It's funny to think about how at any one moment on this earth there is close to 7 billion different and unique thoughts occurring at one time. That's a lot to think about...and a lot of thoughts to think them. I find this to be one of those "What the hell is the water?" moments that the young fish had in DFW's short story at the beginning of his address. Thoughts are so complex. One second I may be trying to figure out what Jake is telling us in class and taking notes intensively then all of a sudden I look out the window over University Avenue and I'm immediately thinking about how much I love Firehouse Subs. Thoughts are constantly running in and out of people's head and many times we find ourselves thinking about things randomly or without even trying to think about them. Thoughts are encouraged by our environment around us. What one sees, hears, smells, etc. can cause him to perceive things and think about things in his own unique way. How I analyze a text and how one of my classmates analyzes a text could be totally different because the way we both take in and think about what we are reading is different. In this sense, the beliefs we hold are motivated initially by our own thoughts on how we perceive what is brought into our lives. I'm Christian. I was not always Christian but upon learning about the faith and thinking about whether it is something I want to be a part of or not motivated me to hold my beliefs in Christianity as my religion. The liberal arts education, as noted by DFW, prizes "tolerance and diversity of belief." Through this tolerance and diversity of belief the liberal arts education does not motivate people to think about other's opinions as wrong or dumb, but inspires people to accept all opinions, thoughts, and interpretations as valuable pieces of knowledge unique to an individual. The problem I have with this- and the problem I believe DFW has as well- is the fact that as one may accept or deny another person's thoughts on a subject, he never takes the time to find out why that certain person thinks that way. This, as DFW states in his address, is due to a matter of arrogance in not wanting to know why a person thinks or believes a certain way but accepting the belief as not their own and moving on with what they think to be true. When people are engaged in an argument many times it ends by one saying they do not disagree with what the other is saying but they still think their own side to be true. Or the the cliche phrase "agree to disagree." As I sit in the dorm and argue with one of my friends I can acknowledge that he is not wrong on the subject of choice but I still may not agree with him. I would say there is a level of arrogance involved in such conclusions with many arguments that end this way because the argument essentially gets nowhere (I do acknowledge, however, that this is not true for a lot of arguments). What I believe DFW wants people to do - and what I think to be true for that matter - is the idea that people should take the time to find the origin of another person's thoughts and ideas about an argument or interpretation on something. When one searches for the origin of a thought he finds the true meaning behind it; he finds the unique perception one experienced when created his own belief about a topic. I believe that when we eliminate finding the origins of thoughts we are always left wondering "What the hell is the water?" even if we do not realize it. If we can acknowledge the fact that we live in a world with almost 7 billion different people and the fact that all these people think differently (the water), I believe we start to figure out what the water truly is. To realize this, however, takes a critical awareness about oneself and what one believes to be true by becoming less arrogant and more aware of the world we live in.
EXCELLENT reading, Hunter. This is precisely the kind of thinking through the article I love reading. I think that while we probably can't find the one "true" origin of one's beliefs, we can at least investigate the REASONS for those beliefs--not in order to then dismiss them, but in order to engage someone on their own terms.
ReplyDeleteI too get frustrated with default "relativism" in thinking. "I respect your opinion," which sometimes can merely be a polite way of saying "I think I"m superior because I can tolerate your beliefs and accept 'everyone' no matter what"
This is problematic to me and I think Foster Wallace believes that this can be dangerous thinking.
Alternately, finding reasons for people's believes can also be dangerous, particularly if we then move from "this is the reason" to "this is the justification." Example:
John D., a child molester molests children because he himself was molested as a child.
If we say that somehow that excuses him from responsibility, then we have a major problem. People only seem to be "accepting of everyone" when (they think) it does not actually affect their lives and then pride themselves on the fact that they are so "tolerant" and "liberal."
Still, I think it is important to look at reasons and "origins" of our thoughts--of our choices. This is precisely what I am hoping this class is allowing you guys to do.