From what I have observed in my friends and colleagues over the past several years, everyone believes in something. Most people believe in a great many things, and they disbelieve in just as many things, if not more.
I believe that my father is, in fact, my biological father. I have no absolute proof of this, as I have not had a DNA comparison test performed on the two of us, but I take into account his presence throughout my life, the (amazing) resemblance between us, and his overall impact on my thinking. Before that, as an infant, I believed it almost instinctively, without any consideration for the above elements. I have a similar story about every historical and trivia fact I can repeat, as does most everyone on earth.
I believe in these truths with a great passion. In fact, were you to show me pictures of another man whose DNA matched mine better than my father's, I would have trouble believing you. This is because I have decided that the statement "He is my father" is absolutely true. Similarly, I believe that fire burns my flesh; if you tell me that fire is a soothing moisturizer, I will not believe you because I judge that absolutely false.
All data passes through a filter in the human mind. In the beginning it is merely a truth claim, such as, "Dogs can't vomit through their ears." It has no value to me until I begin to weigh it against what I know. I have observed dogs vomiting through their mouths, and I know that the esophagus is not connected to the ears in any way. Thus, I categorize it either "True" or "False" in my mind (in this case, false). This is the most rational process for categorizing.
More common, though less rational, is the application of a logical fallacy as a filter. If an authority figure tells me saturated fat will clog my arteries, I will have a hard time categorizing it "false", even when the evidence indicates that it is, in fact, false. Similarly, if I accept a faulty premise, I cannot trust the conclusions at which I arrive.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Fundamental Philosophical Truth
"A contradiction cannot exist in reality. Not in part, nor in whole." - Chainfire by Terry Goodkind
This is the most fundamental rule of all logic. Whatever is true, is true. This cannot be disputed, or we have no basis for human reasoning whatsoever.
Do not attempt to bring postmodernism into a discussion, because by making the basic truth statement of the worldview (that nothing is essentially true), you inherently disprove that argument.
The Shakespeare Debate
Today might have began a lengthy debate over the authorship of the works of William Shakespeare. A relatively new friend of mine, whose judgement is as yet uncertain, posited the theory that William Shakespeare was illiterate, and thus could not have composed his famous works. Thus, she reasons, Shakespeare must have been a pen-name for several authors working anonymously.
There is some merit to such a theory. It would certainly explain the wide range of general subjects which Shakespeare's works encompass, and there is every possibility that credit is unduly given. Some have said that Francis Bacon was the author of Shakespeare's works, which would attribute him additional status to that he already possesses.
Fundamentally, however, this question boils down to a few basic questions.
There is some merit to such a theory. It would certainly explain the wide range of general subjects which Shakespeare's works encompass, and there is every possibility that credit is unduly given. Some have said that Francis Bacon was the author of Shakespeare's works, which would attribute him additional status to that he already possesses.
Fundamentally, however, this question boils down to a few basic questions.
- Does the new evidence of authorship possess the strength to overcome what is centuries of common knowledge?
- Does a change in authorship substantially impact the works themselves?
Of course, the answer to question two should be self-evident; a great work of literature is great regardless of its author. Were we to say that Hamlet were composed by a cobbler or a stable-hand, it would not rob the work of its intrinsic or historic value. Indeed, all that is truly called into question here whether William Shakespeare wrote the works, or whether he existed at all. It is but the reputation of the man at stake.
Of the first question I would answer, "No." Nowhere in the writings of Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon, or any of the other proposed authors do they explicitly claim credit for the works, a fact worthy of consideration.
Compared to this paltry, oft circumstantial evidence are the classical evidences for Shakespeare's authorship. Prevailing theory of the day in Shakespeare's time was that Shakespeare was not only an individual playwright, director, and actor, but that he wrote his pieces. He is noted by authors and artists of the day as a playwright of some standing. Numerous testimonies of his existence and work exist from those in his company. A monument was erected in Stratford during the earlier parts of his career, signifying the man as a remarkable individual.
In order for historical facts to be overturned, greater evidence against the fact must be presented than has already been brought forward in its favor. This may be accomplished only by discrediting the original data (again, through concrete evidences), or by presenting data of an exponentially more trustworthy source. To do otherwise is to promote conspiracy theories of the most preposterous sort, insisting that something is false based only upon the desire for it to be so.
Compared to this paltry, oft circumstantial evidence are the classical evidences for Shakespeare's authorship. Prevailing theory of the day in Shakespeare's time was that Shakespeare was not only an individual playwright, director, and actor, but that he wrote his pieces. He is noted by authors and artists of the day as a playwright of some standing. Numerous testimonies of his existence and work exist from those in his company. A monument was erected in Stratford during the earlier parts of his career, signifying the man as a remarkable individual.
In order for historical facts to be overturned, greater evidence against the fact must be presented than has already been brought forward in its favor. This may be accomplished only by discrediting the original data (again, through concrete evidences), or by presenting data of an exponentially more trustworthy source. To do otherwise is to promote conspiracy theories of the most preposterous sort, insisting that something is false based only upon the desire for it to be so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)