Thursday, October 04, 2007
the nature of knowledge
This part of Arcadia intrigued me in particular, and I wanted to get other people's opinions. Tom Stoppard introduces the concept that knowledge is cyclical. The library of alexandria and all the knowledge it contained was burned, as was the hermitage's wealth of the apparantly lunatic scribblings of a madman (genius). Thomasina's own mathmatical musings (iterations), though abandoned by the originator, were taken up again years later by Valentine. I think that although some knowledge is discovered repeatedly, humans are making a general progression into as of yet undiscovered material. I realize that I may well share Valentines bias, but I still am having a hard time believing that knowledge so revolutionary to us in the 21st century may have been discovered long ago the first time around. I am struggling with the concept that advanced though we may view ourselves, knowledge as Stoppard would have it is more cyclical than progressive - that all the literary works of alexandria will one day be rewritten. At the same time, but through a literary lense, with archetypes as evidence, I can see how some aspects of knowledge can be considered tried and true. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I rather agree with Tom Stoppard that knowledge is cyclical, but I think each time the circle repeats it gets larger. I don't think everything we do has been done before, but I do think there is the repetition over time of things being lost and remade.
What aspects of knowledge do you consider tried and true?
I think that we only progress concerning what we already know. Take Fermat's Last Theorum, for example. I know we use it alot, but it's applicable. Fermat tried to solve it, right? Apparently he did, but we lost it. So then, someone else tried, but they didn't succeed. All the way down the line to Andrew Wiles. Yes, he did solve it, but what if he hadn't? We would still be searching, wouldn't we? I think that, as far as Alexandria is concerned, we will rewrite every story ever written. Eventually, at least. Except for perhaps the rarest, the historical events that could only happen once. BUt I think that as far as universal themes, they will all be written again. People have the same emotions, same feelings, that's what brings us all together. And so we will all devise the same tales.
I'm in the same boat as you, Rachel - it is hard to believe that the things that we know today could have been known long ago. But think about things like the atom and Fermat's Last theorem (I know, repetitive, but it really does work as an example). They were conceived thousands of years ago solely on philosophical drabbles and cojectures, and yet they have turned out to hold water quite well. The books at Alexandria are no different. They were written a long time ago, then lost, but we may be beginning to find them again. Who knows what knowledge those ancient tomes held? Just like with Fermat's Last Theorem, it comes back through time, and new minds take on the challenge of solving it. It's like Sierra's metaphor in class the other day - you keep rolling the rock up the hill, but you never quite reach the top. You'll go away, and the rock will roll down again, only to be found by another person, and they will roll it up again, just as their precursor. Going back to the books that were burned, look at the importance of fire in the story - the knowledge from Septimus' letters is lost, but we can piece events back together with other clues and information. Thomasina dies in a fire as well, but her knowledge comes back in Valentine's computer, the Coverly Set. I hope this has cleared something up, or at least given you a new perspective.
i was thinking about that metaphor...what happens when you get the rock to the top? is it like a plateau at the top? or does the rock get to the top, and roll down the other side, snowballing?
Post a Comment