Because I'm lazy, and because I haven't thought through most of these things, here are some unoriginal, nearly-deep thoughts.
Let's go.
(1) This is epistemic closure:
Most of us think we can always enlarge our knowledge base by accepting things that are entailed by (or logically implied by) things we know. The set of things we know is closed under entailment (or under deduction or logical implication), which means that we know that a given claim is true upon recognizing, and accepting thereby, that it follows from what we know. However, some theorists deny that knowledge is closed under entailment, and the issue remains controversial.
This is not epistemic closure:
The phrase is being used as shorthand by some prominent conservatives for a kind of closed-mindedness in the movement, a development they see as debasing modern conservatism’s proud intellectual history. First used in this context by Julian Sanchez of the libertarian Cato Institute, the phrase “epistemic closure” has been ricocheting among conservative publications and blogs as a high-toned abbreviation for ideological intolerance and misinformation.
Also, New York Times:
(Mr. Sanchez said he probably fished “epistemic closure” out of his subconscious from an undergraduate course in philosophy, where it has a technical meaning in the realm of logic.)
Sure, except it has a technical term in epistemology.
Seriously, guys, skepticism about closure has serious implications for ability to know. That's scary. Let's not trivialize it by using it as an overwrought term for conservative intellectual suckage.
In the end, I expect this term to go the way of "begging the question," which means the next generation of philosophy students will have yet another thing about which they can be smug.
Now, to be fair, I've only read some of Lowell's letter, and though I find them fascinating, that's one long-ass book, and I doubt I'll ever finish the beast.
Similarly, I haven't finished The Archivist, though for entirely different reasons. It started well, but the middle is dragging on, and I may have to abandon it. The reason I put it here is that the plot revolves around a number of T.S. Elliot's letter, which, in the fictional universe, have yet to be read.
I had a thought while reading this: If any contemporary writers make it into the canon 100 years from now, scholars probably won't find any letters to read. Everything moves faster now, so the Lowell-Bishop (or Jefferson-Adams, if you prefer) kind of correspondence has fallen by the wayside.
And I don't know about your emails, but mine tend to lack any kind of brilliance; I can't imagine I'd--or anyone else--would want them read.
Here's the question: What will future scholars use to get into the minds of contemporary writers/thinkers/whatever? Blogs and twitter? Facebook updates? Anyone? Beuller?
|