When I was younger, I wanted to be either a naturalist, prowling the rainforests to study the habits of some interesting beast, or a vet, caring for animals. However, as I grew, it became plain that though I was curious, observant of certain things, and had a pretty good mind, I didn't have the math skills or the ability to divorce myself emotionally from what I was doing to make a vet or probably any kind of scientist. The questions I ask of the objects of my study seem to be different from the kinds of questions scientists ask.
While scientists must ask "What is this?" "How did it come to be the way it is?" looking for a biochemical,biological, or geological answer, I want to know where it came from and why, how it thinks and feels. These are metaphysical, psychological, philosophical questions, not scientific ones.
It started me thinking about these very different branches of knowledge, and how scientific knowledge has been in ascendence for centuries, while the kind of knowledge I naturally pursue has been marginalized.
Somewhere along the line, I made that choice, and knew its implications.
2 comments:
Writers are usually people who have wide interests, don't you think?
Yes. That's true. You need something to write about, after all.
Post a Comment