inquisitive

[a proud sponsor of higher learning]

Every now and then a scenario is brought to my attention that really gets my gears cranking, mostly hypothetical ones, you understand.  This one was pretty fun.

Delusion: purpose?

Suppose someone says “You know, it seems to me that it would just be easier to pick something to believe and go with it.  I mean, what’s with all the questioning and evaluating?  Really, what’s the point?

Seclusion: where we were..   Centuries ago, man took for granted that the solar system, indeed the entire universe revolved around the earth. People also believed that the earth was flat, and to sail to the horizon would mean that you would perish by falling off the edge. It was taught and learned that there were four elements to all things: earth, air, fire and water. Things were awfully simple, and understanding was merely a tangent of buying into the mass ignorance of the populace without question. Few could not, however, in good faith, do so.

 Socrates, while we revere him for his intellect and wisdom today, was persecuted for questioning even the most simple of truths in his quest to know. Given the choice, he drank poison rather than simply exist without questioning everything and everyone he saw. This, he believed, was the only path to determine what could be perceived as real or true wisdom.

 There is certainly precedent for this belief. We, as a species, no longer believe in an earth-centered universe, despite the long struggle with religious zealots and self-serving empires, and we were finally able to come to understand the truth. The idea of a heliocentric solar system, itself, was enough to have Galileo persecuted for challenging religious doctrine by supporting Copernican-based science. Newtonian physics faced similar challenges after an apple bonked Newton on the head and he asked “what the hell was that about?” (or something similar, I’m sure). Throughout the history of mankind, to challenge ignorance and question what is blindly accepted as “true” is often accompanied by some kind of punishment or revulsion, seemingly because man has an innate need to feel important, even separate from nature. But does that make it wrong simply because it proves more difficult? No, ironically, it is probably what makes it right. It is the questioning, itself, that drives us, provokes us, and propels us into the future.

 Seclusion:  where we are..  The birth of democracy, itself, comes from free-thinking questions. Would the American Revolution had ever taken place had not enough people began to ask “isn’t there a better way?” One can only free himself from blinding ignorance through honest inquisition. Certainly, it would be more comfortable to remain in Plato’s Cave, but can an intelligent being really allow himself such erroneous comfortable ease? For those in our past who attained significant religious or political power, in an effort to maintain the status quo, the answer would be “yes, absolutely.” For those who care to know the difference, the answer isn’t so easy.  Just imagine where we might otherwise be right now…

 Questions are exploration, they drive us to know, dare us to challenge, and compel us to contemplate.  They represent an innate ability that we alone seem to possess, unique to the human creature.  A question can lead to reason, forethought, or careful consideration.  As far as we know, we are the onlybeings on this planet capable of such things.  It seems logical that we take advantage.

We can list off materialism, pragmatic thought, the taoist yin-yang, architecture, chemistry, biology, quantum physics, and a whole host of other concepts that were the direct result of someone asking the right question at the right time. Could the Buddha have attained enlightenment without questioning his own life as compared to others? Doubtful. Questions fuel innovation, birth invention, and lead, inexorably, to the truth of things. We can see, in retrospect, how much more we know of the human body, for instance, how it functions and the effect of medications all because someone wasn’t afraid to question what we already “knew.” Descartes, for example, in his quest for certain knowledge, put everything that could possibly be taken for granted to doubt. Using this “methodic doubt,” he questioned his senses, knowledge given by others, mathematics, indeed nearly everything one might assume as being knowledge rather than potential figments of one’s imagination. Eliminating nearly everything, he was finally able to focus on something he could count on without question: the fact that he was doubting. Until that point, everything his mind could list was at question, and therefore, under intense scrutiny.

Seclusion: where we are going..   Our history is filled to the rim with situations in which “we knew better,” when, in fact, we didn’t. We can look back on those people who supposedly “knew better” and laugh at their ignorance and even wonder, in amazement no less, at how they could be so small-minded. I am forced to wonder, however, what will humans be laughing about regarding present ignorance that WE might have today, as we go through life with our heads held equally as high as those before us, claiming that we, indeed, “know better.” I prefer to assume to know nothing until I at least question or dissect it in some fashion. To know a thing is to question it from every possible angle.

 Conclusion: inquiry..  Why question anything? Why NOT question everything? We have made so many strides toward understanding the world, even the universe, in which we live by doing so. Despite what other, narrow-minded people might think, we have nothing to lose by inquiring, honestly, to further our grasp on our idea of reality. You ask “what’s the point?” I can only smile and say that’s a good question, and, therefore, a good start.