(Untitled)

[fpb]

With the passing of years, I become more aware of the faults in my character; and especially of that savagery that enters my speech and behaviour every time I face something that is, in my view, really unacceptable. That I become, at such moments, quite offensive, is something of which I am more and more conscious; though I do not grow,

Comments

[izhilzha]

Well, admittedly I have not read any of your other posts/comments pertaining to this particular issue, but I would like to say just one thing.

While I suppose you are correct in stating that to many people "challenging one's assumpitions" means challenging without regard to knowledge, truth, competence or authority, I did want to raise the point that this is NOT true for everyone.

I would say that my learning--in school, then homeschooled and reading widely, then university, and more reading--has depended *greatly* on challenging my own assumptions about life, the universe, and everything.

Not debunking them, necessarily, but challenging them to see if they hold up to what I am learning; if facts, truth, and the competence of those who have specifically studied areas I cannot or have not, support what I already think or have learned from someone else.

You said: What this has to do with the famous quote "the wisest of them all confirmed that he knew only this, that he knew nothing", is that the widest learning, if taken with a

[fpb]

Unfortunately, in modern Jesuit circles, "challenging the Church's assumptions" means being rude about the Pope. I have evidence of this, among other things, in a couple of books written by authors from Heythrop College, the Jesuit-run college of London University.

[fpb]

What I am trying to say, above all, is that "challenging assumptions" is, at best, an epiphenomenon or secondary result of looking for the truth. Often it is the opposite that is the case: the truth reinforces your assumptions. In modern Biblical and historical studies, there is a genyuinely nasty academic fad called the "hermeneutics of suspicion", which I described in my "History of Britain 407-597" as "a nearly universal will not to believe. Documents are doubted on principle; objections are raised on the thinnest grounds; horrifyingly complex schemes of development are proposed; and above all, the evidence is examined to pieces, each item being challenged separately rather than seen in context." I was speaking of the way every document that might help us to understand the figure of St.Patrick better was ripped to piece in interpretation. I did the opposite thing, took the documents seriously, and I think I came up with what is at least a very defensible and very coherent account of the Saint. I have known of people who, on

"hermeneutics of suspicion"

[patchworkmind]

Yikes. I know all to well what you mean here. I run into it constantly, on topics ranging from history to religion to politics to, well, every damn thing. Suspicion for its own sake. The slogan "Question Authority" began, as far as I know, from an urge to question government, not to question absolutely everything to the point of absurdity, but it became, as so many great things and ideas have fallen to, fashionable.

It's easy for some people to be "intellectual" when all they have to do it claim such authority on the delusional basis that there is no authority. It's insane, but people fall for it, always looking for "experts".

[privatemaladict]

Can I make a little suggestion about the anger issue? It's probably totally useless, but there is a slight chance you haven't thought of it

[rfachir]

There are too many disciplines I just "don't get," and I value people like you who are kind enough to try to explain them to me. Sometimes are more painful and less fruitful than others, but I appreciate the effort.