When Less Is More
That said, it’s difficult not to think of the present day as a tipping point (a word used a great deal in discussions of climate change). And since none of us are PhD scientists who have written dozens of papers on the impact of humanity on the environment (at least I don’t believe any of us are) we must place our “faith” into the words we read from sources we have come to trust. That places the four of us at a disadvantage since we are using the words of others to express our dismay about any number of subjects. Even Mr. West is taking his cues more from personal observations and his reading rather than from direct personal scientific research.
These words received from a friend in the course of a discussion via email, have remained with me. The suggestion is that those with credentials, who are engaged in research programs necessarily know better, or know more than philosopher-types who read essays, who use judgment to assess whether a source is trustworthy. I am not convinced. Granted, that receiving a paycheck for gathering data, day to day on the effects of human development on the natural environment, or even to develop a natural language AI product allows one to know a great deal more about that zone of endeavor. And it is good work for those who can get it!
But is a specialist thereby granted leave of “faith” in the matter of interpreting data? Does peer review means that a published paper is trustworthy, and one has no need of judgment, no need of “faith?” Perhaps I am advocating a definition of faith that is dynamic, a robust attention to the direction our senses are pointing with respect to data collected, or with respect to what is written about another’s research…
Perhaps a philosopher, he/she does see differently than a specialist with a Phd in a given field…
“Seeing” has to do with intuiting relationships.
A philosopher is tasked with seeing further, with seeing more.
Perhaps all of us philosophers
are in a bad position nowadays regarding knowledge:
science keeps growing,
and the most scholarly among us
are close to discovering
that they know too little.
But it would be still worse if it were different—
and we knew too much;
our task is and remains above all
not to mistake ourselves for others.
We are something different from scholars,
although it is unavoidable
for us to be also, among other things,
scholarly.
We have different needs,
grow differently,
and also have a different digestion:
we need more, we also need less.
How much a spirit needs for its nourishment,
for this there is no formula;
but if its taste is for independence,
for quick coming and going,
for roaming,
perhaps for adventures
for which only the swiftest are a match,
it is better for such a spirit
to live in freedom
with little to eat
than unfree and stuffed.
–excerpt The Gay Science, Book 5, Section 381 by Friedrich Nietzsche
We must have a tune, something to inspire us as we proceed along our journey. Bruce Springsteen covers one of the great anthems to love, lyrics by Prince, Purple Rain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5sim5B15gQ
2 thoughts on “When Less Is More”
I am heartened that you disagree with my statement . Disagreement is the foundation of learning, for if we make assumptions (which I do on a regular basis) without those who hold us accountable for those assumptions, we would soon transform our guesses into some form of mangled truth. One of the great tragedies of modern life is the transformation of the statements of those with limited knowledge into nonmalleable “fact”.
With that said, I believe there is some context associated with my words above, that might help clarify my initial statement. The sentences below followed the quote from my email:
“This leads us to the inevitable question that those of us who attempt to understand the world around us have wrestled with for close to 3,000 years: What is Truth? And is there even such a thing as “truth” outside of mathematical formulae? My guess is that the answer to the second question is “probably not”. Every bit of information our brains receive is passed through subjective senses that twist and turn that information so it is recognizable in that dark chamber inside our heads. Even color doesn’t really exist, but is perceived based on evolutionary survival, translated by our optic nerve to give us a crude proximity of reality.”
No doubt that some scientific experiments are as intuited as are the musings of philosophers. In addition, many discoveries in the 18th and 19th centuries were made by clever laymen who experimented without training in scientific methodology. Their curiosity and ability to extrapolate their observations led to findings that are still considered breakthroughs in our understanding of world around us. And so it is with philosophy. Those of us who ponder the “why’s” of our environment utilize our limited senses to make what we hope are credible offerings to our fellow musers.
Unfortunately we appear to be living through an era of heightened anti-intellectualism. A time when those who do try to find answers are deemed to be Woke or Nerds or are relegated to being ensconced in a dream world that has little to do with reality. If we then ask the question, “Well, if I’m not grounded in reality, what is your definition of reality?” By asking that very question, many of us are dismissed for overthinking. This is a no-win situation since in stopping a conversation by negating a foundational question, we have nowhere to go and the dialogue is ended. If this kind of interaction weren’t so incredibly dystopian in nature, it would make for a wonderful absurdist play by Beckett. Then again, perhaps we’re already all waiting for Godot (or Guffman).
Shall we wait together for Godot?