Reply #1
Hey Allison! Thanks for tag commenting (haha) – you should just send the blog questions you have! Here’s what I have to reply with:
“how can you say everyone’s philosophy is their own and then make a blanket statement that it is synthesis and new creation – not indoctrination – that define truth? How can we say all ideas are moving and changing except THAT idea that they are? Isn’t that a self defeating premise?”
I think you have misinterpreted what I mean a little bit (correct me if I’m wrong!). When I say ideas transcend the individuals that hold them, I don’t mean they can’t be altered – quite the contrary, I believe each person takes an idea and alters it just the tiniest bit when they work it into their own mental model. I think it’s a pretty far stretch to assume everyone has the same interpretation of an idea down to its most infinitesimal parts – the ones that conjure up inarticulate feelings and images and impressions. I think bits of Truth have been revealed and continue to be revealed – but the search for them means discarding the things that do NOT resonate as Truth, and keeping only that which has been revealed and maintains its truth. Indoctrination is not seeking; it is a passive acceptance of another’s idea of truth. I’m simply saying that the ideas of others should be considered and appreciated, and then taken for the parts that work and the ones that don’t, instead of lumping them all together in one big “he is disqualified as a thinker because he hated women!” or “he has no relevance because he was of an upper class and never knew the struggles of the working poor!” or any other such claim. Surprisingly, many people react to the person and their qualities instead of reacting to the ideas that the person professed. With old thinkers, whose daily lives and actions we cannot witness firsthand, it is important (in my opinion) to not shirk their ability to think and to sometimes find Truth just because some of their other ideas were not wholesome.
I’m not sure what you mean by the second sentence; I don’t think I expressed anywhere in the paragraph that ideas remain stagnant. As I said previously, I believe quite the opposite. Now the implications of my idea of individual interpretation are a bit of a hassle because when they are taken to the macro scale it makes a person ask if – beneath all the interpretations – there is a kernel of real, unequivocal truth to be found. I don’t pretend to know the answer to that, and I don’t know if this journal entry is an absolute that should be applied to all areas of life. However, when dealing with past minds and past thoughts, I think it is a helpful thing to remember. Can’t wait to see you soon (and I’m working on your letter!)