There is no man that does not learn of life in whatever way he chooses to do so. Who is to say that one look at it is better in every way and that it is the only good way to go about it. The whole gain of something like a commontalk is that you can smash two things together and come out with two new things, whether it is much the same or nothing like it was. I don't know if there's really a way out of this that's ''better''. Specialization has led to many good things, and is quite helpful. I don't think it's really a thing of choosing one or the other, I think it's more of a leaning into both, resting upon what and when. To lean into one thing is to lean into all things, for they are one in the same. Only knowing one thing makes it more likely you'll be dogmatic, but it doesn't have to, and even if we were to say it must, I don't know if it leads to dogma as much as one might think. But yes, I think every man ought to think for himself, of himself, and that would be much better for everyone, within reason. It is a shame that many think that you might as well not even think about something unless you're of that fold. To me, that's more so the dogmatism striking again; the belief that someone who is specialized is always better than someone who is generalized, that one might as well not bother to question it unless they're an expert and so on
Would the world be better off if everyone was amateurish to not even having a clue about a lot of things because they've tried to learn every field at once? I can't see how.
I guess it boils down to being much worse off on our own than we are when together
Two pairs of hands can do a lot more than what two men on their own can do.
