Be Careful With Some Of Those Who Say That They Care About Society.
Cosmic Cat - A cosmic, free game
Free American Roulette
Free European Roulette
3 Card Poker Gold, Free
Sports info and betting
Independent funding for a free lifestyle
|Economists, Sociologists, Priests... They all gear their forces into helping society advance, or so the say. Indeed, they all should.
We have seen, many of those who should care for others act in exactly the opposite way as they should in their personal lives, with their fellow human beings, with their friends, their subordinates, their neighbours, and others who cross the path of their lives.
By no means I am suggesting that economy or sociology as sciences are wrong, or that religions are, like Marx said "opium for the masses."
Not many people know that I am a man of the church. Indeed, I am the Reverend Pablo Edronkin, and not just Mr. Edronkin, so I think that I can speak with just knowledge of causes and effects into this matter.
All these systems of thought have definite places among our tools for progress. However, the reason why we keep finding people totally unfit in moral and personal terms to pretend to cater for others is because we assume that a given degree, diploma or investiture is an absolute guarantee about those who receive them.
We couldn't err more in this, because degrees and investitures are human inventions, and thus prone to errors despite all our efforts to make them really valuable. I personally know very well someone who studied sociology at college but would do better with a career within the nazi party, and I am sure that you know similar folks too.
Popes were elected by obscure means, some made wars, others poisoned their enemies, buy yet, they kept their investitures. But do you think that those were real Popes in a christian sense?
I know that person more than any professor could, and I have personal proof and experience that tells me how this person - whose name I have to keep in secrecy for obvious reasons - really is. I am not sure if I would say that evilness covers the whole field of definition.
As someone said, we are really those persons that we become when we are alone, so, one think is to say great words, and quite another is to live up to them.
Pretending to define a person based on a piece of paper is plainly stupid, but since that is what we do by assuming that someone has a certain set of qualities that extend from the purely professional into a personal, moral and humane sphere, we give a carte-blanche to many who studied social sciences for reasons other than a honest desire to help others.
I am entitled to order other priests, to marry people, and so on, but by saying just a few words, do you think that I can make you a priest? Perhaps I could marry you online? I don't think so, so formalities and symbolic acts serve a purpose but should never be assumed as ends in themselves or as guarantees, because those are symbols, and not the meaning of those acts.
Sir Isaac Newton was a jerk in purely personal terms, and even the King of England at that time recognised that fact. Newton was absolutely brilliant with numbers, but not with people. He was a miserable human being in every single department.
It is a fallacy in logical terms to assume that because a person has some qualities within a given field of expertise, those qualities and - perhaps - quality and infallibility of thought will extend to others. It is thus a fallacy to assume that someone is a good human being because someone gave him or her a certificate.
The only thing that certifies anything is reality.
Academic systems of thought, albeit very good to bring rational order to knowledge are unable to handle other kinds of ideas and perceptions much like legal systems cannot cover all sides of a problem, and despite the fact that legal solutions can be reached in court, it is a well-known fact that "legality" does not always equals "righteousness." Dictatorships, after all, are based on legal systems too.
Thus it is impossible to be sure that we are in front of basically a good person because that individual has a degree in a field related to society. The problem, as I said, is that we do exactly that and by means of a complicated social system of delegations, votes and representation we end giving people whom we know nothing about our own destiny.
Any democrat would say that we could vote other candidates if we don't like those that we have. True, but useless: we can indeed change our representatives in political terms, and some may be better than others. However, those politicians will pick their staff among economists, sociologists, lawyers, etc. based on their perceptions, and one of those perceptions is the technical or professional one.
To put it shortly, they will look upon the resumes, and the degrees, of them, and believe that they are choosing the best person for the job.
Could be, but then again, could be not. If it were just a matter of numbers, like the problems that Newton used to toy with, then perhaps we would be able to digest better the eccentricities of the alluded technocrat. However, when we talk about social sciences and goodness as a value held up by ostensible welfare supporters, we could end in very deep trouble.
At that point, if they are not keen and wise enough, they will commit the mistake that I just described, but on an institutional level. This is why we end having insensitive technocrats that in order to "streamline" things end destroying jobs and causing pain, and the less evolved a given society and its political system is, the greater the risk becomes.
Developing societies, on the other hand, need to combat ignorance. Governments and social institutions need qualified personnel, and in order to survive, such societies must transform academic development and knowledge into values per se. People need to feel the need for knowledge; they have to value it and sense prestige into having a degree.
Paradoxically, by doing that, societies open the way to people who carry the contradiction of good professional qualifications with mediocrity or even evilness to decide their future, and by stimulating the growth of the most important mechanism for their progress, they could also be breeding a class of individuals who could destroy the whole idea of it.
That is what happened with revolutions such as those of France and Russia, and that is what - I am afraid - happens very often within societies that have put welfare, peace and love as their cardinal values.
I other words, those societies that pretend to come closer to humane values also carry among themselves the same kind of people that they pretend to fight against to, and moreover, they nurture and educate them on good will, assuming that these will be as good as righteous individuals, but the results will certainly be different.
The problem is that we have trusted, so far, on a system of proof that is better adapted to pure science than social issues, and this is not just an epistemological issue, but a matter of self-preservation. We have to find another way.
The Search Engine for Exploration, Survival and Adventure Lovers © - Andinia.com ©