Here is my thought for the day: You can generally judge the depth of a thinker and the value of his/her thoughts by how familiar s/he is with the thoughts of others.
There is a difference between a person who has formed ideas, and a person who has formed ideas in the context of other thinkers’ ideas. Generally speaking, those who are ignorant of the insights and developments of others in the past and present, have a very limited, and often skewed perspective. They are likely to miss the big picture, repeat the mistakes of others in the past, or fail to account for something simply because they have yet to consider it.
Those who form their thoughts in a vacuum from other thinkers tend toward error. I often hear preachers preface some remark by saying, “I didn’t get this from no man. The Lord revealed to me straight from the Good Book.” Whenever I hear that, I know chances are that what I’m about to hear is probably off-base. And it usually is. As Charles Spurgeon said, “It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.” Those who try to reinvent the wheel without knowledge of past wheel makers, never do a very good job at it.
Those who have conversed with the thinkers of today and yesteryear, however, will tend to have a much better, more informed perspective. They tend to be more balanced, and aware of their intellectual limitations. When I read something someone wrote on the topic of theology or philosophy, I’m looking at the footnotes to see what sources, if any, the author has used. It’s usually a good indication of the quality of work I’m about to read.
When it comes to theology and philosophy, we would be stupid not to pay attention to what others have said before us. It is the epitome of hubris to think others (particularly those in the past) have little or nothing to offer us. 99.99% of what we know is inherited from the intellectual labor of those who came before us. If we ignore them, we are only left with 0.01% of true knowledge. Woe to us if we attempt to think in an intellectual vacuum.
November 15, 2008 at 7:59 am
While I generally agree with the arguments presented in your post, I disagree with the opening statement.
You can generally judge the depth of a thinker and the value of his/her thoughts by how familiar s/he is with the thoughts of others.
Original thought can occur in a vacuum. I would contend the the yard stick we use to evaluate a contribution should be measured by the impact it has on society and the field of study or science it advances.
Just some musings this morning…
All in all, a great blog you have going on here!
LikeLike
November 15, 2008 at 8:02 am
A question as well. What is your opinion of the Theosophical Society formed in part by H.P. Blavatsky?
LikeLike
November 15, 2008 at 10:18 am
Ryan,
Thanks!
Notice I used the word “generally.” But the exceptions are few. Can you name me anyone who comes up with novel and true ideas without being familiar with what others have contributed to the field (be it theology, philosophy, chemistry, physics, etc.)? Don’t confuse my claim. I’m not saying no one comes up with novel ideas. They do, all the time. I’m saying that when people form opinions about matters, and they do not form them against the background of what others have thought and said about the topic, their conclusions will often be skewed.
As for my opinions on the Theosophical Society, I think some of their aims are good, but overall it’s bunk. They are a pluralistic hodgepodge of people who are all seeking truth, but are never allowed to find it. Their guiding philosophy is neither Christian or true.
Jason
LikeLike
November 16, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Very good Brother! No, not at this time. I did not see the “generally” before. Perhaps Abram and his view on the godhead as one in a time of pagan idolatry, but that would be going back a few years! 🙂
God bless,
Ryan
PS the title of your blog reminded me of this group… thus the question. 😉
LikeLike