will ultimately lead to greater control over our lives: it would force you to act with reference to reality rather than fiction; it could force you to face difficult circumstances, seize the initiative and do things with that knowledge which ultimately lead to a better outcome than inaction. Rous- seau accepts that truly impactful knowledge can make things worse before it makes them better. It can initially bewilder, confuse, overwhelm and make the petty empiri- cal self feel helpless, subject to ideas or forces beyond its control, whether they be cancer or corruption. Rousseau affirms that it is inevitable that the rational eternal self will step in, look at the facts coldly and bring the petty empiri- cal self closer to freedom and, in the words of my favour- ite philosopher, Isaiah Berlin, to being ‘from hope and fear set free’. For my part, I do not currently believe that the benefits offered by the interventions of the rational eternal self will always outweigh the shocks they bring with them. What Rousseau calls for is for those who experience episteme-shaking knowledge to be strong, but strength must come from somewhere. Much as a building relies on its steel framework to survive an earthquake, so the petty empirical self requires support in the face of the shock of knowledge if it is to survive until reason intervenes. Rous- seau makes no exception for those who lack such support, but we are most of the world, and before Rousseau, or his disciples, tell anyone they should wanna know, this inequality must be addressed. I came to this realization recently, and with a jolt, at the hands of my Ukrainian grandmother around the dinner table. I asked advice on who to reach out to in Odessa about a possibility of setting up an online Model UN club for my old classmates. Instead of answering, she stood up, went over to the bookshelf and gave me a copy of an old Russian play which used to be compulsory reading in Soviet schools: Gore ot uma (‘Woe from knowledge’). The play, in its irreverent and unrelenting way, reminds us that sometimes knowledge or intellectualization does great harm: it confuses and abstracts, and belittles the empirical experience of people on the ground who do not have the luxury of waiting for Rousseau. She taught me briskly that there must be the right circumstances of safety, both physical and mental, before knowledge can be useful and applicable in the day-to-day. As these specific circumstances can only be understood by the individual in question (and this highlights the weakness of universal dogma) the only legitimate question is ‘Do I wanna know?’, and we should also question Rousseau’s
glib assertion that ‘You should wanna know’. Just as monkeys in the Arctic are surprising, one doesn’t expect to find Rousseau materializing from beyond the grave in Alex Turner’s song. For me, meaning is created when abstract concepts and daily experience are in dialogue; this then allows us to come up with new and better abstract concepts. Rousseau’s precept has penetrated deep into western consciousness: even a hit single can send you to it. The Arctic Monkeys did not intend their lyric to be co-opted within an indictment of the Enlightenment for fetishizing knowledge to the detriment of the least advantaged. But that’s what can happen to a text: it can find a life of its own. ◉ When told that Santa is fake, my belief in Christmas is undermined; when told by a political activist in Ukraine of voter intimidation, my trust in the political system is damaged
OPINION, INTERVIEWS & FEATURES
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker