The most difficult part of this question, for me at least, has got to be how we go about defining “knowing” or our means of knowing things. I would argue that our “way of knowing” is derived from the world around us. Generally held societal norms, values, and viewpoints are impressed upon all of us. Our perceptions are deeply tied with what is held to be common knowledge, such as the fact that no, mermaids are not chilling around in the western Atlantic. To address the question regarding whether or not our way of knowing is better than that of Columbus, I would posit that we are 500 years less superstitious.
In the past 500 years, we’ve made it a fairly long way in terms of advancement, both technological and intellectual. We have discovered that areas on maps previously marked with “here be monsters” do not actually contain monsters. We have knowledge of, or at least knowledge of the existence of an “other”. The general amount of knowledge has increased, and individuals are more able to pool more from this to make better or more accurate assumptions with their worldview. Our “way of knowing”, which I will interpret to mean “how things are determined to be true”, has improved as well. Instead of relying on religious texts and institutions, and the information (or, perhaps more commonly, misinformation) inductively reasoned from them, we now look to conglomerates of credible and experienced scientists to discern hard facts about the universe. We don’t, however, look to them for the complete answers for everything, and I think we have become more likely to acknowledge the fact that we may not necessarily understand the cause of a particular event, and less likely to point to superstition or religion to explain it.
This is not the fault of Columbus, or anyone really, there is no blame to be cast, it is simply a circumstance of the times. People in his time simply did not have the access to, or the sheer amount of knowledge. And with relatively limited knowledge, they assessed things as best they could. Certainly in 500 years, people will look back at us and marvel at our simplicity and naïve worldview.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You made a really great point that in 500 years from now, people are likely to feel superior to the way people in 2008 thought... our way of knowing will seem so basic compared to the new technological advancements that 500 years will procure. I agree with you that this doesn't necessarily mean that one way of knowing is better than the next, but rather that different times call for different measures and that all one can do is use what resources are available.
Post a Comment