Sentio Ergo Sum; part 2

The imagery of a tree of knowledge is a very poignant portrayal of humanity's advancement in the scientific understanding of the world. The world of academia has undergone numerous shifts in the wake of a new discovery, often with some branches merging (e.g.. Psychology & Sociology forming Social Psychology). These paradigm shifts have caused a flurry of scientific observations that have all contributed to a better understanding of the cosmoses that be. I think it prudent then to assume that our progression in knowledge has fundamentally been derived through keen scrutiny of the observable universe, and that the tree of knowledge is an accurate representation of what has been known by mankind.

This metaphorical tree is fundamentally an abstract representation of the fields of academia and their observed subject matter. It is a concept that takes a level of rationality to comprehend, but takes wisdom to utilize. Yet it is entirely symbolic of human thoughts. It is their sum knowledge on this spatio-temporal rock called Earth. The tree of knowledge is isolated to this one minuscule perspective of the entire universe. It is a totality of understanding that relates only to their own perspective.

How then does this relate back to choice and rationality? After considerable amount of time pondering this, as well as furthering my own reading into philosophical works, the concept of forms and truth came to mind. It was also the idea put forward by Socrates and the parable of the Cave, that Light was essentially Good. It was the Light that allowed us to see the truth of what was, and that, in itself, was Good. What did the branches of the tree of knowledge reach for in their pursuits? The metaphor was lacking. The branches were reaching for the light.

It would seem then from this new metaphor that rationality is essentially the pursuit for truth. If then we seek the truth, what is the question before it? Insert a topic and its truth is what you pursue: media, politics, theoretical science, art, etc. It is the tool of science to accurately scrutinize the subject matter, where as the liberal arts pursue a new representation in their mediums of that truth they seek. Their answers, however, do not pin point an absolute moral reasoning. So while the metaphor now portrays the direction of the branches, in what they seek, how does one accurately portray why it grows at all?

In carrying with the metaphor of a tree, the essential features have been described, of that which we can see. The body and branches being the paradigm of knowledge and its varied routes. There is also the light which fuels the curiosity of mankind. What then holds the tree up? What is their underlying need to answer their questions with truth? It cannot be something that we can plainly see. For if it is anything like our metaphorical tree, unless it is a wayward root, we cannot assume there is anything beneath it. Until we dig beneath it we can only theorize.