There is quite some hubris in assuming I have anything to teach, and that I am worthy enough to teach what I think. To be a teacher implies that one knows absolute knowledge, and imparts it on others as a knower of a specific nature of things. But I see a trap of arrogance here which many find themselves caught in. No one can know anything absolutely, as his stalwartness of knowledge proves the opposite of his point to be true. I find that the more one truly knows, the more willing they are to be humbled by that which they do not know; like the shadow that grows darker with a brighter light, the unknown expands in detail and size with the growth of one's knowledge. There is an inevitable balance through which all things move, and as soon the conscious or unconscious attempts to make the psyche lean only to one side of the scale, the other "side" of oneself takes compensatory action. This is why neglecting the aspects of oneself that is known to be insufficient leads only to a counterbalance of behaviour in the opposite extreme direction.
The art of compensation is one that all aspects of our behaviour share, including the things which we believe ourselves to be most humble about or proud of. Thus the teacher; he who sanctimoniously takes part in the act that he knows more than the student, is in fact taking part in a marvelous compensation for ignorance. It is for this reason that I find there is sense in proclaiming prophets fools and victims of their own knowledge; for in being possessed by an idea they become that which they proclaim to be against. Despite the deification of history's carious teachers, it should not be forgotten that they too are but human beings, and in being such are subject to the hypocritical foolishness which the simultaneous gift and curse of our species.