One of the defining features of contemporary Arab public discourse is not a shortage of information but a shortage of judgment. We have become remarkably adept at producing answers before asking questions, at offering certainty where inquiry should begin, and at explaining the world in ways that reassure us more than they illuminate reality.
Perhaps nowhere is this habit more visible than in our instinctive resort to conspiracy.
Every setback becomes evidence of a hidden plot. Every criticism from abroad is interpreted as an attack on identity. Every success achieved elsewhere is attributed to manipulation rather than competence.
Conspiracies undoubtedly exist; history offers abundant proof. But when conspiracy becomes a universal explanation, it ceases to be analysis and becomes an escape from analysis. This is not an Arab peculiarity; conspiratorial thinking is corroding public debate in Western societies as well, but we owe it to ourselves to confront the version we know from within. A mind that has one answer for every question has already stopped thinking.
More than a thousand years ago, the essayist and philosopher Abu Hayyan al Tawhidi captured this danger with remarkable economy: “The senses are pitfalls, illusions are pathways, and minds are kingdoms.” His point was not to dismiss the senses but to distinguish perception from judgment. Seeing is not the same as understanding. Reason begins precisely where appearances cease to be sufficient.
The distinction is more than philosophical. It is the foundation of civilisation itself.
Consider one of the simplest experiments in physics. To ordinary observation, a feather plainly falls more slowly than a stone. For centuries, this seemed beyond dispute because it agreed perfectly with common experience. Yet, remove air resistance and both objects fall at exactly the same rate. When David Scott, commander of Apollo 15, dropped a feather and a hammer on the Moon in 1971, they reached the lunar surface together.
The lesson extends far beyond physics. Civilisation advances not because it trusts appearances but because it develops ways of questioning them. The scientific revolution did not begin with better eyesight. It began with better judgment.
Our intellectual crisis, therefore, is not simply that we misread the world. It is that we inherit the intellectual tools with which we interpret the world without first asking how those tools were forged. We mistake familiarity for truth and inheritance for evidence.
Human beings never encounter reality directly. We see it through language, history, institutions, inherited assumptions, and collective memory. Ideas that appear self-evident in one age often seem naive in another. What appears universal today may tomorrow become merely another chapter in the history of ideas.
If judgment requires more than perception, it also requires more than intuition. It demands that we understand where our concepts come from. Concepts are not timeless truths suspended above history; they are historical solutions to historical problems.
Take the modern nation-state. Whether one ultimately embraces or rejects it is beside the point. The concept emerged from particular European struggles over sovereignty, religion, war, bureaucracy, and political authority. Transporting its vocabulary without understanding the historical conditions that produced it inevitably generates confusion. Concepts travel across civilisations, but they do not travel empty of history.
Much of the Arab world’s intellectual turmoil over the past century reflects this failure precisely. We imported other societies’ concepts together with their arguments, or rejected both wholesale, without first asking what historical questions those concepts were originally designed to answer. We borrowed conclusions before understanding the problems from which they emerged.
The consequences are not confined to universities or seminar rooms. Misunderstood concepts eventually become misunderstood institutions.
Good judgment is never merely an individual virtue; it is a social achievement. Universities, schools, newspapers, publishing houses, and research centres do more than transmit knowledge. They cultivate habits of inquiry. They teach societies not merely what to think but how to think. If those responsible for producing ideas lose the capacity for critical judgment, the consequences inevitably spread throughout public life.
Every civilisation that has learned to judge well has cultivated three indispensable habits.
Science teaches us to test claims against evidence, even when evidence contradicts intuition. Philosophy teaches us to examine assumptions that evidence alone cannot reach. Freedom allows us to do both without fear. Remove any one of these pillars and serious inquiry begins to collapse.
The Egyptian philosopher Fouad Zakaria understood the political consequences of intellectual decline. He argued that every party in Arab intellectual life shares complicity in what he called ‘the destruction of minds’, a crime, he wrote, graver than anything committed by undemocratic regimes. Minds are destroyed not only when they are forbidden to speak, but when they cease to ask questions; when ready-made answers replace inquiry; when inherited certainty becomes a substitute for evidence.
Al Tawhidi’s insight therefore remains strikingly contemporary. The senses may deceive us. Illusion offers comforting pathways. But minds are not instincts; they are kingdoms that must be patiently built through science, philosophy, freedom, and institutions that reward inquiry over certainty.
Societies do not prosper because they see more than others. They prosper because they learn how to see more clearly. That, more than information or ideology, is the beginning of sound judgment.
The writer is an Omani evolutionary biologist, translator, and editor
Oman Observer is now on the WhatsApp channel. Click here
