Words> Wisdom> The Pleasure of Finding Things Out

I had wanted to read Richard Feynman for a long time, and having just finished The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, I know I'll want to read much more. The Pleasure... is a collection of speeches, interviews and excerpts from Feynman's razor sharp and crystal clear thinking, and it has been well edited, too: the topics revolve beautifully around the title of the book.

The best of Feynman for me were the pieces where he describes how his father used to show him how things work and how limited our understanding and, more importantly certainty, over reality is. Against this backdrop it's easy to see his trajectory into physics of the essence of reality - and into the essence of physics, although Feynman was notoriously impatient with philosophy. The book shed light on his thinking and was from where I stand an excellent introduction to Feynman. Next I'll want to deepen my understanding of both the external and the internal on the man - both the science and the personality.

After discussions about the importance of not relying on authority and about not deceiving oneself and the rest of the humanity with any sort of ultimate answers, I was surprised to see how the last chapter, On the Relationship Between Science and Religion, ends in an extended hand towards religion. Feynman does quickly discuss the insufficiency and untestability of religious thinking, but still suggests that the two may coexist (and I'm reading that he meant on both a personal and a societal level). After carefully showing us the importance of falsifiability numerous times, Feynman retains some flexibility. Was this due to the circumstances of that speech, or did it require more context? My verdict, with even less proof that Feynman wielded, is a death sentence to religion in all it's shapes and forms. I was about to say "most", but that wouldn't fit the absolute opposition to absolutes I represent, would it now?

I created this blog when I had already started on the book, and the quote in the title bar comes from this book. It will likely stay there for a while since it encapsulates my stance in both personal life and politics. The idea it boils down also further convinces me on the fundamental links between conservative political thinking, rationalism (continental rationalism to be exact), absolute ethics and common morals, and the inclination towards ultimate answers (a stab specifically at religion); and the fundamental, often diametrically opposed links between progressive (or liberal, have your pick) political thinking, empiricism, relativism in all ethics - and the denial of ultimate answers, destiny and higher purpose. I'm happy that the everyday political debate has moved to centre of the political field, but it would indeed be refreshing to hear the talking heads at some point to refer to the underlying structures of their thinking, as far as there are any.

Another theme that I identified with strongly was the way Feynman Senior taught his son. This reminded me strongly of my grandad who died when I was 14. He wasn't a scientist, but a scientific thinker for sure, much like Feynman's father sounds like. He didn't really teach me things, but rather how to figure out things, and how to figure out when things weren't what they at first looked like. He taught me to question the status quo and to inquire into the reasons behind reactions and consequences. I'd like to be able to teach people in the same manner and I will return to this topic later.