A kid grows up somewhere in the slums of Nairobi, impoverished, cold and and confused. This is a scenario that affects so many people in our land, people whose fault was to be born by parents without means; parents who have to struggle in order to survive; parents who question the unjust of such an unequal and inequitable nation. These children sometimes have to gaze at the posh homes of the affluent usually juxtaposed next to the disheartening slums. And so as the sun bids humanity goodbye and the young ones troop from school and head to the comfort, and sometimes discomfort, of their homes; the rich head to their luxurious abodes and the poor glibly find themselves into their humble shanties. It is almost redolent of past colonial times when the masters lived in mansions and enjoyed the fruits of our labor while the African, hitherto taken to be lackeys only, would wallow in the misery of servitude and languish in the torture of cruelty and unkindess. I would imagine that these kids, bowels rumbling with the hard pangs of relentless hunger, would question the kind of fate that assigns one infant to a life of grandeur and confines another to the indignity of slum living. Who gets to choose where one is born? Why don’t we get a choice to choose whether to be born or not? Why is it that humanity must be fragmented into two unequal segments, the haves and haven nots? The answers to this questions transcends common sense and how we attempt to answer them is highly subjective to our skills, intelligence and culture. But mostly, such questions do not have any right answer and such answers as might be propagated by people are mere suggestions. These kind of questions, dear reader, are imponderable questions.
There are many examples of such questions and people who try to find answers to imponderable questions are walking on a path laced with frustrations and fraught with the danger of over speculation in an area where nuance isn’t possible and any evidence to the contrary must exist through unethical skullduggery and backed by supplanted data. But man’s need to know will always prove too strong and speculation will always be rife within our society especially within the academic circles. In fact, philosophy can be accused of delving too strongly into issues whose possibility of arriving at clear, concise and valid answers is not possible.Take the issue of God, and their overly ambitious attempts to prove that he exists, and some that he don’t, with the presupposition that they have the means to reach conclusions which are beyond peer disapproval. I disagree, since we cannot see God, we should not try to rationalize an issue of faith. Somethings are supposed to be viewed through faith and our learned fellows should devote their significantly talented minds in pursuit of more objective goals . As to the rest of the imponderable questions, they will always intrigue us, but we should not obsess too much about that which we cannot fathom but instead focus on those that we can change or at least mitigate.