-
Lesson 35: Preach A Hegelian Series
Contributed by I. Grant Spong on Apr 13, 2018 (message contributor)
Summary: Solve a seeming contradiction, the Hegelian thesis, antithesis and synthesis
Some people say that there are no foolish questions and that we ought to always give an answer. In court or if questioned by an officer of the law, we may be in trouble if we do not answer certain questions. Beyond that, there is a social responsibility to answer some questions. For instance, if asked about a fire or crime we ought to always give out information, especially when lives may hinge on our answers.
Especially, ought we to answer a fool, to help him realize his stupidity. Willy Brandt the governor of the German state of Bavaria, was well-known for his ability to answer any foolish question from the news media and put a reporter in his place, because Herr Brandt had a remarkable recall for facts and statistics. When politicians don't answer questions from reporters or seem to side-step them, it only adds to the suspicion that they have something to hide.
How many of us recall the teacher that seemed to be aloof and uncaring? Some teachers seem to have no time for struggling students. If you had questions, they seemed impatient and unwilling to take the time to answer. I remember going home frustrated about equations when I was young. The mathematics teacher could not or seemed unwilling to answer my questions in a way that I could understand the concept. Perhaps I had been playing the fool or was distracted by some foolish youthful pursuit. So, I asked my father. He simply made an equation analogous to a set of balance scales. If I took something from or added something to one side, in order for the scales to maintain balance, I needed to take the exact same amount from or add it to the other side of the scales. The fool (me) got his answer and has never forgotten it.
What then is the answer? Are these two proverbs a contradiction or are these contrasting principles?
3. Synthesis: Answer or Not Depending...
Before rushing to judgment about what a proverb means we need to understand the nature of proverbs. They are not meant to be the complete or absolute answers to everything. Proverbs are designed to be a partial view of reality only. So, these two seemingly contradictory proverbs are in reality a contrast between two facets of reality and each is not a stand-alone complete answer. In the contrast is the answer to the dilemma.
The resolution becomes clearer when we see that the two proverbs complement rather than contradict each other. If answering a fool makes you as foolish as they are, you may not want to answer. Or if by answering, you seem to give honor to a fool, it may be better not to bother.
On the other hand, if by not answering, they think they have outsmarted you or do so something even more foolish, perhaps an answer is in order.
So, answering a fool is both a potential obligation and a possible threat to the wise. In both cases, the purpose of any answer would be to curtail foolishness and not let it get out of hand. Now that calls for wisdom and insight. Those who claim that these two proverbs are contradictory may not understand the ambiguities of life. Life is not all laid out for us in clear black and white choices. There are many areas where we need wisdom to discern a right path.