Albert Knox states in chapter 2 that "It seems as if in the process of growing up we lose the ability to wonder about the world.” That every time a child sees a dog, 'the child looks up and says "Bow-wow"... It jumps up and down in its stroller, waving its arms' because of its fascination with the dog and how it has come to be, where as an adult would take no notice of the dog, 'We are not enthralled. We have seen a dog before.'
Although I can appreciate where Knox is coming from, I cannot say that I agree with his statement at all. Of course I have no recollection of how I thought of the world as a 1 or 2 year-old, but I feel that Knox's idea that the child is jumping and shouting upon seeing the dog because it is wondering about the composition and creation etc. of the dog is absolutely absurd. More likely, the baby is simply entertained and delighted by the sight of a creature whose aesthetics are totally unknown to it and is visually different to a human. But the baby's 'wondering' goes no further than this.
The only reason that the baby would be curious or bemused, if at all, would be because of the minuscule size of its sphere of knowledge and its desire for expansion. However, after years of experiencing life, regardless of education, our sphere of knowledge has expanded so much, that our need for wondering has been reduced considerably. Especially after being educated, we are much more knowledgeable about the things around us. For example, there would be no need to wonder about how the dog is composed or where it has come from, because we have all of this knowledge already. The only reason someone would be accused of not being curious of the world around us, would be because he/she is comfortable in his/her sphere of knowledge, however if ever the need or desire for expansion arose, where we were asked to explore outside of our sphere of knowledge, it would be easy to. For example, the reason the field of astrophysics appeals to me so, is because of the unlimited possibilities that the universe holds. Anyone, whether an eight year-old, or an eighty year-old, could choose to wonder about anything they wanted, i.e. the cosmos or evolution. The sources for wonder are out there for anyone who seeks them. It is simply the ease at which we can stay in our comfort zone, our sphere of knowledge, which would make it seem as if we have lost our ability to wonder about the world, when in reality, it is only our need to wonder that has diminished.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Well explained Sam. I agree on your view that we have not actually lost the ability to wonder, but only the need to wonder. You mentioned that the baby only 'wonders' about the dog because it is visually different to humans, and that it is intrigging to see something new and unknown. However, as we grow up, it is true that we no longer need to wonder about things that we've already been educated about, such as the composition of a dog, as you suggested. We may seem like we no longer think and wonder about new things because we're inside the 'comfort zone' or the environment where we already know about. But as you've stated, in which I thought to be true, is that we can still wonder about outer space and issues on the creation of the world.
Sam,
I agree with your views - I was especially intereted with the point that you brought up: the baby that saw the dog was probably not wondering how the dog appeared on the Earth, whether there is a meaning behind its existence, or anything related to the "philosophical questions" that Knox mentions on page 13.
When thinking from this perspective, you realise that the "wondering" of a baby does not have very much in common with the "wondering" that philosophers do. Taking this into consideration, is it still meaningful to compare these two types of "wondering" with each other, as the author does? Does it give us the correct picture?
Another point that you mentioned in your post that changed my view is that "The sources for wonder are out there for anyone who seeks them." I had thought that people (who are not philosophers) were only likely to wonder about the world if they have some kind of stimulation, for example being closer to death because of old age or an illness. But in fact, just like you metioned, the sources are there, and you can easily start wondering just as long as you notice them and take an interest in them (just like you taking an interest in "astrophysics" and the "unlimited possibilities that the universe holds"!).
I found the point about the toddler merely being fascinated about a dog and not 'wondering' about its existence interesting. I agree with this point of view that they have limited knowledge.
However i dont believe that our need to wonder has diminished at all - as we grow up, we learn more and understand more. This thus triggers us to question theories and our understanding. Yet, i do agree that we, as humans, may choose to stay within their "sphere of knowledge"
Post a Comment