“The pleasure we experience in seeing a beautiful cathedral reminds us to admire the church’s architect. How much more should viewing the universe’s infinite variety stir us to praise the Beauty of its Creator. Consider, for a moment, the whole of creation. The splendor of the starry skies, the various flowers in a flower garden, the stately majesty of a cluster of trees, the melodious songs of birds, the variations of creatures in the animal kingdom, the sense and intellectual faculties of a human person, are like so many voices that praise the Beauty of their Author. Words fail us in our effort to describe adequately what the beauty of the universe tells us of the Divine Artist’s Beauty. Does triumphant music come closer to expressing God’s Beauty?” Bruce Ashford quoting Saint Augustine’s reflection on Psalm 26
Throughout human history, our ancestors have tried to make
sense of our being in the universe by focusing on things transcendent. The basis of this inquiry really led to the
formal inquiry which would soon become philosophy and theology - and the basis
of the modern university. It is our
concern with these four transcendental values – the Good, the True, the Just,
and the Beautiful that have given us the pillars on which to build a more
enlightened community. It is the
second Transcendental, Veritas (Truth) that I wish to turn my attention to
today.
You cannot walk 10 steps at Harvard University across the
Charles without coming upon its logo proudly proclaiming its worthy mission in
a single word. Veritas. That leap of faith not only is the guiding
principle for all who are fortunate to have professional life there, it is the
promise that it makes throughout the centuries to continue the proud habits of
being concerned with things transcendental.
Veritas – the truth – always seems filled with multiple
paradoxes. In order to base your entire
reason for being and professional life on such a belief, one must first accept
that We can actually know truth. That
said, we tacitly understand that the most important truths are sometimes
unknown and unknowable. We still
try. The efforts that we put into
discovering truth remind us how important they are when we find them. Harvard was first established because the
act of knowing truth (Veritas) is a way of coming to know the mind of our
Creator (Harvard was established to allow young farm boys to become ministers).
Sometimes, we know that we are close to the truth because of
a visceral resonance that “moves” us.
It shakes our soul. It is the
sensation that the Nobel Laureate, Romaine Rolland called the sensation of the
Oceanic. This is an altogether
different feeling than the savage raw animal emotion we have become all too
fond of, like the roar of the crowd at a professional wrestling match. Here, we are well aware that the whole
spectacle is simply an act - a staged falsehood (how ironic that our Education Secretary
was once in charge of this spectacle).
When we replace this raw emotion as a fake substitute of the
moments that truly move us, we become less human and cease searching for the
mind of our Creator. This is the
tragedy that essayist Neil Postman alludes to in his brilliant “Amusing
Ourselves to Death” (he also warned us of the same urges in his “End of
Education”).
For Christians, our Guide is the Way, the Truth, and the
Life (These are all capital to remind us of the transcendental). We know how difficult these are because the
founder of our religion had to suffer and die, largely because he made so many angry
by hearing Truths (Veritas) they never wanted to heal. Veritas is not only difficult to attain but
once attained often makes the teller of it a target. We need to remind ourselves that this
Veritas exists outside what the common belief is. Ask Galileo. What we think, and whether we like what we
hear has no bearing on the Truth of things.
Veritas.
Scientists know that they are getting closer to the truth of
things, the mind of the Creator, when they try to prove themselves wrong and
have a more difficult time doing so with each attempt. The reason for these attempts at
falsification (and the eyes of keen editors) is to keep scientists from
appearing foolish for advocating claims not resonant with the truth. Just because some can convince a third of
her fellows of a false claim, the claim remains false and they remain a fool
(or worse, a liar).
When a university capitulates to a fool and does not defend
Veritas, it ceases to live up to its centuries old tradition of searching for
Truth (as best we can). No wonder people
no longer take universities seriously.
Absent this commitment to single-mindedly fight for Veritas, there is no
reason for the university to exist.
There are far less expensive ways to train for a job.
I challenge those inside the university to redouble their commitment to Veritas. This is why tenure is such a serious and sacred privilege. Scholars understand that some Truths are so difficult for the masses to accept that those whose life it is to discover these inconvenient and sometimes dangerous Truths can risk personal dangers. Therefore, if you have been honored by the recognition of tenure, investigate truths dangerous enough to enjoy that Privilege. And remind all around you why the word is on every building and letterhead. It is a sacred duty and a protection from those fools who believe they know all and should not be challenged by facts.
*Mark Twain is the pen name of a well-respected friend of the Higher Education Inquirer
[Off-Topic] I think that Lisa Feldman Barrett could be a practical example of what we can call "Hyped Science", that is kinda similar to Pathological Science yet it's not the same thing, since Hyped Science, or Hype Science, is something that indeed exists yet that it's not like the entire thing, and Hype because that's what is mostly promoted by science communication, academic papers, and news media, despite in practice it's more complex than that, it's basically somewhere between Pop Science and Pathological Science, in short. I think this concept of Hyped Science could be used for explain Neuroscience / Cognitive Science studies that often pathologize entire political/social groups (like the ones against LGBTQ+, against Religious/Spiritual people, against Leftists/Socialists/Communists/Western Dissidents/Western Critics/etc), studies like the ones of Jimo Borjigin regarding NDEs and Dopaminology/Dopaminocentrism, studies like the ones about brain development at 25 years old, Neuroeugenics / Psychoeugenics / Cognitive Eugenics and so on. I came with this concept while arguing with an Anti-Voidpunk, Anti-Plurality / Anti-System, and Anti-Alterhuman / Anti-Nonhuman on Instagram on a page about dunking Shapeshifters with pop science and pop thermodynamics (yeah pop thermodynamics is a term about oversimplification of the laws of thermodynamics and of physical/biological systems, if yk what I mean). Regardless if Lisa Feldman Barrett is right or not, this concept of Hyped Science or Hype Science could be very useful for sure. https://hagioptasia.wordpress.com/2024/03/29/a-critical-evaluation-of-lisa-feldman-barretts-how-emotions-are-made/
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of science as a spectrum and of humanity as a spectrum. Since we can also divide humanity into humanity as in biological, humanity as in cultural/psychological, and humanity as in caring about the others, same can be said about Voidpunk / Alterhumanity / Otherkin / Therian / Nonhumans. Yeah, it's really amazing to think about that, despite I agree that science per se deals with the norm, not with the exception. That's the why the arguments regarding Pop Thermodynamics or Hyped Thermodynamics or Pathological Thermodynamics often completely miss the point, like in the case of biological systems where hormones are responsible for regule the body's thermodynamics as well can see with PCOS and Hashimotos.
Delete