This can never be understood by a person who is neck deep involved in corrupting the society. Although it may seem that these persons are directly involved in corrupting the society, the general analysis of societies and examples therein would tell us that they are not directly involved in corrupting the society. From corruption, I mean that, making a common person devoid of resources so that she is not able to think freely. As everything is in the mind, that person would not be able to analyze the situation objectively and will just follow what resonates with strongly held personal views about anything.
Also, it is not possible to have a view on each and everything, thus it is important to know how to think so that if some new situation arises, then we are able to think logically and in a coherent manner and bring out a solution for ourselves. But the persons who have not been trained in this will never be able to think about new situations and thus will try to solve the situation with their existing framework of logic, which was originally for something else. This leads to improper solutions to problems and conflict arises since there are infinite ways of analyzing any situation and if there is no common method of analyzing any situation, then we will never be able to reach a common solution to any given problem. This is what has been happening since ages. When a person has biases against some idea just because she has a bias, having no reason, then she will always have a tendency to filter out that idea from every aspect of her life.
When that person reaches some powerful position, then that person would try to filter out those ideas from everything under her authority. This results in bad rules. She would employ persons who are loyal to her world view, at least in front of her and follow her commands, at least in jobs, maybe not in personal life. Among these employees, some emerge as sentimental and these sentimental people then wreck havoc in the society against those who do not fit into the framework. But why will I speak among these people? Who is ready to listen? The rosy ideas of tolerance, secularism, harmony, unity will prohibit me from speaking and analyzing the various ideas because these rosy ideas need to be protected. There is a logical fallacy here. These rosy ideas were meant to create an ideal society but they have failed to do so. Why did they fail to do so? This is the question which needs to be answered and I want to speak so that I can at least try to find why these rosy ideas failed.
But the general consensus is that we should not question the roots of failure in order to protect the image of these rosy ideas because protecting these rosy ideas will create an ideal society. Don’t we see something fishy here? We are asked to protect the image of rosy ideas in order to create an ideal society despite the fact that these rosy ideas have failed to deliver what they were meant to. But then there are laws and people who belong to various sects of society, who will not let me question these because they are guardians of these rosy ideals. The curtain at the door is nice, but there is nothing to wear for anyone inside the house. But the curtain needs to be protected, because it symbolizes respect for society. The persons inside can not go outside or raise their voices because they are meant to protect the curtain. They would die naked inside the house and later let the world see that they were naked whole life, but they would never come out of the house and throw that curtain away which is of no use to them personally.
Maybe I am not competent to speak about these rosy ideas because I have a degree in engineering and not subjects like economy, history, etc. But those who have these degrees are also not questioning. Maybe their wisdom tells them that everything is fine, but then who gave them authority to speak over these topics. It’s we ourselves. We gave them authority to think and speak about something. But why would their opinions and questions be respected? Because they must have been logical and easily comprehensible. It is important to note that the person with a degree is considered an authority to speak over relevant subjects not because she has a degree in that subject, but because she is able to speak logically, coherently, with proofs, with comprehensible arguments, etc..
Thus, anyone who can do this without a degree can also be heard. If I am willing to speak in such a manner that a common human can understand what I speak and why I speak, then my job is done. History tells us that those with degrees seldom address the common man. Their target is either the elites or self satisfaction, mostly economical and limelight. It is important that a common person learns to think and ask. This will provide a direction to society. Dialogue is precursor to action but thinking is precursor to dialogue, so, we must also create an environment, where people are learning to think independently, to reach to a solution and not propagate their propaganda. Thank you, see you soon.
