September 16, 2009
Does Curiosity Kill More Than the Cat?
Stanley Fish in the New York Times:
Last Thursday, the new Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities James A. Leach gave an address at the University of Virginia with the catchy title, “Is There an Inalienable Right to Curiosity?”
Taking his cue from Thomas Jefferson’s “trinity of inalienable rights: ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,’” Leach reasoned that even though Jefferson never wrote about curiosity, “a right to be curious would have been a natural reflection of his own personality.” He was, after all, the “living embodiment of an inquisitive mind” and was reputed to have known “all the science that was known at the time.” Surely he would have prized curiosity, especially since it is the quality “oppressive states fear.” Given that “the cornerstone of democracy is access to knowledge,” it is not too much to say, Leach concluded, that “the curious pursuing their curiosity may be mankind’s greatest if not only hope.”
This sounds right, even patriotic, but there is another tradition in which, far from being the guarantor of a better future, curiosity is a vice and even a sin. Indeed, it has often been considered the original sin.
When God told Adam he could eat of all the fruits of the Garden of Eden, but not of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, he placed what has been called a “provoking object” in Adam’s eyes.
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 03:01 AM | Permalink



















Comments
The sociologist Max Weber made this exact same point long ago in his essay, "Religious Rejections of the World and Their Directions."
Posted by: Burple | Sep 16, 2009 6:19:32 AM
More fishwrap from Fish.
Posted by: blah | Sep 16, 2009 2:07:25 PM
I'm a little tired of people citing Faust and Frankenstein as "warnings" against curiosity and scientific exploration. At no point in either narrative does either Goethe or Shelley take such a stand.
Rather, consider how Dr. Frankenstein creates and then blithely ignores the escaped monster, blissfully and arrogantly assuming that it has run off to die somewhere. Instead, his intelligent creation is slowly being driven insane by frustration and despair in a world that cannot accept him as he is. The "wretch" finally returns to wreak terrible vengeance on Frankenstein and his loved ones, but it is clear that curiosity is not at fault, for the Doctor's curiosity has created something of such gentle grace and potential. Rather, the evil has arisen from (a) A society of fearful, ignorant people (like Fish and Griffiths), and (b) from the Doctor's refusal to take immediate responsibility for what he is doing.
No-one, not even the author of the biblical stories, is warning us against curiosity, even boundless curiosity. Instead, they are warning us against a lack of wisdom and moral clarity. Learn what you will: but take responsibility for what you learn.
It defiles classical mythology and literature to portray them as offering stupid lessons.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Sep 16, 2009 2:50:33 PM
Gorgeous, Nick!
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Sep 16, 2009 4:45:40 PM
Nick,
I think this is a tricky and imprecise subject; Fish isn't really talking about curiosity in the simple sense of "I wonder..." but rather in the more robust sense of "I wonder, and I have a right to find out by whatever means please me." There is a qualitative difference between a child who wants to know why the sky is blue (or a philosopher who is dissatisfied with all the answers to that question) and a figure like, say, Frederick II who was reportedly "curious" about whether the body digests food better after activity or rest, and experimented by disemboweling two prisoners to compare the results. You wouldn't defend his right to "learn what he will," I don't think.
Fish doesn't say it very well, but it seems to me he is getting at a kind of hubristic, reified curiosity, whereby one must know something above all considerations. I haven't read Frankenstein in a while, but the Faust legend certainly speaks to this excessive variant. (Fish cites Marlowe, not Goethe, who had a more sanguine view of Faust's strivings).
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Sep 16, 2009 7:38:56 PM
It seems to me that Fish is basically saying that the Nazi doctors were wrong to do the experiments they did, even though they learned something. They were curious in the wrong way.
I think we all agree with that nowadays. If Fish is not saying anything more controversial than that, why did the editors of the Times think him worth publishing?
Posted by: JonJ | Sep 16, 2009 9:33:12 PM
Well, I think he wanted to get us thinking whether the search for knowledge *is* a fall from grace. Whether it is the built-in tragedy that will end everything for us, but without which we could not have begun. Curiosity, itself, possesses the innocence of dreams, however.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Sep 16, 2009 10:29:32 PM
JonJ,
Maybe you were being rhetorical, but Fish has a column (a blog, really). He doesn't need to run each piece up the flagpole.
I don't think we do all believe in what you've summarized, at least not consistently. More than one prominent scientist and philosopher of science has prioritized Truth above all other social goods. That doesn't make them Nazis, but it does raise the question of how we know when we are being "curious in the wrong way." Just common sense?
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Sep 16, 2009 11:26:03 PM
Hi Chris,
I think you're basically spot on. Fish's formulation is hopeless, but the issue itself is too interesting to leave alone. There are two different ideas at work, here:
1. It is wrong to pursue knowledge using any means whatsoever.
2. It is wrong to pursue knowledge without consideration of the consequences of that knowledge (social, personal, etc.)
(1) Seems to be the lesson of Faust. The Doctor's knowledge comes as a result of a pact with the devil, and much like Frederick II, he has clearly pursued means to knowledge which are questionable to say the least.
(2), on the other hand, is the lesson of Frankenstein, as I think I've described above.
However, neither stands simply as an injunction against knowledge per se.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Sep 17, 2009 1:17:33 AM
Post a comment