In conditions of disagreement, we often hear invitations to be neutral. Neutrality, or impartiality, is considered a wise choice, from here, those who are involved in the world of philosophy, are required to be neutral. He said, it is a form of love of wisdom which is one of the etymologies of philosophy, a philosopher that is not neutral, is considered unwise, and is labeled with a cheap philosophical title that defiles philosophy as the science of wisdom. Of course it is ridiculous, especially if the labelization is attached by those who are anti-reason and forbid philosophy.
Where is the problem? The problem begins with the assumption that all neutrality is wise. Thus, philosophers who love wisdom must be neutral, as a form of wisdom. Is it true that neutrality is a wise choice? Obvious problems can be classified into two areas, theoretical and practical. In the theoretical realm, the problem has to do with right and wrong. As for the practical realm, the problem is about good and bad, in both domains, 'haram' philosophers are neutral. He must take sides. In the realm of theory, philosophers must side with the correct theory. Philosophers write down the truth, no matter if many are inflamed from the heat, like trance.
Philosophers are not sedatives. Harmonization is not an effort to calm all parties. Philosophers are in favor of the truth. And that is harmony, in fact, like Socrates, the philosopher is a stinging bee that disturbs the deep sleep of the human mind. Or in Justin Garder's terminology, the philosopher is the Joker who teases the dwarves who are drugged into the comfort zone.
