Mereja Forum

[Naga Tuma]

In my opinion, some of the concepts in natural science that are very much enjoyable to learn include postulates and corollaries. I don't mean to be biased towards natural science as a more definitive discourse than social science. Intuitively and based on a limited experience, I think the latter is more fluid than the former, which is why the latter needs more skilled scientists in its own right to put complex ideas in definitive and concise terms for the layperson to understand them meaningfully.

When I hear or read a social scientist say or write a postulate or corollary, I get a pleasant surprise about the idea that is postulated or said as a corollary.

Then again, even though I am not a social scientist, I have some intuitive thoughts about some social science concepts as postulates and corollaries.

For instance, I think that it can be postulated that humanity prefers democracy to anarchy.

I also think that a corollary to that would be that a human being who is more conscious about democracy is more likely to defend it than another human being who is less conscious about it.

I presume that this postulate and its corollary are generally acceptable to any credible social scientist even though they can be stated more concisely.

If my presumption here is plausible, then we can say confidently that a lot of the ideas that confuse people in a political discourse hinge on the definition of consciousness about democracy.

If I remember correctly, I debated a while back on this forum with Semira about the notion of Intelligence Quotient (IQ.) My point then, as it is now, was that a human being's intelligence is different from his or her Intelligence Quotient and that it is not the best yardstick to gauge intelligence.

My idea of intelligence is the capacity of a human being's faculty to receive, interpret, and impart knowledge.

My understanding of the idea of Intelligence Quotient starts from the word quotient. One dictionary definition of the term quotient as used in mathematics states that it is "a result obtained by dividing one quantity by another." Based on this definition of the word quotient, my understanding of the idea of Intelligence Quotient is more about the acquired depth and breadth of knowledge by a human being's faculty instead of that faculty's natural capacity to receive, interpret, and impart knowledge.

Hoping that there is some discernible thought process in this distinction between capacity and, perhaps, conditionally acquired depth and breadth of knowledge, what yardstick can be used to gauge consciousness about democracy? Can something out of civilization, let us call it Civility Quotient (CQ,) be handy to measure consciousness about democracy? If so, along the line of the statement above for Intelligence Quotient, Civility Quotient can be stated as the acquired depth and breadth of wisdom by a human being's faculty.

Granted that wisdom can be acquired in depth and breadth, where might be its sources? I would argue that centers of civilizations and unforgotten inheritance as well as schooling are sound sources of wisdom. Here in comes geography as a factor.

One can argue that geography is a factor for an American to have acquired America's evolving wisdom of democratic experimentation of nearly two and a half centuries through unforgotten inheritance from its founding fathers up to now and/or through schooling in American academic institutions and/or literature.

By the same token, one can argue that geography may be a factor for a Greek to have acquired Greece's wisdom of Classical Civilization of nearly two and a half millennia ago through unforgotten inheritance of the wisdom of philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle and/or through schooling in classical Greek studies. The same can be said about other ancient civilizations, including ancient Egypt, Near East, and Buddhist Civilizations.

If these points hold some grain of truth, it is likely that a global map of Civility Quotient will bring to light the confusion about who loves a democratic system more. If the postulate and corollary above are acceptable, it is not inconceivable that an African or American who descended from Africa and has a higher Civility Quotient may be a more fierce defender of American democracy than a wild element from the Wild West of America who has a lower Civility Quotient. I invite capable social scientists to prove this theory wrong by developing a global Civility Quotient map and demonstrating that those with higher Civility Quotient are less fervent to defend democratic values than those with lower Civility Quotient.