I think I see what you mean. Instead of "Is better to know or to seek to know?" I could be that one both knows and seeks to know. Is that what you mean?
Yes, and I would place a disposition of seeking in there to precede knowing so the seeking and knowing beget one another. You can lead a horse to water......
So, what do you think of his suggested epistemic virtues? Are they helpful, not so helpful, complete nonsense? Should Jonny Robinson just keep his day job?
I find many problems in the commentary. For one, how is "intellectual superiority" a thing? And why is it relevant? Why conflate with moral superiority? What's his metric? How's going to measure that against whatever nameless knowledge and desire his friend garnered while at her second job? How much did that knowledge of climate change help his arrogance overseeing the prospect of comparative knowledge between two people with differing experiences?
So right from the beginning I'm inclined to hand him the toilet paper. He'll need it to clean off his face once he removes his head from his.... well, you get the picture.
Then maybe he can go back to his day job. Maybe.
Then there's the question of fruitless pursuit. By juxtaposing one against the other the possibility of endless but fruitless pursuit exists. U doubt Robinson would say endless pursuit absent any attainment is a good thng. The irony is that very condition might be what the reader observes in the Robinson's argument. This is all the more so if what he supposedly learned about climate change is incorrect
. If it's wrong then he's worse off, not better off, than when he began in the state of not-knowing.
Besides, he starts off with a click of the tv remote
half-heartedly, notwith any intentional pursuit. He's undermined his own argument, again right from the outset. Then... after asserting "pursuit" as superior he states, "
knowledge of the truth might very well have nothing to do with our own efforts or character." Presumably pursuit takes effort. Presumably the kind and degree of pursuit for which he's arguing is a matter of character to some degree.
Give him another roll of tp.
Instead of watching documentaries on climate change perhaps he should develop an interest in the local public television course on the fundamentals of logic.
A portion of the article and therein the word "inquiry" is misspelled. Just saying.
"Ends of the scale" are asserted. Ordinary people understand that as an argument of extremes. Reductio ad absurdum is always and everywhere fallacious. It begs an inquiry about what he knows or doesn't know about theses ends of the scales and certain communities of which he speaks.They certainly don't apply to the social and religious communities to which I belong and my kids were home schooled
.
I can affirm and commend the four "virtues" but I wonder what he means by truths plural. I do hope it is not being suggested there are multiple truths to certain givens. That would undermine his argument. Again.
Put on some gloves and help him get his head of there it seems to be wedged in pretty tight this time.
As to the questions asked at the end of the op, wel, each one might be worthy of its own op and dedicated discussion. Underneath it all is the nature of "knowing" because history tells us knowledge of many things does not endure. much in the human knowledge base changes every 100-150 years. Spontaneous generation was once the known truth and then that schmuck Pasteur discovered micro-organisms. We used to think Newtonian physics was the be all and end all and then those guys Einstein and Planck came along. Cretins. The atom used to be the smallest particle and we were absolutely sure that was known truth until a bunch of guys smashed open one of them and a whole bunch of other stuff fell out.
Knowledge begets pursuit.
Pursuit begets knowledge.
Endlessly.
No false dichotomies needed.
You ask Christians what they think. I wonder if Robinson would consider revelation a valid and veracious source of knowledge.... and the pursuit thereof
.
