Accommodation Is not Intellectual

The twin tower of intellectual are knowledge and freedom [Edward W. Said].  Freedom here is related to universal knowledge and not just particular knowledge. Those who know widely beyond his scope of expertise. Freedom related to an act of opposition and not accommodation. Having say this, it does not mean that an intellectual person needs to disagree with all things just for the sake of being an opposition. It just they are not supporting a certain view, just because they are being paid to walk in a certain ''system'' or ''method.' To please or even prove how true their group and interest which at the same time sacrificing genuine conviction and truth we might seen. ''We present what people like to seek, and they want to know!'' [Data-driven story].

Thus, Intellectuals are those who are not belong to a certain camp of majority.Pope Benedict XVI once says, “Truth is not determined by a majority vote.”And this is so true for intellects. They are not fall to a prey of faulty logic of pragmatism as well. 

They are free to think by themselves and choose which place to reside best. That is why, those who live this intellectual life are the most lonely people of all time. As Edward W. Said wrote aptly in his book, ''the voice of intellects are the voice of loneliness.'' Every great mind feels lonely because of social gesture toward them and of course, their critical brain make them aware for every anxiety, problem that revolves in their head which often, they cannot be ignored or forgotten easily by them. They are also the one who always stuck in paradox, at the same time promoting integrity yet, at he same time is considered as threat or even traitor in a wider society. This paradox create the lonely even more. 

The intellectual  is the one who speak openly to the wider society and cannot be remain silent. Their writing, advice and ideas that has been spoken out loud automatically bring political implication by that, they are entering a political action and life without excuse. The intellectual who play safe and think only in their head is only a thinker but not yet an intellectual. Everyone can be a thinker [passive intellectual] but not everyone can be an intellects [active intellectual]. 

Thus, to be intellects is a very costly path to take. That is why, an intellects are rare, not because most people cannot be but they are not willing to be. 

Moreover, Intellects are the one who always examine their pre-understanding or horizon whether what they hold are already scrutinized before they hold to it dearly. In fact, many people are raised in certain context which predisposed them to be an intellectual in a certain stream, to play an ''act of accommodation'' and take their knowledge and freedom for granted. 

Let say,  a Liberal or left wing thinker, does they need to always think with the liberal or left wing way of thinking, even it against their conscience? Or let say, there is a Christian and they are reformed in their tradition. Do they need to adopt the way of thinking of John Calvin whole-sale? [''Okay, let us see what John Calvin says regarding this particular issue, and all will be settled. Hmm..Calvin ban piano in service, so we should do this as well then for we are bold reformed people!]. 

One illustration I can give is to bring the genius Einstein. Even Albert Einstein himself  has already believe that his theory is a theory can overthrown the old Newtonian perspective of universe as he offer a new perspective  with his theory of gravity he did not become ignorant. As Thomas Sowell pointed out, ''Einstein himself urged that his theories not be accepted until they could be verified empirically'

Those who always go to authority for truth validation-and end there without consciously aware and struggle with the issue first is can be said as  a ''pseudo-intellectual'.  A true intellectual will oppose even their own view, with regards to some thing that is apparently against his firm rationale, a rationale which had been formed through a thorough and careful investigation. An act of opposition is not as bad as we think. Far from being cynical or skeptical It is actually a pure act of assessment and judgement. 

The act of opposition create a good defense mechanism. Also can behave like an effective filter to every information they read, see and heard before an intellects become a friend with all those information. The principle is clear, we need to be a foe before we can become a best friend because true in reality, the best friend is a true thread for they can potentially become our greatest enemy. Examined information is not our true friend but disguised enemy that has been creeping in!

At the end, it is a matter of choice. We can be a passive intellectual who play an ''act of accommodation'' or an active intellectual who play an ''act of opposition''. By choosing one, we are eliminating one. We cannot remain and choose both, and not to choose either or position is often becoming passive eventually.