If our guiding principle is, difficulties encountered in the arguments of others, be they written or oral, indicate that there is a "problem with you [the supposedly intellectually curious one]", this leads to a certain bad conscience. A point at which, as Nietzsche would say, you cannot be done with something. But we do have to be done with things. And there are badly written philosophical texts, and people who make arguments that are simply incoherent or self-contradictory.
Although this didn't come up in the class meeting last night, it seems like it should be said. There are probably lots of other difficulties with intellectual curiosity.
For example, is there never authentic boredom? Heidegger thinks that there is, and believes that this is the condition necessary for a fundamental attunement.
I'm intellectually curious, if you have suggestions ...
Perhaps some texts could be incomprehensible, but isn't the obligation on us to figure out what it means by asking questions or putting the puzzle pieces together? Puzzles can be boring or fun. If the arguments are self-contradictory, then it is also our obligation to ask the right questions, find pores in the arguments, criticize them, and use what is there to construct a better argument. However, I think self-contradictory arguments are like a dead chicken, should we keep poking on it with a wooden stick or should we grill/roast it with other ingredients? So, I think the limits reside on the strength of the arguments.
ReplyDeleteAnd my question is that is it necessary for us to be done with things? And should there be limits? Or is it just us who see the limits?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA person can be expert on things like music and biology, and have 40-50 years of experience but he/she will always know that there is always something new out there to discover and ponder about these subjects, it almost seems like these bodies of knowledge glisten with promise of new knowledge, more descriptive, more precise, more detailed, but not quite final. So there is always room for intellectual curiosity. Curiosity is a desire to find out. Like any desire it can be satisfied, but only for some period of time. It emerges again and again.
ReplyDeleteIsn't a boredom simply a flip side of curiosity. When the mind satisfies its intellectual cravings, it becomes bored for a moment.
I think the point of boredom hinges on the idea of what we consider boredom. If it's the idea that this (material/book/task/etc.) is boring because it is not interesting to me, then that is a matter of the lack of intellectual curiosity in the subject matter. On the other hand, the universal idea of "I'm bored," when combined with intellectual curiosity, can only exist, in my opinion, if we assume it is possible to know everything and that that stage has been achieved.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, is it possible not to be intellectually curious about a subject? Or would that signify that there is something wrong with that person?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete