I had a professor once who told me I was the most enigmatic student he had ever taught. Normally when an older man tells me things like this I tend to dismiss them because a lot of times it's just a ploy for sex, but Professor (let's call him that for everyone's sake) was one of the most intense teachers I ever had. Consequently, I wanted to believe him. Not that I don't think he wanted to have sex with me or I with him, but it was the way he said it that gave the moment so much weight. We were discussing a paper I was in the process of putting off, a comparative analysis of the role of intuition in A Theory of Justice by John Rawls and On Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and he just slipped it into the conversation very inoccently and moved on. Of course, I completely lost focus and begged off on the excuse that I was late for something. Here was this professor who I was totally enamored with telling me that he found me enigmatic. It would seem that this should have been exhilarating or something, but I was unsettled by it.
Firstly, it made me think about what it might mean to be enigmatic. Was that really a complement? I think he meant it in a more complicated way, as in he didn't get what made me tick or something, and I think that's the key to the concept. Essentially, I think we proscribe enigmaticism to people who's contradictions we are unable to reconcile or clearly see. In truth then it's not necessarily a complement but more of a complexity.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment