Aristotle wrote: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” While educated can mean many things, it is in essence meant as a tool (albeit a mental one). But while we can try to understand the issues of extremists without accepting them as our own beliefs, is having knowledge (or mental skill) really enough? Or is “knowing” without having had experienced what people with such ideologies believe and do just another misunderstanding of how the human condition really works?

I don’t think anyone can understand any idea that does not align with their beliefs; because I don’t know what it feels like to be attacked because of the colour of my skin or to be sexually assaulted or mistreated because of my gender. And in the same way I can try to understand the idea of white supremacy and figure out why it had taken roots in central Europe during the 1930s and 1940s, without being someone who would actually want to enforce such a belief upon the world, but to really get the emotion that such a strong ideology creates is beyond my capabilities.

There are always two complementing sides of what Aristotle calls “entertaining a thought”, the intellectual and the emotional side. While the first is a reflection of our knowledge, not just book-smarts but real wisdom, the second relies on our ability to feel. Having smarts without empathy does not make one a good artist (or human being for that matter) and having empathy without any knowledge or mental tools to express oneself leads to depression at best.

The question is simple: if I am by far the most skilled painter competing for a high-paying portrait commission, can I really get my client’s wishes for her painting, if her idea of it is fun, quirky but professional and elegant if I am neither fun, quirky or dignified? I may know a lot, if not the most about what painting is, I may have the most advanced skillset of any painter she knows, but can I really deliver my promise of excellency without having an emotional connection to her vision of herself?

The answer for me is clear. Being adept at something doesn’t make you the best choice for anyone by default in today’s economy. Because in the over-saturated markets of 2018, soon to be 2019, being good at your work is not even a trait worth mentioning, let alone a remarkable one. The one thing that does set people apart and as a bonus measure is incredibly hard to acquire (meaning it’s much more scarce than knowledge) is their ability to empathise with someone.

You could be a good but average painter, but if you can sit down with your model and find the essence, the soul of that person and bring it to life on your canvas, probably nobody will remark on your average texture work or fabric painting skills — not saying that such details aren’t important (the higher you climb on the ladder of proficiency, the more important such minuscule details become), but I would much rather have someone who is making a portrait of my father capture his personality then the exact thread-count of his suit and tie, because I won’t remember him by those, but I surely will remember his smile and how his eyes looked, when he was happy.

So while an educated mind can surely grasp ideas, I’m not so sure it can actually go and play with them. Because to play you have to not only know the rules but you have to want (and be able) to experience what the game has to offer first hand. And while Nigel Richards, a non-French speakers, is able to memorise the whole francophone Scrabble dictionary in nine weeks to win the French Scrabble championship, he will probably never be able to write a poem in that same language. Not because he doesn’t know the words, but because his words aren’t connected to an emotion or experience.