page 2/3
E.F. Schumacher author of Small is Beautiful Harper & Row c.1977 E.F.S.
_A_Guide_for_the_Perplexed_ isbn: 0-06-090611-1
1. On Philosophical Maps (001)
p2c All this and many other similar things I was taught at school and
university, although not in so many words, not plainly and frankly.
It would not do to call a spade a spade. Ancestors had to be treated
with respect: they could not help their backwardness; they tried hard
and sometimes even got quite near the truth in a haphazard sort of way.
Their preoccupation with religion was just one of their many signs of
underdevelopment, not suprising in people who had not yet come of age.
Even today, of course, there remained some interest in religion, which
legitimized that of earlier times. It was still permissible, on suit-
able occassions, to refer to God the Creator, although every educated
p.3 knew that there was not really a God, certainly not one capable of
creating anything, and that the things around us had come into exist-
ence by a process of mind-less evolution, that is, by chance and
natural selection. Our ancestors, unfortunately, did not know about
evolution, and so they invented all these fanciful myths.
The maps of ~real knowledge, designed for ~real life, showed nothing
except things whcih allegedly could be ~proved to exist. The first
principle of the philosophical mapmakers seemed to be "If in doubt,
leave it out," or put it into a museum. It occurred to me, however, that
the question of ~what~constitutes~proof was a very subtle and difficult
one. Would it not be wiser to turn the principle into its opposite and
say: "If in doubt, show it ~prominently"? After all, matters that are
beyond doubt are, in a sense, dead; they constitute no challenge to the
living.
To accept anything as true means to incur the risk of error. If i limit
myslef to knowledge that i consider true beyond doubt, i minimize the
risk of error, but at the same time i maximize the risk of missing out on
what may be the subtlest, most important, and most rewarding things in
life. Saint Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle, taught that "The
slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more
desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things."^2
"Slender" knowledge is here put in opposition to "certain" knowledge, and
indicates uncertainty. Maybe it is necessarily so that the ~higher things
cannot be known with the same degree of certainty as can the ~lesser
things, in which case it would be a very great loss indeed if knowledge
were limited to things beyond the possibility of doubt.
E.F. Schumacher author of Small is Beautiful Harper & Row c.1977 E.F.S.
_A_Guide_for_the_Perplexed_ isbn: 0-06-090611-1
1. On Philosophical Maps (001)
p2c All this and many other similar things I was taught at school and
university, although not in so many words, not plainly and frankly.
It would not do to call a spade a spade. Ancestors had to be treated
with respect: they could not help their backwardness; they tried hard
and sometimes even got quite near the truth in a haphazard sort of way.
Their preoccupation with religion was just one of their many signs of
underdevelopment, not suprising in people who had not yet come of age.
Even today, of course, there remained some interest in religion, which
legitimized that of earlier times. It was still permissible, on suit-
able occassions, to refer to God the Creator, although every educated
p.3 knew that there was not really a God, certainly not one capable of
creating anything, and that the things around us had come into exist-
ence by a process of mind-less evolution, that is, by chance and
natural selection. Our ancestors, unfortunately, did not know about
evolution, and so they invented all these fanciful myths.
The maps of ~real knowledge, designed for ~real life, showed nothing
except things whcih allegedly could be ~proved to exist. The first
principle of the philosophical mapmakers seemed to be "If in doubt,
leave it out," or put it into a museum. It occurred to me, however, that
the question of ~what~constitutes~proof was a very subtle and difficult
one. Would it not be wiser to turn the principle into its opposite and
say: "If in doubt, show it ~prominently"? After all, matters that are
beyond doubt are, in a sense, dead; they constitute no challenge to the
living.
To accept anything as true means to incur the risk of error. If i limit
myslef to knowledge that i consider true beyond doubt, i minimize the
risk of error, but at the same time i maximize the risk of missing out on
what may be the subtlest, most important, and most rewarding things in
life. Saint Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle, taught that "The
slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more
desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things."^2
"Slender" knowledge is here put in opposition to "certain" knowledge, and
indicates uncertainty. Maybe it is necessarily so that the ~higher things
cannot be known with the same degree of certainty as can the ~lesser
things, in which case it would be a very great loss indeed if knowledge
were limited to things beyond the possibility of doubt.