Paul Graham’s recent essay on essays inspired me. It reminded me of a subject for another post. My thesis statement for this post is “One can’t know if something is true until one reads it.”

This idea came to me long ago as I was writing an essay (I like to think that my blog entries are worthy of being called essays). Before I write a blog entry, I think about it for a time. As I write, more ideas come, and I have to accommodate them. This is why many of my essays end up being longer than I had anticipated (sometimes dramatically so). Occasionally I worry that they will bore those who try to read them. After all, I have a hard time reading things on the web. On the other hand, I think I write these essays for the same reason that I take notes in church. Not for anyone (including me) to read, but because it helps me to focus my thoughts. It helps me to separate the wheat from the chaff as it were.

Long (a few months) ago I had a thought that I still don’t know if I believe. It can be stated simply as follows. “One cannot know the truth of a statement until one reads it.” In other words, just thinking about something is insufficient to determine it’s veracity. This applies not so much to statements of fact (e.g. John went home) as it does to philosophical type statements (e.g. This life is a test).

The reason I originally made this statement, is that in writing essays for this weblog, I noticed that my opinion after writing was often different from what I had before writing. This occurs even if I have spent several days, or weeks, mulling things over in my mind. I had assumed that by pondering things for long enough one could determine their truthfulness. Nevertheless, something about writing or reading my thoughts helps me decide whether I believe them. I also noticed that when I read something in (for example) a commentary on the scriptures I know almost immediately how I feel about it. On the other hand, when I merely hear something said in church I have a much harder time. Likewise I have difficulties understanding when someone talks me through a proof, but when I see some symbols along with the explanation, things are much more clear.

All of this could simply be indicative of the way that I personally learn best, but I think there may be more to it than that. Very long ago (in high school) I had the thought which I tried to express eloquently as “The thought is conceived in the expression thereof”. As is usually the case, I later discovered that someone famous had expressed it much better and long before. Unfortunately, I don’t recall who said it nor how. This clearly applies to writing, but how this applies to reading is not as clear. Perhaps the precision with which words must be written compared to spoken, along with the ability to reread a poorly understood passage allows thoughts to form more clearly. The clearer we can express an idea, or see it expressed, the better we can understand and the easier we can agree or disagree.

When we listen, we are forced to listen and analyze in the moment. When we read, we are under no obligation to think at a certain rate. We can skim boring parts and linger over the more interesting pieces. When thinking we feel that we need not articulate our thoughts as well sense, “we know what we mean”. Perhaps these help explain the power of reading and writing over simply thinking and listening.

It may be interesting to note that this essay was forgotten for about a week, so I have had plenty of time to think about it, but I haven’t come to any more certain decision as to what I think. I probably won’t know until the final revision how I actually feel. Of course by that time it’ll be too late to change what I have written. Or this may be the exception to rule, and I won’t know what I think even after I have read it.

Vive l’essai!