if you look up “pundit” in the dictionary, or in this case www.m-w.com, you get the following:
One entry found for pundit.
Main Entry: pun·dit
Pronunciation: ‘p&n-d&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Hindi pandit, from Sanskrit pandita, from pandita learned
1 : PANDIT
2 : a learned man : TEACHER
3 : one who gives opinions in an authoritative manner : CRITIC
- pun·dit·ry /-d&-trE/ noun
and if you look up philosopher you get this:
Main Entry: phi·los·o·pher
Pronunciation: f&-’lä-s(&-)f&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, modification of Middle French philosophe, from Latin philosophus, from Greek philosophos, from phil- + sophia wisdom, from sophos wise
1 a : a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment : SCHOLAR, THINKER b : a student of philosophy
2 a : a person whose philosophical perspective makes meeting trouble with equanimity easier b : an expounder of a theory in a particular area of experience c : one who philosophizes
which i find interesting, because if you look up the first definition of pundit, its pandit, and that gets you this:
Entry: pan·dit
Pronunciation: ‘pan-d&t, ‘p&n-
Function: noun
Etymology: Hindi pandit, from Sanskrit pandita
: a wise or learned man in India — often used as an honorary title
i will now ask you to take the time to annalyze similarities (and differences) here.
to explain where this came from, i have to backtrack and little and explain how some of my brain software works. i have, and always will be, a multitasker. i’ve always wanted to know something about everything, and i am constantly skimming all forms of media for more information. the internet was invented by people like me. while this has its drawbacks (mistaken for having ADD as a child), i’ve found that it serves very well in being able to get a mental relief map of how the world is working. sometimes, as for a writing such as this, i take a closer look at the terrain. but i digress…
one of the things that i hear and read in my skimming is the term “pundit” and “talking heads” or “the experts say”. certain bytes come up and say that policy is being shaped by these pundits for things such as global warming and genetic research. we have “economic pundits” and “ecological pundits” and “political pundits” and “business pundits” and “religious pundits” and.. hold on, rewind that.
did i just say religious pundits? aren’t those suppose to be philosphers? when did we get “experts” pontificating (i’m liking this word today. PONTIFICATING! its what i’m doing right now… hey… I’M a pundit) on religion? aren’t those kinds of people suppose to be philosophers and stay in the realm of clergy and acedemecia?
i seem to remember that in human history, philosophers helped shape the landscape of societal structure by speaking at length on their thoughts and epiphanies. many of them were persecuted for speaking their mind, and while that’s not a practice of the times, one can certainly see the debates that arise from what our “pundits” have to say. i can’t see them as philosphers. those have been filed away with antiquity for they don’t translate into soundbytes very well (”soundbyte” is a word that has been invented in my lifetime).
hmm… i should say here that religion and philosphy does not always go hand in hand, but usually they do. both spring from ideals that the human mind has created. they both are things purely cerebral, and have little to do with measuring, mixing, stirring, or computing in scientific manner.
pundits always seem to allude to this fact or another, in interest of science and all. to me, however, they all seem to be doing the same thing, espousing purely cerebral opinion. they use the same logic that i’m using to draw a connection.
that is to say… none.
oh.. and one other thing. anyone who has studied statistics knows that they can be manipulated to say anything you want. much like corporate accounting.
Current Mood:
thoughtful
Current Music: Bjork -Human Behavior