The Necessity of Empirical Context in Argumentation: A Concise Analogy
The Necessity of Empirical Context in Argumentation
A Concise Analogy
“The knowledge we acquire in books, at least that based on reasoning which is only probable and for which there is no proof, being composed and enlarged little by little by the opinions of many different people, does not approach the truth as closely as the simple reasoning of a man of good sense concerning things which he meets.”
- René Descartes, Discourse on Method
Good sense and reason come together as one to present themselves as a double-edged sword for the justice-bringer who seeks to wield it as a weapon of utility. Similarly, it may also take on the form of an impenetrable shield of adamantium, which only seems to exist as such within the delusions of a foolish bearer.
I do, of course, think it wise to utilize the sword when it is necessary. I likewise think of the shield in this way, but only after one has a proportionate understanding of both: the properties of which it is comprised and the true intended nature of its practical advantage. Still, yet, these are often insufficient tools when unaccompanied by battle wisdom and a great comprehension of the art of war if one’s intent is to claim victory over the ultimate conflict that is afoot.
Surely, an experienced general, well-adept in such confrontational engagement, would not rush into battle alone or ill-prepared. Surely, he would indeed refrain from advancement toward his enemies if lacking troops to command, a sufficient report on the terrain ahead, and insight into the opposing militia’s advantages, disadvantages, and where its general’s attention lies. Such a man would be labeled an inexperienced fool. Reason may only stand alone, adequately, when its constitution is self-evident.
Comments
Post a Comment