The Annihilation of Philosophy: The Forgotten Discipline in the Pakistani Educational Institutes

Aspasia of Miletus discussing philosophy with Socrates and Pericles.

In 1998, walking with my mother down a rain soaked pavement in an 18^th century built Multan cantonment, out of nowhere I dropped a disturbing question directed to my mother in a wondrous child like manner: “Mama this time . . .what was before this time ?” Mama replied: “Only God”, I asked again “No, I meant, what was before God?” Mama throws me a look of stun and apprehension but gathers her hesitant expression and replies back “God is eternity, he has been there for an infinite time”, she takes a pause and continues: “and also human mind is not capable of understanding and comprehending the infinity of time”. I am not satisfied with the first half of her answer but as soon as she iterates that human mind is not capable of understanding or comprehending this monstrous task, I accept it with an affirmative childlike acceptance of my mother’s knowledge as the entire ‘truth’ and wisdom beholding the sentence human mind is not capable to understand that.

In pre-historic times, human mind was only capable of hunting and gathering for food (hunter gatherers), igniting a fire to keep him warm (cave men) and learning the course of defense to protect him from harm (soldiers of ancient armies). Over the course of time, humans started thinking, asking questions, acted upon impulses and created experiments to test the limits of their imagination (Greek mythology is filled with examples of such powers of the likes of Icarus and Deadalus whose curiosity and needs lead them to create powerful inventions). Therefore the history of thinking, mind's eye and prowess to explore those ideas into actions evolved over time to the extent that today humans are devising a plan to travel to Mars.

The aforementioned (brief) background encapsulating the history of thousands of years indeed cannot do justice to what I am about to proceed with but I want you to have the above short frame of reference in mind.

----1998, as eight years old kid, my mind was working in the brackets of abstractionism and sheer curiosity. As a student though, I never asked questions like that again. I repeated in my head: human mind is unable to comprehend that, we do not hold that kind of power. So I deleted my plethora of stingy questions and thwarted them around into my subconscious, to be forgotten for years.

My curiosity and wonder was capped, ― Capped further into my adolescent years by a set of social orders, directive authoritization and molded by religious and moral conventions and norms. The original child or a tabular rasa (cf. Jhon Locke), got scribbled on by external injunctions and education and at times by circumstances and fate. Carl Sagan reflects on human curiosity in his book  Broca’s Brain reflections on the romance of science:

“My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, our curiosity and intelligence are provided by such a god. We would be unappreciative of those gifts (as well as unable to take such a course of action) if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves. On the other hand, if such a traditional god does not exist, our curiosity and our intelligence are the essential tools for managing our survival. In either case, the enterprise of knowledge is consistent with both science and religion, and is essential for the welfare of the human species”

Why is abstractionism important? For people in Pakistan, it is generally restricted to literature, art and music; but is it? A pragmatic person would disagree. It is a mislead notion regarding intelligentsia that, one must be following the hard and fast; stringent rules of present ontology and epistemologies; to frame theories, though without understanding of that knowledge human thinking cannot fully comprehend social or scientific phenomenon, but it is the abstract order of thinking, or disorder (Foucault, Derrida, Wittgenstein) if you will, which finally gives a breakthrough of a theory or a scientific invention.

Students and their fresh minds should not be impeded with stammering answers like “that’s all we know”, or a hesitant: “that’s how it usually is” or a splutter of: “that’s a stupid question”. The asking of questions with why and the how is the step one of a platonic solution that can be devised to contemporary problems faced by mankind; a culture of pedagogy that promotes the habit of young people to bombard teachers, supervisors, mentors and adults with those questions that makes some people uncomfortable and irritable.

Necessity is the mother of creation; inventions follow experimentations and designs and the objective scientific need is fulfilled. But when it comes to our societies, suppression of curiosity is an impediment to philosophical thinking and a disruption of way of life.

Murdering of curiosity is annihilation of philosophy, ― how? When self is not able to grasp the concept of ‘self-other’ or ‘subject-object’ relationship, thus ‘self’ remains unqualified to be called in a form of beingness. The ‘self’ loses the curiosity to discover the philosophical understanding behind a phenomenon that leads it to approach and consume subconscious cognitive approach; the approach that orchestrates that effective and meaningful relationship with the available ‘subjects’ (the outer-world).

