Like most projects and journeys, there always comes a time where it becomes necessary to reevaluate the original purpose or goal in light of the new evidence at hand. In my quest to understand what is true I have reached a point where I need to step back and reevaluate my approach. In my original statement on my approach to discovering the truth I said that I was going to use a systematic approach to assimilate a coherent set of truths that would be based upon a well accepted set of assumptions. After a month and a half of searching I have realized that my original goals are not actually possible.
The reason it is not possible is because there are no coherent set of truths based upon a well accepted set of assumptions. Unlike the field I am used to, the hard sciences (physics), there is virtually no common ground that anyone can come to an agreement on. In physics, when there is disagreement on a particular issue it is almost always possible to retreat back to a common ground where most people can agree. I have found though that in the fields of history and philosophy, there is very little if any common ground to retreat to. Ideally I would like to take a completely objective approach and start from scratch, but based upon the fact that I can find no common ground or set of truths that anyone can agree upon, this seems like an illogical and fruitless approach.
At this point the more logical approach, at least based upon my background, is very similar to the scientific method. I must start with a hypothesis and perform a thorough inquiry to determine if the hypothesis is correct. In science a hypothesis is something that you believe may be true, but are unsure of and hence need to determine if it is true or not. Once the hypothesis is shown to be true or false you can use this knowledge to move forwards. But what is more important in the hard sciences than whether or not the hypothesis is true is why it may or may not be true. In the hard sciences the reason why something behaves the way it does is usually the knowledge of greatest importance.
In my quest I must use a similar approach. I must first start with a hypothesis, but since there is no common ground to begin with, my hypothesis must be what I currently believe to be true. The ultimate goal then is to understand if and why there is a good reason to believe what I believe. This requires a survey of the available knowledge and a determination of whether it is reasonable to hold such a belief. If the belief seems unreasonable compared to the alternatives, then maybe I should take a step back and reexamine.
The only reason science has been as successful as it has been is because it has a systematic approach to growing our foundation of knowledge. But this systematic approach is based upon using a set of well accepted assumptions, laws and theories. It has been fruitful because it starts from a point of reference and grows from that point outwards. However, based upon the lack of agreement in this new arena of history and philosophy, in my opinion, the only logical reference point is what I currently believe to be true. To reject everything and start from scratch seems like such a fruitless approach because there is no clear direction and no definitive starting point. A phrase that is often used in science is “reinventing the wheel.” I have no intention of reinventing the wheel. I would prefer to start from the current position I am in now and thoroughly investigate and challenge my beliefs to make sure that they do not conflict with reality.
Another issue I must address is the breadth and depth of this investigation. After just a month and a half I have been overwhelmed with just how deep one can wade into any of the issues I am interested in. I have found myself well over my head in details that at this point in time are beyond my comprehension. It has become obvious that what I believe is not exactly clear. Part of this quest will be a refinement and modification of my beliefs as they stand today, but I must not allow myself to dive too deeply into the fine details until I have firmly established what it is that I presently hold to be true. I must cover a wide breadth with little depth. Along the way, some things will become more clear to me, while others will become more questionable. Rather than pursue every one of these questions immediately, I leave them as inquiries for another time.
The final issue is the time frame. It will probably take me at least a year or two just to establish my beliefs as they stand today and to develop the list of questions that I will pursue. At that time I can allow myself to fully immerse myself in the questions that I have and explore them to the extent that I see necessary. I have noticed that each one of the questions that I have gathered thus far are questions that are not easily answered. Each question has literally years worth of reading to fully understand, which leads me to the realization that this is truly a life long journey. There may come periods of time where I lose interest, drive or desire to push forwards and will take a few years off, but I will most likely return when new questions, experiences and life circumstances deem it necessary to continue my journey.
Now that I have redefined the scope, breadth, depth and time frame of my journey I do not feel so overwhelmed with the shear mass of knowledge that awaits me. For now I must remain content and realize that even though the information is out there I must be patient.
