Niemcy z perspektywy najeźdźcy

The most interesting things in life are those that surprise us the most. They reveal that our idea about something doesn't match reality, so they can be used to learn something about the world. "How did he manage that goal?", "It's not possible to walk so fast from Marathon", "I can't believe you convinced her", "He can read at this age already?!?" – such statements stem from being confronted with something new.

One of the most valuable lessons in my life can be summarized as "how can it be that this person is wise in day-to-day matters?".

It appears that there are several kinds of wisdom. Wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, smartness... even though they are nearly the same in common usage, they reveal a bit of truth: different wisdoms are different. Not long ago I learned for sure that at least two sorts exist.

The person who taught me that is someone who only gave me a good impression from the beginning. They often play chess, and they teach those who want to dip their toes in the game. Chess as an ancient and difficult game, requires intelligence, logic, and a premeditated approach, matching this mentor very well. They seemed similarly well adjusted when discussing travels, cultures, the Polish life, and people that we both knew. Attention, respect, and understanding. We didn't conduct many such conversations, and there was no intention to analyze the character while chatting, but my resulting opinion was above average: this person comprehends life, and their approach casts all weirdness aside. The feeling was reinforced by some religious people I knew, who took this person as an authority. As I still remembered the wise and philosophical leader I met and respected, I took that for an endorsement.

And so, it was a conversation about faith and religion which was my lesson and a breakthrough. I was made to understand that a conservative approach to life and the perceived wisdom of this person was just an illusion that I saw because of my point of view.

The situation leading to enlightenment resembled the part of Red Riding Hood, when Hood met the Wolf disguised as Grandma. The acquaintance, as the Hood, tried to show the path to salvation to a fellow seeking soul, out of their good will. They presented their own approach, especially their interpretation of the Christian Bible, while completely oblivious to the fact that the fellow soul eats gods for breakfast. Just like the Wolf eats the Granny. Me, as the soul, was listening with full attention, out of sheer anthropological curiosity for stories written by life, and because I like to make people I like feel acknowledged.

What I was told was shocking. The first rule is to take literally all that's written in the Bible. Until that moment, I was certain that it's a kind of decadence limited to the darkest backwaters of the United States of America, and that there's nothing to fear here across the ocean. Oh well. Please excuse my naivety, that was still before the anti-vaccination movement took hold around here. Another piece of knowledge that I received was on reading contradictory statements in the Bible. I was told that my acquaintance tries not to think about those. Another surprise! But what about logic? What about chess? How can you build your life strategy on something on which you don't want to use logic, which you don't want to check for having sense?

Those two surprises showed me that people are more complicated than they might appear. This is one person, while around us there are tens, thousands, millions of people who can't necessarily be relied on to behave sensibly in important matters. Perhaps they never bothered to check if the rules they follow even work.

When we met again, the consequences of this approach to life surfaced. My desertion from the sinking ship of Poland, being scuttled by the political scene, was the starting point. My criticism was confusing to my acquaintance. They noted that political powers should cooperate instead of being discordant. They also made an observation that political power is holy as coming from their god. Yet another surprise. Such a sentiment denies pluralism and the principle of separation of powers. It was clear to me by that point that the basis for those statements was the unerring Christian Bible. That set the bar for argumentation, diplomacy and patience to a level that barred me from any further productive discussion on the topic. It became obvious that the religiosity of my acquaintance was no longer a harmless hobby. Enjoying the position of authority, they had the ability to spread their knowledge to those that trust their wisdom. However, when the authority is convinced about the correctness of naive cooperation and the stupidity of unconditional submission to consolidated power, the authority can lead people into the bushes of supporting dictatorship.

What's the moral of this story? Being nice, logical, and wise today doesn't guarantee that we'll be such tomorrow, when asked about some important matter. We should make sure we evaluate the rules that guide us, and must be ready to find mistakes in them, especially when comparing what the rules say about dissimilar situations. We should also keep in mind that others haven't necessarily applied the previous rule to their lives, and that their behaviour can seem incomprehensible to us. Not even respected people and authorities are exempt, so we should not overestimate their opinions on topics outside of their expertise. And finally, you need to know a person well to judge them well. That requires patience and forgiveness. Perhaps empathy can even lead those who are astray on the path to consistent rules.