"No man who has ever lived knows any more about the hereafter than you and I." - Edgar Allan Poe
I think I spoke well on an important concept last night, so I wanted to put it down. By the end you'll likely find it ironic that I should anchor this post with a quote, as if to give it depth and gravity. The fact that it has been quoted denies its significance, its use contradicts its meaning. But he's right. We give undue reverence to antiquarian sages and coincidental wordsmiths. If you come across something that has already been stated particularly eloquently, then by all means, embrace it, but why do we insist upon canonical precedence? Not scripture specifcally, but the greater cultural canon of our heritage: Plato, Shakespeare, Neitchze, Twain, whoever you want. We drop names as if it verifies a statement's depth and gravity to attach it to those immortal names. Trust me, I'll drop more as the post goes on. There's no denying their genius, nor their eloquence, but eloquence alone is no verification of authority. I can be eloquent. I have a deep voice, deep roots, and deep scars, so what depth is in my words? What depth is in Jefferson's or Augustine's besides the fact that they're old and dead? I'll be old and dead one day; will my words be graver then?
We have read many things; we know the Bible very well, we know history very well, we have studied the intricacies of science, psychology, and sociology, and explored the writings of such literary craftsmen in search of reason. But to what end? I can quote Aristotle and Milton, but that doesn't make me smarter than you. You can quote Jesus and Paul, but that won't give you salvation. You can read all you want; it doesn't make you smart, and it doesn't save you. After all, we could read all the same books, and come out with completely different conclusions, as we have. Not your textbooks, not the Bible, the Koran, Dante, Siddhartha Gottama, Chaucer, or even the unknown author of Ecclesiates who you'll notice I'm channeling heavily. As Poe said, not one of those men knows any more about life and death, the divine, or the supernatural than you and I do right now. Perhaps they do now, now that they've died, but they didn't write anything since then. Nor does one of them know any more than the others, even if he did claim to be the son of God. Not one of them knows any more than a newborn baby. And neither do we. To claim that you do, especially on the basis of some ancient text, is nothing short of blind arrogance. We are not wiser now than we were 6,000 years ago, nor were we wiser then, as the antiquarian in me tends to claim. I'm as guilty of it as you, I admit that, only instead of the Bible, I spout Spinoza. Doesn't make me better, and it doesn't make you better. It makes both of us guilty of a cardinal sin: humility, and undue reverence. Don't assume that just because someone is old and dead, or even particularly eloquent, that they're infallible. Just the other day I went off on a tangent about how Wilson and Lincoln were assholes. Because they were; I don't care if they were presidents. Don't assume that just because we're young and fallible that we can't be on to something. The canon isn't closed. If it was, we would've closed it after Sophocles, maybe Aquinas or da Vinci if we stretch it. But if we can add Einstein, Whitman, Thoreau, and Ghandi in this modern era; if we can still add Dawkins and Dennett in the Twenty-First Century, maybe there's still room in the ivory tower for Watson, or you, or somebody like one of us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