Contributor Azka Durrani is MS student of Peace & Conflict Studies at the Centre for International Peace & Stability (CIPS) - National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST). This article is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the views or policy of any particular institution or organization.

In a "Rational" Pakistan

Naya Pakistan is now the moto under the Premiership of Imran Khan and a hope has been cultivated. This hope is indeed healthy to be absorbed in the collective psyche of the nation but not in copious dozes of a sort that a nation of 20 million feels high all of a sudden.

I recently came across a book (which I read for self-help purposes) “How to be a stoic?” by Massimo Pigliucci. I found myself to be a prokoption, a student of stoicism. After comprehending its basic philosophical fundamentals, I reflected over the recent elections in Pakistan, the furor and euphoria but most of all the evangelical hope! Hope, people clutched at heart for horizon of the new is beckoning! If it had been five years ago, I would’ve caught on in the same stream of collective consciousness of the nation. I would also have felt those deep bouts of peaceful notions of glorious futuristic all-is-well wishful belief. But stoicism taught a practical mid-way between gloom and hope. It asks of its followers to adopt a path of rationality via the logic of indifference and pragmatism in approach to life and politics. It asks us not to hope from a single person because you and the revered entity is memento homo (just a human).

The caricature of a superman status―Übermensch―of a man is wrong (Friedrich Nietzsch would have disagreed). Man to his people, needs to be represented as a rational being. For instance, your depiction or perception of a leader can be pragmatic (not over indulgently evil or all too evangelical). Why is that we as a nation stick to hope from one entity? Why expect that particular being to do all in a five years term or ten years term? Is that all we need, a silver bullet? The processes of social evolution, enlightenment through eventual progress of both the man and the society, are these conceptions of common sense alien to us?

But alas! Yes it is so.

The literacy rate and education graph of this country avidly displays the picture of as to why we are mentally alienated of an intellectually solid and rational discourse. I am not purporting here to state the obvious; I am merely of the view that the mindset, the frame, the lens of viewing day-to-day politics and events concerning leadership and governance be changed. A doze of Seneca’s stoicism would not hurt, ―will it? At least, if the Pakistani common citizen becomes less emotional and tribal in sentiments, they can approach the stoic methods of pragmatism. The philosophical studies reiterates the notions of agnoia (not knowing) and anathia (not learning), both of which are ingrained within the mental-fabric of our society. The inflexible character that we have molded ourselves in (by default), with or without the requisite education, never opening up to change or learning calls for intelligent stupidity (cf. Robert Musil). Applying ‘reason’ to improve social living, is one of the fundamental composure bricks of stoic wall. This must apply to our personal and political spheres of surviving.

A stoic maxim reads: “Between stimulus and response, there is a space, in that space is our power to choose our response”.

The sages of this country must follow a stoic form of evaluation in matters related to evaluating political drama that engulfs us as a nation. The unsentimental, rational, un-boosted personal emotions stacked into reasoning and cogent psyche is what the nation requires. Hailing leaders or herds of political parties or particular agendas for the feel of it rather than the reason for it will not render the political spectrum obsolete of flaws, those which are in need of a dramatic but subtle change. Take the new leader as a human (biological) beingness not a deity, keep a check on his democratic values, the cover of anti-corruption charade he promises, do not give in to promises, promises made, broken or hoped after is not the stoic way. Keep an eye on the warmongering, keep an eye on your foreign policy, shall it turn into a fiasco or an endeavourous diplomacy, ―who is to tell!?

Do not paddle away into the dream of an empire of the crescent fallen long ago for lucid minds were lost and taken out like the Averros of Arab. Miracles would not happen overnight. It would not be easy propelling across the ideologies of communism and capitalism, democracy and authoritarianism, Peace or war and devising your own brand of working, ―the leader is the making of a nation and a nation is the making of a mindset; both may fall if rationality is not the way.

 Contributor Azka Durrani is MS student of Peace & Conflict Studies at the Centre for International Peace & Stability (CIPS) - National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST). This article is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the views or policy of any particular institution or organization.