Thursday, October 22, 2009

you can('t) believe everything you read

In order to keep this post short and sweet, I just want to ask an open-ended question and see where the conversation leads us:


Is it appropriate to read any text as authoritative, or to read texts in an uncritical fashion?


In order to clear any confusion on what I mean by this let me provide some examples of what I mean:

- Reading news articles without stopping to question the sources or the biases (intentional or unintentional) of the author/journalist. This includes news from conservative, liberal and "non-partisan" sources.
- Reading history books without questioning their interpretation of the events, their significance and what they may have left out by virtue of space or limitations. 
- Interpretations of law and political theory. Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, wrote that "we hold these truths to be self evident..." But are any "truths" genuinely self-evident? This question applies to "strict interpretation" of political documents/laws and interpreting thse same documents as "living" and "dynamic."
- Perhaps most controversial of all: spiritual traditions, religious scripture and subsequent commentary. While this absolutely does not only apply to Christian texts and traditions, but to all religious and philosophical traditions. 


I'm interested to hear comments from everyone on this.

2 comments:

@mafost said...

Yes. Pleasure texts like the comics or a good novel can be approached uncritically, and possibly an instruction manual for a product you purchased.

Bill said...

Actually, if you have read stuff by Robert Pirsig, reading a manual for a product uncritically does the product and the concept of Quality no good either.

Approaching ANY form of literature uncritically does the whole concepts of literature, discourse, knowledge and truth a huge disservice. No human is infallible, and therefore is not above criticism, be it constructive or otherwise.