"The difficulties of a relativistic ethics did not lead to a critical reappraisal of relativism, because there were countervailing ethical and political reasons that inclined political theorists to relativism. To see these reasons, we must return to normative political theory's and existentialist historicism's common antagonist: positivism. The failure of positivistic social science to reflect on politically and morally important issues is the unintended consequence of the appropriation by modern man of what one of the fathers of modern mathematics and therefore of the scientific method called 'the problem of all problems, which is: to leave no problem unsolved' (Vieta, 1968, 353). The method by which all problems are to be solved, however, requires a seeming reversal of man's natural priorities. Whereas according to out natural judgment 'the slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of the lowest things,' the scientific method demands that 'we should attend only to those objects of which our minds seem capable of having certain and indubitable cognition (Descartes 1988, 'Rules for the Direction of Our Native Intelligence,' Rule 2; see also Aquinas 1945, Summa Theologica q1.a5.r1). but the original intention of this reorientation is not to ignore but to solve the great problems of metaphysics and ethics."
When do you remember first wondering about nature and your role in it, and how did you articulate that wonder? Do you remember letting go of something as a child to see what would happen? When you let something go, were you thinking about Newton's laws of gravity? I suspect not. When you flew a kite, did you consult your aerodynamics equations? When you and your friend both grabbed for the same pail in the sandbox, did you think about conflict resolution techniques and how the power relations between your ethnic and social status and your sandbox companion's ethnic and social status affected the grab for the pail, or whether your grabbing was consistent with morality? If not, do you think you know more about yourself today with your knowledge of Newtonian physics or aerodynamics or psychology or sociology or religious training? Perhaps you do. I have come to the conclusion that I don't, and that I must begin from as close to the beginning as I can, that is, how did I experience the world as a child. In effect, I must try to observe, without the filter of intervening years, the impressions, objects, other people and my own thoughts made on me. To even begin to address the problem of problems, for indeed self-knowldge in my view is that problem, I must return to the beginning. How about you?
4 comments:
Let me start by saying I have a lot to learn and know very little.
I'm not sure if I'm big on this self-examination, as I've said before, it is merely vainglorious. You will find yourself, and the meaning life itself, in love and service to your fellowman.
As the best scientific theories find themselves in simplicity, life itself can be found in simplicity. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I have a starting point: righteousness.
Channel your energy not into this task, which is fruitless, but say, "How can I improve the life of my neighbor?" This doesn't mean only rank servitude, though no one should consider himself above it. It can mean designing a new medical device that saves lives or arguing the case of the poor widow. This will put you on the narrow path and eventually you will find your life.
"Those who love their life will lose it and those who lose their life for the sake of righteousness will find it."
Each one of us has been capable of self-knowledge since the day we were born. I believe God gave us the abilities to seek and achieve self-knowledge, yet He did not give human beings all of the answers to do this. This is one reason why He gave us the gift of life - so that while living it we can learn from our past experiences. For instance, disputing over a sand shovel when we are little kids can provide a learning tool later on in life when we are engaged in a similar conflict. If God wanted us to be all-knowing, then we would have had as much knowledge regarding conflict resolution at a young age then we would have as an adult. Of course, rather than demanding the shovel, later on in life we learn to compromise. This is an example of self-knowledge.
I often fail to listen to others, and even to you, my brothers and friends, though I value your thoughts without measure and rest upon your words. I don't have all the answers, my understanding being limited by my faults and inexperience. I fail to remain pure in heart, seeking God's truth at all times and in all places. With this in mind, here is a follow up on the pursuit of self-knowledge.
The pursuit of self-knowledge, at least as I understand it, is nothing more than the vain pursuit of self-conceit. Merriam-Webster defines conceit as the "excessive appreciation of one's own worth or virtue." I'm not saying your thoughts on the matter are vain or conceited, on the contrary, they are quite wise, but that the proposition itself is the wrong one.
Pursue not the knowledge of self, for you are nothing, you will return to dust and ashes in due course. Pursue not the knowledge of men, for you will be overturned by a later generation. Instead seek the knowledge that endures through all the ages, which doesn't wither or die, the knowledge of God and his righteousness.
The knowledge of God is found in love and charity, love and charity found in service to others. If you seek to love or know the self, where is the reward in that? Seek instead to love and know others, make their conditions your own, suffer with them, rejoice with them.
Hold not onto money, for money will kill you, corrupting and destroying the soul. Use your money and talents in the service of others. This service must extend beyond your family and friends, unto those you hardly know, unto complete strangers, even unto your sworn enemies. For if you serve only those who serve you, what are you doing differently than everyone else?
If you are seeking to know yourself, walk in the right and holy path. If you are looking to find your life, this is the way.
Thomas Doolitle, one of our wise and pious ancestors, the holy Puritans, taught us:
"Love shows the true character of a man, according to the object which he loves more than anything else: for as is the love, so is the man. According to his love, so might you confidently designate the man.
If he is a lover of honour, he is an ambitious man; a lover of pleasure, a sensual man; and if he chiefly love the world, he is a covetous man.
If a man loves righteousness, he is a religious man; if the things above, a heavenly-minded man; and if he love Christ with a pre-eminent love, he is a sincere man."
I also question the value of theoretical schemes (political, scientific, psychosocial) in building knowledge of oneself. It seems very often that academic study provides merely a vocabulary for communicating impressions one has deeply felt even before knowing that they were a shared and studied phenomenon. The question comes down to whether one can understand something without being able to verbalize it. If we can understand ourselves without having names for our feelings and behaviors, I suppose we turn to academic theories for but confirmation of our own thoughts, finding comfort in someone else's systematization of our occasional musings.
Post a Comment