Khan, The Philosopher?

KhanSomebody wrote a Facebook Status quoting Shahrukh Khan. Here are those three droplets from the ocean of Mr. Khan’s prophetic wisdom:

“Do not become a philosopher before you become rich.” – Shahrukh Khan

“Nothing is normal.” – Shahrukh Khan

“Confusion is the path to clarity.” – Shahrukh Khan

My confusion brought no clarity; only the following jumble of thoughts arranged point-wise in response to Mr. Khan’s ideas.

1. And yet no philosopher was actually rich, and a vast majority of rich did not really make great philosophers with a possible exception of Tesla, who wasn’t exactly a philosopher, but a great inventor nevertheless.

2. If nothing is normal, everything is abnormal because ‘abnormal’ means ‘not normal’. And if everything is abnormal without exception, then everything is actually ‘normal’ because what is abnormal cannot ‘normally’ be the state of things as they exist. But then, ‘abnormal’, by definition is ‘not-normal’, and if ‘abnormal’ is ‘normal’ by the extension of the original statement, it clearly implies that the original statement — ‘nothing is normal’ — is inherently paradoxical, and, thus, meaningless as a stand-alone statement indicating the state of things in the world, and can, therefore, be of value only in very specific factual contexts.

3. Confusion is not the ‘path’ to clarity. It is the beginning of an inquiry that may or may not lead to clarity, which is why being confused is no guarantee of attaining clarity, and that’s the reason why not everybody who was confused necessarily gained clarity, but anybody who did gain clarity started with some confusion or question. So, it doesn’t work both ways. Furthermore, nobody attains clarity ‘through’ confusion, but only by clearing the confusion because clarity is the absence of confusion, and quite obviously if attainment is the goal, denial or non-attainment cannot be the path or the material of which the path might be constructed. 

But one can still admire Shahrukh Khan, a fine star, indeed. Just twinkled in the wrong sky this once.


5 thoughts on “Khan, The Philosopher?

    1. Philosophy, in general, is interested in dependable ‘truth’ because knowledge of anything less than ‘verifiable truth’ or ‘justified true belief’ is no knowledge, and without knowledge, wisdom cannot have a sound foundation. And philosophy, as they say and as we know, is ‘love of wisdom’. Reasoning of all kinds are just tools to get to the truth. It’s just the means and not the end in itself.

      Of course, you might disagree. That’s just my opinion. 🙂

        1. No, not necessarily ‘absolute’ at all levels. But I believe that the truth is knowable at a given point of time, in a given context and for a given purpose. Within that framework only the truth is absolute. Again, it’s an opinion, for I don’t — and can’t — claim to know the truth about the absoluteness of the truth.

          1. It’s okay: it’s quite a safe response. From this stems the nature of philosophy, I think: Taking one bias of the truth and making a world view out of it. That why we talk of Philosophical Bias.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s