I do interviews with people who think for a living, and I am coming to a suspicion. What makes the diverse material fall into place is that people are always in dialogue with somebody in their past, usually in their family, very often their father. I mean, they are constantly in this dialogue, their fundamental decisions are part of this dialogue, and any shift in their basic relation to this figure is a truly important shift in their lives and in their thinking. One consequence of that: if the relationship to father or mother or other big figure has fallen into some kind of routine, thinking will be routine as well. If that relationship is charged, thinking will be charged. If one is deceiving oneself about that relationship, one's thinking will likely have something false in it.
I am not sure that people very often have more than one such reference figure in their intellectual lives. They may, and that would give rise to all sorts of interesting conflict. But I think these structures may tend to be very simple and pervasive, the plates underlying the surface geology. So, there's a simple formula for understanding someone: find out with whom that person is in deep dialogue, find out what the issues are, and find out how settled that dialogue is. Everything important will just fall out of the answers to those questions.
For those of you, dear readers, who actually track this blog with care over time, a couple of connections: this is the sort of structure that makes family dynasties such powerful moral engines. Also, W.B. Gallie addresses the way that the attempt to imitate a life gives rise sometimes to endless and fruitful controversy. That line of thought makes Gallie an important thinker, bridging history, psychology, education, and philosophy in an astonishing way. The search function on the blog will connect you to other notes on these matters.
Posted by shea0017 at February 25, 2006 1:41 PM