When we are shocked by the possibility that apparent truths we have always assumed to be necessary and absolute may be discretionary and relative we can fall into a reflexive assumption that — now that we finally have some freedom in how we understand — we should immediately exercise our new freedom and get to work re-understanding everything.

But who says? We might discover, for instance that the — singular supreme truth we were raised to believe is far from singular or supreme, but does it follow that we are now obligated to adopt an opposite or alternative one, or none of them?

We might discover that what seems self-evident to us falls apart under rigorous scrutiny, but does it follow that we must automatically reject all intuitive self-evidence, and believe exclusively in the testimony of rigor?

We might find that the origins and accounts of moral norms we were taught to obey and fear are not only spurious, but groundless, or grounded in things we despise. Are we not only allowed but obligated to reject them on these grounds?

Behind all these reactions is a faith in something very few of us have detected, questioned, or even know how to confront.

But, say we do detect, question and confront it — are we obligated to abandon it now that we can…?