Do we dare?

"It seems as if in the process of growing up we lose the ability to wonder about the world."

The more I contemplate this, the harder it is to find the right words to express what I think. But here I go anyway (bare with me if these ideas appear fragmented).

As we grow up, we learn. We quire knowledge and implement in our minds laws which govern what is supposedly ‘logical’ and ‘illogical’. Consequentially, the only things we question are the things that fall outside these perimeters. Hence, our ability to wonder diminishes as we question less. For example, during the scenario on p17 when Dad starts flying above the kitchen table, Mum is unable to process or accept this as this concept does not fall within the laws she has learned and the preconceptions she has acquired. On the other hand, little Thomas is ‘astonished [as] he very often is’ and would be if he saw it again because his mind has not yet learnt of these laws. To him the world is limitless and to him, he and anybody else can do anything. And I think to be able to truly and purely think that way is amazing. But have we stopped to question- what about the things that fall inside these perimeters, what about the perimeter itself? Why is it where it is? Maybe that is what we need to reexamine. However (risking contradicting myself), is this really the effect of knowledge on us? Is this because we aren’t learning the ‘right’ kind of knowledge? Or that this form of mentally organizing knowledge within perimeters and forming perimeters is simply habitual to us? I don’t know. Gaarder says that in losing the ability to wonder, 'we lose something central- something philosophers try to restore. From somewhere inside ourselves, something tells us that life is a huge mystery. This is something we once experienced, long before we learned to think the thought.' It is as if as we grow older we learn things that suppress this feeling of life being a huge mystery because we think we are figuring it out, but I think Gaarder’s implying that we aren’t learning anything. We’re losing something far, far, far more valuable. Science spurred from humanity’s instinctive desire for an explanation. We think that science is giving us the answers, but does it? If so, why is it that so many people remain unsatisfied? A fair amount of science is based on theory and so much of science can still be questioned. For example, the cosmological argument, the Big Bang is science’s answer to the formation of the world, but what caused the Big Bang to occur? What caused the cause of the Big Bang?

But who am I to claim science’s insufficiency?

I think what is meant by the idea that the world becomes a ‘habit’ is that when we experience the same things again and again, they no longer excite us, they no longer make us wonder because we accept them as real and logical. Should we? Who are we to say what is and what isn’t real? It is like the example of the baby, the dog and the adult. The repetitiveness of the experience of something, takes away from the beauty of the experience itself so that we no longer feel in awe or excited by it. Then again you may argue, there are certain things that never lose their appeal despite repeated experiences, like chocolate. However, I do not mean appeal in this way. I mean it in the sense that we are in awe of it itself, its existance! Maybe chocolate wasn’t such a good example... But I hope what I’m trying to convey is clear.

The majority of us as ‘adults’ have diverted our attention away from the philosophical questions of life to as the book implies, more trivial things. I don’t think this is saying that school and examinations, love and companionship, earning a living to support ourselves and others is unimportant but these things aren’t necessarily an ‘issue’ to all of us. And if apart from the basic necessities of life there is one thing that involves everybody, one thing that concerns every person who has ever existed and everyone that ever will, doesn’t that make it oh so important? Doesn’t that make it greater than any individual’s issue? We don’t tend to pursue this route because it is more comfortable to embark on a path that is safe and predictable as opposed to one that will challenge our preconceptions and question everything we have ever believed to be true! Do we dare?