SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neocon who wrote (13608)5/16/2001 6:50:43 PM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
My personal belief is that some element of originality is a requisite component of "deep thought". The works of Kant and Hegel were deep thought for Kant and Hegel. If I memorize and regurgitate them, though, that is not evidence of deep thought on my part. It is not evidence of anything but an uncommon gift for memory, and perhaps an uncommon tolerance for tedium. Learning the works of all the great thinkers does not mean necessarily that one has thought deeply. It does not mean that one has thought at all. If one can contribute an original perspective on the works in question, there is evidence that thought is coming into play.

While originality may not be preferable to truth, it is often preferable to orthodoxy (which frequently masquerades as truth). I recall a discussion of Rousseau on one of these boards, in which old J.J. was catching a good deal of abuse for proposing ideas that, in light of current knowledge, seemed pretty absurd. I pointed out that the contribution of Rousseau was not the production of ideas that were "accurate" or "true", but the cracking of a rigid intellectual edifice that had long obstructed inquiry in certain areas. Rousseau's ideas may not have been "true", but his challenge to orthodoxy allowed the quest for truth to be pursued down avenues that were not previously available, and that is a significant accomplishment.