From a letter to a friend where we were discussing the "narrative" in some political theories and "The Sorcerer's Apprentices" who try to realize them:
I remember where I was when I realized there was a geometry separate from Euclid. I was absolutely stunned by the loss of the absolute. The substitution of consistency for truth, accuracy for understanding, facts for knowledge just astounded me.
When Popper compared Einstein and Freud, he felt Freud not falsifiable and so not science. But it was a consistent narrative.
Now we have string theory and multiple universes: Consistent--but falsifiable?
Fiction is easier than math. Fiction is basically a lie, but as a representation of life, it is, in essence, true. So in popular discourse, something untrue but representative of a larger, true theme is generally accepted. So the metaphor is generally true. Truth is a generality.
A lot of the "narrative" talk now emphasizes the insincere. I think that is a legitimate concern--especially in public life--but less interesting than the basic direction here which seems to be a repudiation of the optimism and the progress promised by the Enlightenment. That revolution has brought us to its own denial.
So, I guess, maybe the apprentices are unemployed.
No comments:
Post a Comment