Anti-Expertism

“But it is this very reality–the tragedy of being in its dispensation–that is the secret of philosophy’s power; for it can thrive as a deductive enterprise, able to move from the world to the world’s principles, only insofar as what is, is what must be; only because being must appear thus, constrained to these manifestations, and only because being must express itself in beings, is metaphysics possible. With these maxims presumed, it is a matter less of discernment than of sensibility or style whether the philosopher will build according to the immense crystalline architectures of the Platonic universe or seek to tear the edifice of idealism apart in a delirious abandonment to the pathos of inescapable immanence; whether he will pursue the adventure of the Concept or wallow in the carnage of ‘difference’; whether he will while away the hours in a ceaseless discrimination of substances from their accidents or remain in a condition of suspenseful and thoughtful attendance, awaiting the next glimpse being grants of itself through the veil of its ‘destinal’ epoch.” — David Bentley Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite

In other words, philosophy finally comes down to rhetoric.

There was once a young boy who had to choose between his parents. The boy with his sister was led to the judges chambers and asked, ‘If you had a choice, who would like to live your mother or your father?’

The boy thought to himself, ‘this is an impossible question. A child is supposed to live with both his parents,’ and, while he was mulling this over, his younger sister blurted out, ‘my mother.’

The boy was caught in a quandry. He, after his sister answered, felt a desire to live with his father (for a boy, after all, loves his father in way that he cannot ever love his mother). Yet he did not want to choose between his parents for he loved them both very much. Besides, he was still a naive child who figured this answer was final. This terrified him.

But it was too late: the question had been posed–whether or not he choose to answer the judge–and, in turn, had become a legitimate, academic question (these are the most terrible of ALL questions) in his mind. The boy, thinking it was better that he and his sister live together, made his decision, against his own judgement, and declared that he would prefer to live his mother. And so they did.

‘But teacher,’ said the most beloved disciple, ‘I am unsure whether the boy’s decision was the right choice.’

The teacher said, ‘Dear friend, the boy’s choice is irrelevant. Violence was done when he first began to look at his parents as options.’

Not long after college I had the opportunity to talk to Landon Jones who, last I heard, still resides in Princeton. To be honest, I do not remember much of the conversation. I am sure it was good advice but what I most remember is a brief statement he made, “most people, I find, are concerned with either/or when it is often a case of both/and.” Almost obsessively, I have been wondering why someone–anyone–would claim such a thing. Don’t hear what I am not saying: it is perfectly reasonable (and possibly correct) to conclude such a thing, but it does lead one to wonder what sort of suppositions cause the conclusion. Besides, what about the “neither/nor” option?

Upon reflection, I came up with this loose categorization:

• either/or — Grounded in the classical thesis/antithesis, those who find this appealing also tend to favor the Greeks and scholastics.
• both/and — Hegel synthesis of thesis/antithesis, there is a tendency to prefer historical development.
• neither/nor — Deconstruction, the desire to step outside of the traditional categories, think outside of the box, distaste with the historical but not for the same reasons as classical thought.

I am sure these ‘pathologies’ have their problems, but there is merit, no?