There be dragons!

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Quickly on hope and inquiry

I am struck by the frequency of others to question the validity of statements rather than inquiring into their merit. Why is it that we (myself included) have more of a tendency to doubt the validity of what another person says rather than inquire into whether what they are saying has some meaning that we don't yet see? I'm thinking of the frequent criticism of the psalms or of recognized philosophers (such as Plato or Aristotle) each of which seems to be perceived by more sage thinkers of the modern era as potential targets open for hunting down and killing rather than as potential veins of gold open for mining. Those works accepted for so many generations as sapiential are dismissed quickly b/c they do not fit our more elevated sensibilities. I think this is an egregious error for it shuts out far too quickly the ability to see in the work of others answers to the very questions we have ourselves. Thus, in our zeal to shoot down the great artists and thinkers, we only wound ourselves. Thus we make the attainment of hope that much more difficult as with each generation we work laboriously to find a clue that leads us out of the labyrinth of the mind.

1 comment:

  1. Trinity, for all its excellence in exposing kids to great works, carried with it the one great flaw of assuming that humans respond naturally to beauty. I don't think so and haven't since the days that I attended Trinity in the 80s. Humans respond and continue to respond to a thing according to their nature and unless their nature is forced to change through training and applied insight they will see things as cheap , annoying, fascist, or stupid. People after all see things according to who they (the seer) are, so most insights are more revelations into the soul of the seer rather than into the thing itself.