Over the years, I have always been amazed by Socrates philosophical views. How can something written by a mere human back in the 3rd-4th century stand the test of time, critics et al? As I pondered to find an answer to my question, I came across an article which detailed about the "Socratic Method". The Wikipedia article says and I quote , " Socratic Questioning is disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we don’t know, and to follow out logical implications of thought. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, and deep, and usually focuses on foundational concepts, principles, theories, issues, or problems." Eureka and I had my answer to the eternity of Socrates principles! Truth doesn't change over time but remains constant regardless of situations in life. For example, breaking a traffic signal would be wrong irrespective of the presence of the traffic police officer. The next question arises as to why do we change the "truth" even though we have a clear conscience about it. There can be variegated reasons but the most common reason resides amidst the words in the subject line of this post : prejudice.
A search up on the internet for the meaning of the word prejudice threw up this set to me.
Prejudice (Noun)
1. An adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts.
2. Any preconceived opinion or feeling, whether positive or negative.
3. An irrational hostile attitude, fear or hatred towards a particular group, race or religion.
4. The damage caused by such fear or hatred.
As I take my morning sip of coffee and read through the sports section on our beloved Bulletin Board, read the newspapers or watch the news channels the first thing word that come to my mind is prejudice. I spit my coffee into my mug shaking my head in disappointment. How can one explain the vile and vitriolic words used against great sportsmen representing your country? Critical review/analysis, I prefer using this word rather than "constructive criticism", should do a Root Cause Analysis of the problem. Currently, the only thing I can see people indulging is schadenfreude. The very sight of people calling "names" which include criminal, eternal hypocrites, losers et al on public forums, national televisions and print media asking for people's heads makes we wonder the kind of example we are setting for our next generation. Print and electronic media area easily accessible even for teens who haven't reached their puberty. If one still defend the words being used here I am sure you wouldn't mind if your kids use the same words against you or their siblings if they committed a mistake in their personal or professional life.
Have we lost the art of critical analysis/review? Do we really need to indulge in acerbity to criticize someone? Can't we take a cue out of the Socrates Questioning methodology to pen down our thoughts? Can't we accept mistakes as a part of our life and move on and learn from them rather than fretting over each minutiae to dissect the argument till it becomes bland and rot?
I always wonder whom are we to speak against? You may want to analyze/review but indulging in pure spite for the matter of fact that you don't like a particular person is disgusting. I am sorry to use such a heavy negatively polarized word but I couldn't look up any euphemistic term in the dictionary. We are trying to spit venom against a person who has committed a mistake and for the matter of fact has agreed to it. Don't we commit mistakes? I look back at the advertisment Reliance aired during the T20 WC 2007 which started as, India mein muft ki advice bahut milti hai {In India, advice is sold at no cost} and I ponder how hard they have hit the nail on the head. A person and in particular a sports personnel go through a lot. Just to bring in perspective the average life span of a sportsman is 10 years presuming he's a good one at his sport. One can't have a blue marked career. Even great sportsmen have had checkered careers and we've got to accept the fact of life which all in all makes the journey interesting and enjoyable. In cricket, a batsman always wants to hit a boundary/six when he is batting and a bowler wants to take a wicket every ball. In tennis, a player always wants to hit a booming forehand down the line to secure a point or serve a swinging serve down the 'T' to hit an ace. People like us sitting on porches sipping colas derive the pleasure of watching these people play and entertain us. Can you even compare the drops of sweat you lose to the people who are in the middle of the firing line? This is not to say that we can't critically review/analyze but when it gets to a point where we start calling for peoples heads I think we go overboard. Schadenfreude serves it's purpose in soaps and movies but it wouldn't be the best thing you can do when it comes to real life drama.
Prejudice plays a big role in displaying such disgraceful acts. When one reaches some conclusion beforehand with some preconceived notions it's difficult to argue/debate with such people. A logical conclusion is reached when facts/data buttress the points you put up and few people tend to forget it. Also, one can't selectively choose stuff to suit your argument. It's a humble request to people who are trying to gain sadistic pleasure and attention by vilifying national heroes to apply the Socrates Questioning and logical implications of thought shall follow.
Even after 1003 words of philosophy, logic, real life examples etc. if I have been unable to get my point through; I would like to end this post with the subject line:
"It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom." -Albert Einstein
