A wonderfully relevant passage from David Brooks’ terrific book The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement, ht NM:
Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. Epistemological modesty is the knowledge of how little we know and can know.
Epistemological modesty is an attitude toward life. This attitude is built on the awareness that we don’t know ourselves. Most of what we think and believe is unavailable to conscious review. We are our own deepest mystery.
Not knowing ourselves, we also have trouble fully understanding others… Not fully understanding others, we cannot get to the bottom of circumstances… Not fully understanding others, we also cannot really get to the bottom of circumstances. No event can be understood in isolation from its place in the historical flow.
And yet this humble attitude doesn’t necessarily produce passivity. Epistemological modesty is a disposition for action. The people with this disposition believe that wisdom begins with an awareness of our own ignorance.
The modest disposition begins with the recognition that there is no one method for solving problems. It’s important to rely on the quantitative and rational analysis. But that gives you part of the truth, not the whole. – pg 245-46
Read more on and from Related Posts
-
Another Week Ends: Brooks on Empathy, more Quiet Beatle, American Commandments, Kaling on Chick Flicks, Meth to Master, Pre-Marital Hanky Panky, Psycho Congress, Tweedy & Ryan Adams
-
The Inner Totalitarian
-
Another Week Ends: Louis CK, Sam Spade, Prevailing Grace, Heavy Metal, Axl Rose, Viennese Creativity, Cabin in the Woods, and yes, more Damsels in Distress
8 comments
Orrey says:
Apr 14, 2011
But are we pawns in a game whose Triforce we largely fail to comprehend?
Tom says:
Apr 17, 2011
And yet, we have science, medicine, architecture, engineering, literature, and the other not inconsiderable achievements of western civilization. Surely one would call these, in part at least, the fruits of rationality successfully brought to bear on reality. If so, what lesson ought we to draw from our susceptibility to error of various kinds? We cannot simply give up on our efforts to be rational, can we?
Todd says:
Apr 18, 2011
Ha, Orrey, the Triforce? I’m sure that the triforce is both revealed and known (Gal. 4.6.), though the ‘other’ force of Sin complicates things, to be sure.
On The Mark says:
Jun 29, 2012
Given no more than this tiny post to go on, I must say Epistemological Modesty sounds a lot like Relativism.
Pingbacks/Trackbacks
Reason’s Void and The Human EPS | Mockingbird says:
Apr 25, 2011
[...] it today, is insufficient and that the powers of emotion and love have more of an impact on the brains’ capacity for decision-making than we ever thought possible. To prove his point, he uses the study of [...]
Martin Amis Doesn’t Know (And Neither Do You?) | Mockingbird says:
Apr 26, 2011
[...] of one’s limitations than agnosticism. We might even consider existential ignorance, that is, the subjectivity and fallibility that imprison us, to be our defining trait, that when this self-evident reality is compromised (in any way), the [...]
A Momentary Lapse of Reason(ing) | Mockingbird says:
May 13, 2011
[...] And while it doesn’t quite take into account the emotional aspect of decision-making (Herr Brooks has that covered), there’s a lot here to chew on. A recent article on Edge relates an [...]
American Individualism and the Slow Death of Rational Choice Philosophy | Mockingbird says:
Jun 28, 2011
[...] self-evident philosophical misgivings about its validity. If it sounds like a chapter from The Social Animal, that’s because it sort of is. The ethical implications that he outlines are particularly [...]