"We stopped thinking even before the arrival of artificial intelligence" - Hamid Sodiq on the crisis of education and intelligentsia | Nima dard?

"We stopped thinking long before the arrival of artificial intelligence" - Hamid Sodiq on the education crisis and intellectuals | What is the pain?

For Hamid Sodiq, pain is not a personal complaint, but a condition peculiar to human beings. "There is such an unconquerable pain inside us that a kind of will is formed around this pain," he says.

This pain is like an incomprehensible longing. Striving to understand it gives endless strength. You sometimes come across a slice of this understanding in the lines of Aristotle, Seneca, or Socrates. The guest's own path is also determined by this pain: from law to political thought, and from there to translation.

One of the important parts of the conversation was dedicated to the place of the intellectual in society.

Hamid Sodiq emphasized that it is not right to measure intellectuality solely by a diploma, an academic degree, reading many books, or being famous in front of the public.

In his view, an intellectual should not be limited to explaining the existing reality, but must also have independent intellectual criteria to evaluate it. This requires a willingness to revise prevailing views in society, and even one's own previous conclusions.

In this context, the intellectual's relationship with the state and society was also discussed. According to Sodiq, intellectual independence does not mean being against the state. On the contrary, an intellectual must be able to think independently of political power, social status, or public sentiment.

During the conversation, the issue of commitment to an idea was also raised. Hamid Sodiq saw a person's willingness to take risks for their principles as an important trait.

However, the host questioned the dangerous side of such an approach: what if a person believes in a destructive idea? For example, supporters of Fascism were also ready for sacrifice in the name of their ideas.

The guest explained that the persuasiveness of an idea does not mean that it is morally right. He stressed that society should seriously study even the ideas it rejects, and understand under what conditions they emerged and how they gained influence.

Here, the debate continued around the need not to blindly follow ideas, but to understand them and respond to them with thought.

One of the most controversial parts of the interview was about the modern education system.

Hamid Sodiq said that he had worked in the field of education for almost 20 years, during which he observed a specific depression among pupils and students.

He initially attributed this situation to problems in the field of jurisprudence. Later, he came to the conclusion that the root of the problem lay much deeper, in the philosophy of modern mass education.

According to the guest, today's educational model constantly teaches a person to strive for high results. University after school, then a master's degree, the next diploma, a higher position, and new success again.

However, there is no end point to this process.

"The current generation, to put it simply, is tired of continuous progress," says Hamid Sodiq.

According to his observations, getting a good education and achieving a higher social status were important means for previous generations to improve their living conditions. A portion of today's youth, on the other hand, is growing up in relatively comfortable conditions created by their parents. For this reason, the drive and need characteristic of previous generations are not manifesting in them to the same degree.

Sodiq interprets this not as simple laziness on the part of young people, but as a sign that perceptions of education and success are changing.

Of course, this is not a general conclusion applicable to all young people, but the guest's personal observations and philosophical views.

Hamid Sodiq gave an unexpected answer to the question about ways out of the depression in education.

In his opinion, the current form of mass education is experiencing a deep crisis. In the future, another model of education — teaching based on the master-apprentice relationship — may strengthen.

Sodiq explained this using the example of intellectual schools that formed around ancient philosophers. Mentioning thinkers like Aristotle and Socrates, he emphasized that real education is formed not around a specific institution or diploma, but around a master who is the bearer of knowledge and ideas.

In today's universities, however, according to his interpretation, in many cases the institution itself has come to the center, and the teacher's personality and intellectual influence have been relegated to the background.

At the same time, the issue of completely abandoning mass education was not raised in the conversation. It was about the importance of master-apprentice relationships for people who strive for deep thinking, independent research, and becoming a mature specialist in a certain field.

When the conversation turned to the topic of artificial intelligence, Hamid Sodiq stated that he does not see it merely as a result of technological progress.

In his opinion, the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence is also connected to a certain crisis in human thinking.

