In Honors the other day, we discussed Montaigne and his opinion that the essay was the superior form of writing, when compared with the treatise. This led to dialogue about how research can often lead to a lack of original thought. Stevens mentioned that, even now, our idea of an essay is skewed. Rather than an exploration of the mind, it has become a gatherer of facts determined for others. Stevens proposed that we revive the essay, and I am in complete agreement.
For me, the essay represents something more than just a form of writing. It is one facet of original thought. Pondering, questioning, venturing--these things are no longer viewed in a positive light. In the essay, one speaks out of the gut. He materializes his thoughts, regardless of what others may think. In these days, group think suffocates originality and anything that threatens the status quo. And I believe that is an extreme injustice.
I watched Dead Poets Society last night, and that seemed to fit this theme. If you have seen the film, you understand what I mean. Robin Williams questions the conventionality of the time and place, particularly in the "marching scene." He illustrates that conformity often beckons us with a powerful and demanding voice. We follow others like mindless lemmings. Later in the movie, one character's inability to think in new ways leads to tragedy, and it leaves you thinking, "Why couldn't he just get over his way of thinking?"
This is why I appreciate Rob Bell, though I have yet to read his writing. From what I have heard, he uses questions to help people think in new ways. As Stevens said, Love Wins could be considered an essay. But what has been accepted as fact may or may not be correct.
When people shun the exploration of ideas, they chance eliminating a brilliant new truth. Galileo faced the same, as did many other conceptual pilgrims. The world is flat. The earth is center. The arts are inferior. These are the voices that have had commanding presence. But they erred and err.
I said recently that one word I could use to describe myself is opaque. Another would be defiant. Not in defiance of rules and structure that make things whole, but against those things which hold captive ideas, beliefs, and people that could otherwise have a healing touch on the world, if only ideologically. It's arrogant to assume that I know what is completely just and fair, but you have to act if something is wrong, right?
All I'm saying is that we need original and open-minded thought. Without it, we make no progress.
