On Attending Intelligently to the World
L.B. Meyer:
But to choose prospective certainty over present insight is both mistaken and misguided. It is mistaken because the search for final, definitive answers is an unattainable goal for those concerned with understanding and explanation. For, since the future is open and influential, it can change our understanding both of past compositions and of past historical events. It is misguided - paradoxically so - because the enduring monuments of scholarship, which have shaped men's minds and beliefs, far from being cautious and circumspect, have been those which illuminated a relationship, a work of art, or a past epoch through a bold, encompassing hypothesis.
Now if only i thought it was really that simple...
7 Comments:
You call infinite complexity and ceaseless (re)speculation simple?
no. that was my point. it is not as simple as it looks in ink on paper, at least with these words.
and anyhow, i was referring mainly to the first sentence...
Do you think he's right?
i don't know. i don't want him to be right.
you?
Taken out of the paragraph, I can agree with the first sentence completely. I would have to qualify his subsequent expansion, particularly where he claims "the enduring monuments of scholarship . . . have been those which illuminated a relationship, a work of art, or a past epoch through a bold, encompassing hypothesis." While the enduring monuments are often "encompassing", I have serious reservations about the claim that they are always or even often so (though it is no doubt the encompassing hypotheses that we notice most often), and also serious reservations about Meyer's claim that they are neither "cautious or circumspect". One does not need to be looking for prospective certainty to be cautious or circumspect.
So, I guess the short answer is: maybe, maybe not. Depends on how you gloss it.
Post a Comment
<< Home