"We had stopped properly thinking long before the arrival of artificial intelligence," he says.

According to Sodiq's interpretation, artificial intelligence emerged in a context where humans are spending less and less effort on thinking independently, asking questions, and researching complex problems.

The guest also emphasized that he is by no means against this technology. He himself uses artificial intelligence. However, he considers it dangerous to turn technology into a tool that replaces human thinking.

He explained this by the fact that artificial intelligence lacks an independent worldview and an inner pain in the human sense.

According to Sodiq, a human's answers are connected to their life experience, beliefs, values, and personal responsibility. Artificial intelligence, on the other hand, forms a response tailored to the user's question and request.

In this regard, he also mentioned that artificial intelligence can provide information that looks reliable but is incorrect.

The conversation particularly cited the fields of education and medicine as examples. Doctor Odilxon Alimxonov expressed his concerns regarding the quality of certain scientific works being prepared with the help of artificial intelligence.

The main question in the discussion was: is technology giving humans the opportunity to gain more knowledge, or is it beginning to think in their place?

Another direction of the conversation was about the growing interest in political analysis and geopolitical commentary in Uzbekistan.

The host posed a question about how shows and commentaries dedicated to world politics have increased in recent years, but not all of them possess sufficient deep analysis and intellectual humility.

Hamid Sodiq shared his thoughts on this based on his experience.

"Geopolitics kills the political scientist," he says.

With this sharp phrase, the guest meant that constantly commenting on geopolitical events can distance a political scientist from fundamental research.

He explained that international events change very rapidly. The audience expects an immediate reaction to every piece of news, and an instant explanation of the causes and consequences of the event.

As a result, the analyst is forced to go on air every day and comment on new events. This may leave no time for reading fundamental books, studying historical processes, and analyzing events on a broader theoretical basis.

According to Sodiq, in such circumstances, a political scientist faces the risk of turning from a specialist who deeply analyzes events into a commentator who merely reacts to daily news.

He drew attention to another problem: the audience sometimes prefers simple, quick, and sharp conclusions over consistent, complex, and theoretically grounded analysis.

Therefore, a political commentator should not fully submit to the demands of the audience, but should also try to raise its intellectual level.

At the same time, Hamid Sodiq did not assess the growing interest in geopolitical topics in Uzbekistan as a purely negative phenomenon.

In his opinion, such discussions can help form political thinking skills in society.

Even if people initially become interested in politics by discussing political events in other countries, this later creates an opportunity for deeper research.

However, interest alone is not enough. The guest emphasized that those engaged in political analysis should read fundamental literature, double-check their conclusions, and be ready to accept criticism.

The conversation also criticized drawing sharp conclusions without fully studying a topic, commenting without knowing theoretical concepts, and approaching expertise with overconfidence.

In this regard, the host drew attention to the importance of not limiting oneself to reading books, but engaging in written reflection on the read works, writing articles, and organizing one's thoughts.

During the conversation, several interconnected issues were raised: how does a person understand oneself, what is the responsibility of an intellectual before society, where does loyalty to an idea end, and where does independent thinking begin?

The main concept unifying these questions in Hamid Sodiq's views is pain.

In his opinion, if the inner need that drives a person to research disappears, knowledge, professional status, and public reputation can all lose their original meaning.

The guest's reluctance to limit himself to specific definitions such as lawyer, political scientist, or translator is also connected to this view.

One of the important thoughts emerging from the conversation is that being an intellectual is not just criticizing others. It requires being ready to revise one's own knowledge, conclusions, and mistakes as well.

In this edition of "What is the pain?", there were more questions than ready-made solutions. Is modern education really facing a crisis? Does artificial intelligence distance humans from thinking? Will the popularization of political analysis raise the intellectual level of society?

These questions can be answered in different ways. But the main idea of the conversation is the need to preserve human ability for independent thinking, doubt, and the search for truth.