The problem with traditionalism is not the tradition. The problem with traditionalism is the recipients downstream the tradition who mistake the tradition as a source of truth and evidence. “So and so said” is not a presentation of evidence, it is a CLAIM, and unless you can explain how so-and-so arrived at that claim, it’s best not to parrot them at all – ever – lest you make idols of them.
This may come as a shock to those who seek belonging to that social construction called “orthodoxy”: a tradition must always seek your approval, serve you, pass your standards, not the other way around. The traditional “sources” are not sources but, rather symbols representing orthodoxy: and they stand in line with the rest of the evidences you have to investigate, from journals to June bugs. No single element of the creation compels you to acknowledge its truth: it can only communicate its truth which you must evaluate. If you choose not to evaluate the claim of that voice and just accept it blindly, you are not respecting its truth, you are patronizing and insulting it. If you are not reasoning with it, your fealty is not to truth, but to your own egoistic desires for acceptance and validation from an audience you admire or fear. A performance of piety.
Over the past 20 years of my research and inquiry, I’ve found many useful resources and frameworks to fine-tune my tools of inquiry and reasoning. I can’t list them anymore than a centipede can explain how he synchronizes his steps. (I could sit down and think of them all, but that’s a book, not a blog post). I would however offer the following steps as absolute necessities to avoid the traps and pitfalls of traditionalism:
- If your first question is “which famous scholar said this?”, stop. You are not ready to have that conversation. This is the first logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority. The source of the argument is not evidence for the argument. An argument must stand on its own merit
- If your next question is “which infamous scholar says this?”, stop. You are not ready to have that conversation. This is the second logical fallacy called Ad Hominem. The source of the argument is not counter-evidence to the argument. An argument stands on its own merit.
- If you are presented new information and do not make the conscious effort to reevaluate your initial position, slow down. Go back and consider how you came to accept your initial position. Did you arrive at it on your own? Did you inherit it? What sources did you use? What line of reasoning facilitated your inquiry and conclusion? Where does the new information fit within your initial line of reasoning? Try to pinpoint exactly where the new information is relevant. Is it relevant at all? If not, why?
- If you are not able to identify the question or problem that your source is trying to address, slow down. Every claim is motivated by a need. What does the source need to solve for, and does it match your need?
- If you are not able to distinguish between the facts of his argument and the argument itself. God help you. The what and the why should be absolutely clear. If not, it may be the argument has no objective facts and is entirely theoretical and speculative. In that case, it may not be worth having an opinion one way or the other.
