변칙 수용: 진실로 가는 길

### 나만의 길을 걷기: 오류를 인정하는 것의 중요성
* 🚶 자신만의 길을 걷는다는 것은 **모든 행동이 자신의 지식에 기반**한다는 것을 인식하는 것입니다.
* 🍏 변칙이란 지식과 모순되는 모든 것을 말하며, **변칙에 대해 열린 마음**을 가질 때 지식이 향상됩니다.
* 🧠 "자신의 방식으로 기꺼이 실수할 때 **지식이 향상**됩니다."
* 🔍 자신만의 길을 걷기 위해서는 **자신의 행동과 결정에 책임**을 져야 합니다.
* ❌ "자신의 방식대로 잘못 간다는 것은 언젠가는 **이상 징후를 발견**하게 될 것이라는 사실을 깨닫는 것을 의미합니다."
* 🔮 자신의 오류를 인정하고, 비정상적인 것을 무시하지 않으며, 진실을 직시하면 **진실에 더 가까이 다가갈 수 있습니다.**
* 📖 도스토예프스키의 명언을 이렇게 해석한 것은 **개인의 성장과 지식의 발전은 실수와 변칙을 포용하는 데 달려 있다**는 생각에 근거한 것입니다.

'범죄와 처벌'에서 대화를 통해 살펴본 것처럼, 자신의 길을 걷고, 오류를 인정하고, 변칙에 맞서면 지식이 향상됩니다.

In Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote, “That's man's one privilege over all creation. Through error, you come to the truth! I am a man because I err! You never reach any truth without making fourteen mistakes and very likely a hundred and fourteen. And a fine thing, too, in its way; but we can't even make mistakes on our own account! Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else’s.” Why is it better to go wrong in our own way rather than go right in someone else’s? What’s the meaning behind this quote? As usual, I’m gonna explore this idea through a dialogue. --- For weeks, a young student (S) had been having philosophical conversations with a retired priest (P). The following is one of them.

P: I think it’s better to go wrong in your
own way, rather than go right in someone else’s. 
S: What? How? Isn’t it better to go the right way, no matter
how you get there? Like if you wanna go to the grocery store,
isn’t it better to follow someone else’s directions and get there, rather than go the
wrong way on your own? 
P: What you’re saying sounds nice in theory,
yes. If someone could just give you the right directions
to wherever you wanted to go, it would save you a lot of time. But you must agree that someone could just
as easily give you the wrong directions, which could make your trip to the grocery store
longer than it otherwise would have been. 
S: Yeah, that could happen. You have to know who to trust. And if you trust the right people, you’ll
get to your destination faster than you would on your own. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel.

P: Okay, but how do you know who to trust? S: Well, you have to find someone who has a proven track record of saying the truth. If someone has not lied in the past, they are unlikely to lie in the present. P: But you have to admit, just because someone hasn’t lied or misled you in the past, it doesn’t mean they won’t lie or mislead you now. S: That’s true, but the probability of them misleading you is lower. P: Yes, I get where you’re coming from in a practical sense, but I’m trying to show you something you’re not seeing. So someone gives you a piece of knowledge right now, how do you know whether to trust it or not? S: If I know the person who’s giving me the piece of knowledge has a proven track record of not lying, I will trust it. But if I don’t know their track record, I won’t trust them.

P: Ok, so imagine this. Let’s say you have a grandpa who's 90 years
old and has never lied to you or misled you once in your life. And unbeknownst to you, he has a sudden malfunction
in his brain, and he says to you, “If you jump off this cliff, you’ll make a million
dollars.” Are you going to believe that claim because
of his track record? 
S: Of course not. 
P: Exactly. So you’re not choosing to trust someone
based off of their track record. And now we’re back to the critical point:
how do you know whether to trust a piece of knowledge or not? 
S: Hmm… I guess I use my own knowledge and experience
to assess whether I can trust someone. 
P: But that brings us back to the same problem:
now how do you know if you can trust your own knowledge? 
S: I guess if my knowledge was right in the
past, then I can trust it.

P: But we just talked about this. Just because your knowledge worked in the
past, that doesn’t mean it will work now. 
S: You’re right, but it’s not like I can
choose not to act on my own knowledge and past experience. I have no choice. I have to act based on the sum total of my
life experiences. So I have to act on my knowledge, whether
it is true or not! How can I act in any other way? 
P: No, exactly, you’re right! You have no choice but to act on your own
knowledge at any point in time. Even when you’re getting directions from
someone else, you’re deciding whether to trust them or not based on your own knowledge. Right? 
S: Yeah. So what are you trying to say? 
P: I’m saying the problem is not about trust
like you originally thought. Trust is irrelevant. You have no choice but to act on your own
knowledge.

So the real problem is whether or not your
knowledge gets better or worse over time. Do you agree? S: Hmm.. yeah, I do actually agree. So how does our knowledge get better over
time? P: Let’s think about this together. Imagine that all your life, all you’ve ever
seen are red apples. You’d probably believe that all apples are
red because you’ve never seen anything that suggests otherwise. And as you see more and more red apples, this
belief remains constant. But one day you come across a complete anomaly:
a green apple. This anomaly falsifies your belief that all
apples are red. And now you’re confronted with a choice:
do you update your knowledge or not? Do you tell yourself that apples are not only
red? Do you tell yourself they can be green and
maybe even other colours too? Or do you ignore the anomaly? Do you tell yourself you hallucinated it? Or do you tell yourself that it wasn’t even
an apple?

