Me ignorant? Definitely!

One of the characteristics of modern living that is continually highlighted in the political narratives that we read about and hear every day, is the refusal, indeed the inability, to accept any form of criticism. I am continually struck by the behaviour of Donald Tramp when he is confronted by criticism. He loses all sense of reason and proportion and strikes out viciously at his critics. He is, of course, not alone in this as it is a characteristic of all modern politicians, it is just that the Tramp has raised his responses to an art form. However, in my opinion criticism should never be viewed negatively, indeed, criticism is the bedrock of progress. When I am criticised, my first reaction is to ask if there is any foundation for the criticism. It involves a process of self-examination. I encourage people to criticise me all the time, for example, I continually ask people for their opinions of what I write in this blog. One person responded to me with what I suspect is a quote they got somewhere and told me that "Being educated doesn't mean you can't be ignorant, and being intelligent often has little to do with education" I suspect this was intended as a put me down, but although some responses can be hurtful, that is only momentary because they normally signal that the respondent has no answer and just wants to deflate what they suspect is an overinflated ego because they don't really understand what it is I am saying.

I did not respond to this person as I do not wish to offend, but their quote was useful. Ignorance is a want of knowledge, and therefore regardless of the amount of education you have had you are always going to be in ignorance about a great many things. It has been attributed to Winston Churchill that he claimed that when he was fifteen he knew everything, that when he was thirty he realised that he did not know everything and when he was fifty he realised that he knew nothing. Thus, Churchill did not really become educated until he was over fifty. Like Churchill I am very aware of my ignorance. For example, I have no knowledge of the world of celebrity. I have never seen a soap opera for example and so I do not know a great many of the people who are regarded as celebrities. I am very ignorant about technology and do not possess a smart phone or a tablet and have no idea how they work. I have never been on Facebook or Twitter and wouldn't know how to. Thus, I admit to being a very ignorant person, and my critic was quite accurate. When he said that being intelligent has little to do with education, my response is that intelligence has nothing to do with education. What education does is inform intelligence, but the intelligence exists in a person regardless of education. With no education a person will still be intelligent. As I have repeatedly said on this blog, education has little to do with schooling, although school provides us with the tools and methodology to enable us to become educated.

You see, people like to feel important, and they think an education makes you important, but I have always maintained that there is no such thing as an important person. There are important positions in the world that are occupied by certain people, but there is no one who would really be missed in the sense that they are irreplaceable. It is arguable that the President of the United States is an important person and yet, if the President dropped dead they would be replaced within the hour and except for mourning the loss of someone you perhaps like and respect, nothing much would change. There are great scientists doing great work, but science is a collective enterprise and if a scientist, doing important work, drops dead, they will also be replaced, with the proviso that their work may be delayed a bit. The really important people in this world are those that each of you love. To you they are irreplaceable and you are quite right to say that. That is importance, not Presidents and Prime Ministers, not the celebrity.

It is therefore important that we respond to criticism positively. It is not intelligent to reject criticism without consideration. Criticism cannot be negative. If it is done from spite, then you can be confident that your critic recognises that you have a point and will not admit to it. You can therefore be more confident in your assertion and have thus gained in knowledge. If the criticism turns out, after examination to be baseless, you have gained once more because you can again be more confident that the view you held was correct. If the criticism turns out to be substantial you have again gained, because you will realise that you are wrong or incorrect and you can then change your point of view or opinion and gain both in knowledge and as a person. There is no loss, except perhaps to your pride, because there is nothing wrong in being wrong. The only wrong is in remaining wrong when you know you are wrong. That is why criticism is a fundamental part of progress. It is a moral process if approached positively. I long for the day when someone stands up in the pigsty and tells the Prime Minister or some other "important" person in government that they are wrong and the Prime Minister responds by considering the point and perhaps saying "Oh I never thought of that" and admitting that they will have to think again. That is the mark of an educated person. It will never happen in Westminster though, and that is why modern politics is a thoroughly immoral profession. You have been warned.