infinite truth – you will truly be humble in your conduct, and truly be capable of great things.
Yes, hundreds of books are being written every day, and I by no means intend to criticize, ignore, or belittle the accomplishments of the myriad great minds of the past century and today. But, when I read newspapers, magazines, websites, blogs, academic journals and books, and, especially, when I hear debates in the media, I am disappointed that most great minds today frame their ideas and arguments in traditional paradigms, constantly referring to the labels provided by archaic schools of thought to both couch and validate their thoughts. (And, tragically, some do it just to show-off: "Look at me! I can make obscure references! That means I'm smart!")
In no other field is this kind of textbook thinking more prevalent than in philosophy and the greater social sciences, especially as they are reflected in the media. The physical sciences, by contrast, are filled with innovations and are continuously awash with new ideas. Though, of course, general principles remain, new things are always being invented. Technology continues to evolve at a faster rate every second, whereas it is especially hard to "invent new things" in philosophy or any social science because matter is easier to manipulate than thoughts, which are without form and thus imposssible to "control" for an experiment. This is not to say one science is easier or harder than the other (I failed algebra and chemistry in college!), but the process of evolving our thoughts to move closer to the absolute truth happens to be manifesting more quickly in the physical sciences (especially technology) than in the social sciences. And this is because of the nature of truth: the truth of matter is, to a large degree, incontrovertible; the truth of thought is, to a large degree, inconclusive. Hence the dependence on already-agreed-upon and pre-conceived notions, which act as the closest thing we in the social sciences can get to 1 + 1 = 2. But some of us depend too heavily on such old paradigms; we are not bold enough to challenge the great thinkers of the past.
Some, especially young men, are too bold and reject great thinkers of the past altogether; the most vehement attacks on Shakespeare I've heard – worse than Tolstoy's – have come from 13 year olds (I was one of them!). These people are also slaves – slaves to their own ignorant pride, whereas the other kind of slaves rely too heavily on tradition either for sentimental purposes or because they are lazy.
Both extremes are futile. The middle way is always the most fulfilling path to take in your thoughts, though it is the most difficult and complex – and the most dangerous to present to the world, which loves its slave-master: tradition.
Ralph Waldo Emerson once said: "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
And this is what I intend to do in the intellectual field of political science, or, as I like to call it, political philosophy.
And this is why I said you already knew my seemingly radical ideas: They are based on very simple and general assumptions – universal truths that have for so long been slaves to traditional lies.
posted by Samuel Saltman | 4:51 AM
|
1 comments
