Reflections on a Strange "Analyst" Controversy
In the last few days, I have read some interesting articles in some media, asking a ridiculous question like "who is the better analyst and who can be trusted". Those who try to answer this question are, in my opinion, "unnecessarily" ironizing each other.
Man is a thinking being, and everyone must first trust his own judgment. Who should I trust is a special kind of question that has the privilege of being funnier than its answer.
First of all, let me say that I do not consider myself an "analyst" and I am comfortable with that. I have no great "pretensions" in life, nor do I have any in this field. I am just a person who tries to keep a close eye on international developments and, like any reasonable person, is concerned about things like war, regional conflicts, or nuclear threats. Although I have academic degrees, I do not use them unless it is mandatory. Mandatory situations are; writing scientific books or articles, creating professional profiles, or meeting some people...
I remember when I was a small child, my mother would tuck me into bed and I would look out the window at the distant stars and dream. Is there life out there, and if so, what does it look like? I still have a telescope somewhere in the house. I used to dream about traveling in a time machine. I always went to the future. There were many books, pictures and musical instruments in our house. As a result, my interests were always varied. After a certain stage, I learned to establish relationships between different kinds of knowledge. But I never had the idea of being "this" or "that. I have always been Onur.
On the occasion of this last discussion, I also learned that there is a kind of "analyst market". Believe me, I did not know that. The only purpose for which I closely follow the developments in the world is to deepen in my field of study, political philosophy and theory, the possible forms of development of humanity and the possible forms of political unity, and, if my life and means allow it, to put forward a theory. Otherwise, believe me, I do not know who has analyzed whom and how
A final word: If what is meant by being an analyst is someone who manages to analyse the conjuncture by interpreting geopolitical developments, then in my opinion these are important people. Therefore, I would like to point out that no one can simply categorize someone else as a "geopolitician (!)", "realpolitician", etc. As for me, I only follow some of the most important people who are still alive, and I think they are the most intelligent people in the world. I have no desire to be like those people. But as you can see, people who are interested in the philosophy of history, geography and futurism are candidates to be philosophers, even if they don't claim to be, and I see them as philosophers, not analysts.
As for the analysts, of course I follow them. I never intended to join the analyst community. I think they should stop picking on each other.
It might be better for them to stop arguing and do their analysis.
Sincerely...
Comments
Post a Comment