/lit/ - Literature

>>22536429
>dogma
oh snap

I think really there's just too much personal ambition on the part of groups to declare things to be set in stone; only to have to admit that they were wrong later on, which they don't like to do or do very quietly and never apologize or learn lessons not to attack people like they did.

In that sense academia became a kind of priest-class for the secular society; carrying on the religious terminology like "professor, profession, professing; someone who verbally affirms a thing (in faith rather than proof)," and perhaps overall people are nervous to admit that there is plenty that hasn't been discovered yet and coupled with a strong desire to declare that things as yet unexplored are already fathomed, which is the appeal of religion: to defer to a white frocked person.

A New book or a New idea has no basis in prior thought; or not much basis in prior thought: it will bridge two or more fields previously unrealized and cause upset. The market cannot be said to be predictable about something New; academe cannot be said to be able to measure and understand New because it departs from the confines of prior thought or the confinement of closed field. A culture must have a very specific composition in order to assimilate something New, as: too much of culture comprises a static exchange of old and familiar which is maintained by academe and commerce which will simply not allow anything New to arrive.

But is it not cretinitude that has men and women, in their feeble collection of "prior thought," attempt to butcher the world to make it fit within their narrow frame of perception?

If so, then it is 'our' error to bestow authority upon such persons and seek their opinions on anything New.