Furthermore, the term “science” like “progress” seems to satisfy a primal
need. Man feels lost without a touchstone of knowledge just as he feels
lost without the direction-finder provided by progress. It is curious
to note that actually the word is only another name for knowledge (L.
_scientia_), so that if we should go by strict etymology, we should
insist that the expression “science knows” (_i.e._, “knowledge knows”)
is pure tautology. But our rhetoric seems to get around this by implying
that science is _the_ knowledge. Other knowledges may contain elements of
quackery, and may reflect the selfish aims of the knower; but “science,”
once we have given the word its incorporation, is the undiluted essence
of knowledge. The word as it comes to us then is a little pathetic in its
appeal, inasmuch as it reflects the deeply human feeling that somewhere
somehow there must be people who know things “as they are.” Once God or
his ministry was the depository of such knowledge, but now, with the
general decay of religious faith, it is the scientists who must speak _ex
cathedra_, whether they wish to or not.
The term “modern” shares in the rhetorical forces of the others thus far
discussed, and stands not far below the top. Its place in the general
ordering is intelligible through the same history. Where progress is
real, there is a natural presumption that the latest will be the best.
Hence it is generally thought that to describe anything as “modern” is
to credit it with all the improvements which have been made up to now.
Then by a transference the term is applied to realms where valuation is,
or ought to be, of a different source. In consequence, we have “modern
living” urged upon us as an ideal; “the modern mind” is mentioned as
something superior to previous minds; sometimes the modifier stands alone
as an epithet of approval: “to become modern” or “to sound modern” are
expressions that carry valuation. It is of course idle not to expect an
age to feel that some of its ways and habits of mind are the best; but
the extensive transformations of the past hundred years seem to have
given “modern” a much more decisive meaning. It is as if a difference of
degree had changed into a difference of kind. But the very fact that a
word is not used very analytically may increase its rhetorical potency,
as we shall see later in connection with a special group of terms.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account