"Unlike Socrates, I’m not going to be super-modest as to say that ‘I know nothing’; however, I see myself as knowing less than I’m supposed to know."
 |
| Photo: University of N. Hamshire |
The saddest
case for any ‘learning’ individual is to say that X is true or acceptable only
if uttered by B. And if the same X is uttered by A then we’ll reject it with
all our politico-intellectual and socio-intellectual might.
I
don’t see myself as an intellectual; I see myself as a student. Unlike
Socrates, I’m not going to be super-modest as to say that ‘I know nothing’;
however, I see myself as knowing less than I’m supposed to know. That’s my
general truth! And this ‘knowing’ comes from people of all works of life.
Indeed, learning doesn’t come only from comfortable endeavors but also from
things that make us sad or mad.
Essentially, I see myself not only as a
student with epistemic enterprise and pursuit but as a student of life. ‘Knowing’
things can be called my obsession. I always want to ‘know’ even when I might
not manage to ‘know’ what I wanted to ‘know’ all the time. And Lao Tzu is right
to call knowing of one own self enlightenment. It takes great initiative and
self-preservation to know oneself.
As
human beings, we were created as beings with ‘scientific’, rational minds. We
always want to know the ‘why’ of everything. Some of us settle for less than
the reason ‘why’ things actually happen. However, some of us aren’t satisfied
by face-value impression of things; these are the people who make sure that ‘whys’
of things are better explained.
In
South Sudan, this ‘satisfied-with-first-impression’ is exacerbated by the
assumption that what my uncle said or has done is an exceptionalist truth. And
anyone who tries to question my uncle’s truth is branded or hated. But this
twisted state of mind comes from ‘learned’ minds who ‘know’ the affairs of the
world. How can this ‘learned’ people not know that disagreements are normal?
How can these learned heart not know that our uncles can be wrong, or even
stupid?
If
you hate someone because of his considered opinion, then you are either pretending to be learned or you need emotive intervention. You can't just unleash your negative, vengeful ‘intellective
power’ on someone just because they disagree with you. On what planet are we all expected to agree all the time?
Like
Zarathustra, the Objective Intellectual is calling on all learned hearts to
value what is said not just the very people who say them. How many of us quote Mahatma Gandhi all the time but he’s the very man who looked down on Africans in South
Africa by calling them ‘kaffirs and inferiors’?
If X
is good, it shouldn’t matter who did or uttered it! But No! Our young ‘intellectuals’
think this: Agree with me and my uncle, or you go to hell! We learn by
contradictions and we learn when our ideas are subjected to scrutiny! Why should there be an exception?
So
who’s the ‘Objective Intellectual?’ I don’t know! It could be me or you!
However, we can only be the Objective Intellectual if we value deeds and not
merely the people who utter them.
If a
man/woman’s opinion makes you mad, then check yourself…you’re wasting time
learning or being in school. School and life should teach you how to dismiss
people's ‘wrong’ ideas without being abusive or vilely dismissive!
____________________________
*The Philosophical Refugee
