A Little Anger With The World
Note: Awkwardly written, it made sense when I was writing it, but it looks like, perhaps, it is not written in a way available to anyone else's sensibilities.
They speak of what they know clearly, because it has been read and so they have it in confidence. The irony is bypassed, that they already know that what was written has been disproven quite absolutely. Meanwhile, if it's not read somewhere, then they can twist and turn on it with the written word for the credence due to the written word for having been put to script as can be found in this world readily.
Yet if it's spoken of and as that is it true, then clearly we need to heed the new answers that are actually true... but since those answers weren't written yet, then no one will heed them. So it is, everyone reads the old letters, which were written already and disproven already, at the expense of the new answers, which were thought and perhaps were spoken.
It may be mentioned that we should not reinvent the wheel, but they seem to be ignoring that wheels have existed since long before tires and treads, yet those things center and demand on th eworking mannerisms of a wheel. In their operation they depend on designs of wheel that did not previously exist in the days of the trebuchet. The idea of making things, when something already does their job, is essential to approaching days where progress is achieved and superior methods are acquired.
So, it goes back from that... when you've read something, and everyone knows it's not right, you need to figure out that it's not right before you shoot down new ideas; especially if you're shooting them down because what you read disagrees with them. You have a responsibility to actually hear the new idea and consider its merit. Aristotle would not have known what to do with a computer-based calculator upon accidentally stumbling on one, and the general consensus that God is beyond human imagining means your conception of God is not going to match the real thing no matter how evolved you think you are going to be in your interpretation.
If someone says something you don't agree with because of your own previous readings on philosophy, try to remember where the criticisms of those philosophies stood, where your understanding on them actually is, and on what you base your opinion of the thing you're hearing. Last I checked, human reasoning is always flawed, so a human understanding of the process of reasoning cannot have had much opportunity to discover and study true reasoning. It will have only had flawed and incomplete examples to work with. If somebody promotes a reasoning that disagrees with the methods you've read, are you sure your written methods actually deserve the worshipfulness to shoot the new idea down so readily?
What I'm trying to say is... listen. I'm really just living in a convoluted attempt at screaming it into people's heads that they need to try to be understanding of what others are conveying by listening to it and hearing it out. Disproving others and proving yourself against others may feel good, but be reasonable. If someone is stating a finding it may have points that don't agree with you, but know that they aren't talking for your pleasure and try to consider them in a realistic light by listening. There's nothing wrong with thinking they're wrong, but there's certainly something to credit about being willing to find out if they're right before you've started up on the criticisms. If you aren't even going to bother knowing what someone was saying, leave alone on the need to disqualify their subject matter. Listen. You don't have to talk to listen.