If the statement “Fools should not vote” is to hold any weight, there must at least be a predefined notion of what “wisdom” entails within the context of that election. But for whom does this “wisdom” exist? That is not democracy. Democracy does not possess wisdom simply because it represents the majority. At the very least, such a sentiment should not be adopted as a social slogan.
However, if one were truly wise, they should be able to surpass the “fools.” Whether this is currently happening in Japan or the rest of the world remains unclear. In fact, I have no idea what truly constitutes wisdom or foolishness. The world is at once broader and narrower, more complex and yet simpler than it seems.
Is there not a distinction between the question of what is wise/foolish and who is wise/foolish? When we question the wisdom or foolishness of “something,” that “something” is merely information. The perspective often omitted here is the source—who is disseminating that information?
Conversely, when we question the wisdom or foolishness of “someone,” it is judged based on the information they emit through their own words and actions. The inquiry into the wisdom or foolishness of “something” can be seen as a decontextualized abstraction of the individual messenger. Let us consider a hypothetical example.
For instance, a teacher shouting at a student is understandable within the context of being a “teacher.” However, if the context of the teacher is removed, it becomes the abstract and less specific information that “an adult shouted at a child.” Without the teacher, there is no student, and vice versa.
Many issues regarding political correctness (PC) and compliance likely originate here. For an orderly society, it is important to establish certain rules. These rules aim to resolve issues without grievance for those involved when problems arise, or to avoid problems altogether through adherence.
Yet, because rules are inherently designed to be fair to everyone, the context of the individual messenger is stripped away. The critical context of whether the act was committed by a “teacher” or simply a “noisy neighbor” is decisively overlooked in the statement “an adult shouted at a child.”
In this way, the pursuit of fairness for all makes it impossible to discern what truly constitutes “wisdom” or “foolishness.” This is the distinction I am referring to.
Paradoxically, perhaps this is why the proverb has long been said: “Hate the sin, not the sinner.”