S: Obviously, I accept that apples can be other
colours too! Why wouldn’t I? 
P: Well, what if we were talking about something
other than apples? Imagine that you’re in a marriage with someone
for 10 years, and you find evidence that they may be cheating on you. That evidence is an anomaly: it contradicts
everything you believed about your spouse. Will you welcome that anomaly into your life
with all of its implications? Or will you ignore it? 
S: Hmm… you’re right. That is a lot harder to answer. Honestly, I don’t know what I would do in
that situation. 
P: Yeah, it’s a lot harder, isn’t it? So the improvement of your knowledge depends
on how open you are to anomaly. 
S: You keep using that word: anomaly. What does that mean? 
P: An anomaly is anything that falsifies or
contradicts your own knowledge. So the green apple, for example, is an anomaly
because you believed all apples were red.

But if you believed apples were red and green,
it would not be an anomaly. S: Ok, that makes sense. So what does it mean to be open to anomaly? P: When something falsifies your knowledge,
do you accept it or ignore it? In other words, can you admit to being wrong? If you can, you are open to anomaly. So do you see how this all relates to the
original question? S: To be honest with you, I forgot what we
were talking about in the first place. P: Ha, that’s okay! It happens. In the beginning, I said I think it’s better
to go wrong in your own way than go right in someone else’s. S: Oh yeah! So how does that relate to what you just said? P: Well, we both agreed that one of the main
problems in life is whether or not your knowledge improves over time. S: We did. P: And what conclusion did we come to?

How does your knowledge improve over time? S: I guess the answer comes back to what you
originally said: your knowledge improves when you’re willing to go wrong in your own way. But you have to walk your own path and be
willing to admit when you’re wrong. You have to be willing to confront your errors
instead of ignoring them. P: So it looks like we’re in agreement. --- In Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky
wrote, “To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else’s,”
and I explored the meaning behind this idea through a dialogue. To walk your own path is to realize that you
are always acting on your own knowledge. Even when you’re getting directions from
someone else, you choose to take their advice based on your own understanding of the world. And when you realize that all of your actions
always come back to your own knowledge

some form, and you decide to take responsibility
for that, and you decide not to blame anyone else for your actions, then you’re walking
your own path. But to go wrong in your own way means that
you realize that, at some point, you will come across an anomaly. And this anomaly will falsify or contradict
your knowledge. And if you admit to being wrong, if you don’t
ignore the anomaly, if you face your errors head on, then as Dostoevsky said, your errors
can move you closer to the truth. As always, this is just my opinion and understanding
of Dostoevsky’s words, not advice. Feel free to use this information however
you like, and if you have a different take on Dostoevsky’s words, I’d love to hear
your perspective in the comments.

Dostoevsky - Walk Your Own Path, Face Your Errors

Freedom in Thought

도스토예프스키가 말하는 실수의 가치

도스토예프스키는 자신의 실수를 저지르는 것이 인간의 특권이며 진실을 찾는 데 필수적이라고 주장합니다.

이 인용문은 개인적인 실수는 학습 과정의 중요한 부분이며, 다른 사람을 맹목적으로 따르기보다는 실수를 하더라도 자신의 길을 따르는 것이 더 낫다는 것을 시사합니다.

이 대화는 자신을 믿고 실수가 있더라도 개인적인 선택을 하는 것이 궁극적으로 더 진정성 있고 만족스러운 삶으로 이어질 수 있다는 생각을 반영합니다.

신뢰할 수 있는 사람을 찾는 것은 정직성이 입증된 실적에 달려 있습니다.

그러나 신뢰는 정보의 맥락에 따라 달라질 수 있기 때문에 개인의 실적이 항상 신뢰를 보장하는 것은 아닙니다.

궁극적으로 신뢰도를 평가하는 것은 개인적인 지식과 경험에 의존할 수 있는 복잡한 과정입니다.

개인 지식에 기반한 행동의 딜레마

개인적인 지식은 우리의 결정과 행동에 영향을 미치기 때문에 피할 수 없는 부분입니다.

진짜 문제는 시간이 지남에 따라 우리의 지식이 향상되는지 또는 악화되는지에 있습니다.

이상 현상을 마주하면 우리는 지식을 업데이트할 것인지 아니면 이상 현상을 합리화할 것인지 선택해야 합니다.

변칙에 대해 열린 자세를 갖는 것은 지식 향상과 개인적 성장을 위해 매우 중요합니다.

변칙이란 기존의 지식과 모순되는 모든 것을 말하며, 변칙에 개방적이라는 것은 자신이 틀렸을 때 인정할 수 있다는 것을 의미합니다.

변칙을 수용한다는 것은 다른 사람의 길을 따르기보다는 자신만의 방식으로 잘못 가는 것을 선택한다는 생각과 관련이 있으며, 궁극적으로 개인적 발전으로 이어집니다.

지식은 기꺼이 실수를 하고 자신의 오류를 직시할 때 향상됩니다.

자신의 길을 걷는다는 것은 세상에 대한 자신의 이해를 바탕으로 자신의 행동과 결정에 책임을 지는 것을 의미합니다.

범죄와 처벌에서 탐구한 아이디어에 따르면, 자신의 오류를 인정하고 정면으로 마주하는 것은 궁극적으로 진실에 더 가까워질 수 있습니다.