On
the Nature of
Stupidity
Alexander
Makedon
Chicago State
University
Copyright © 2005 by A. Makedon
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Midwest Philosophy of
Education Society, National Louis University, Chicago, Illinois, November
11, 2005
This version has beed edited for publication in the peer-reviewed
Proceedings of the Midwest Philosophy of Education Society, 2004-05,
forthcoming.
Introduction
In this
paper, I will engage in a philosophical analysis of the nature of stupidity,
including how the term
"stupid" is used in language;
ethical and educational implications of such use; views of philosophers toward
stupidity; Biblical account of the
"Fall of
Man;"
hypothetical analysis of God’s
attitude; role played by stupidity
in politics; analysis of time
and stupidity; and finally, brief analysis of stupidity from a “radically
perspectivistic“ angle.
Table
of Contents
I.
Nature of Stupidity
1. Social
View of the term
"stupid"
2.
Webster’s Definition
3.
"Stupid" as Derogatory
Term
4. Unethical
Uses of the term “stupid“
5. Linguistic
Culture
6.
Philosophers: John Dewey, Plato, Aristotle
7. On
Stupidity
8.
Body
9.
Emotions
10. Needs
and Instincts
11. Denial
of Stupidity
II.
Living in Harmony with our Stupidity
1. Beyond
Inner and Outer Conflict
2. Salvaging
Stupidity
3. Idealized
Expectations
III.
Stupidity and Religion
1. God’s
Regret
2. God’s
Envy
3.
Anti-intellectual God
4. Genesis
and Genetics
5. Are
We Happier when we are “Smart” or
Stupid?
6. Biblical
Paradise
7. Tree
of Stupidity?
A
second Alternative Interpretation
8. Third
Alternative Interpretation
9. Human
Predicament as a Contradiction
10. God
as Imperfect
IV.
Intelligence and Stupidity
1.
Intelligence within Stupidity
2.
We
“are” Because we are Stupid
3. Intelligent
Design
3. Counter
argument
4.
Evolution
5. The
Intelligence Divide
6. Stupidity
and Schools
V.
Politics and Stupidity
1.
Democracy and Stupidity
2.
Elections
VI.
Time
VII.
Radical Perspectivism
VIII.
Conclusion
Endnotes
I.
Nature of Stupidity
1. Social
View of the term
"stupid"
The term
"stupid" is usually associated
with offensive, abusive, or insulting language. In fact, it has become so
offensive that, unless one wishes to annoy, attack, embarrass, or anger someone,
it is generally avoided. Most people prefer, instead, to use such substitute
terms as
"unreasonable,"
"nonsensible,"
"illogical", or, more diplomatically,
"instinctive" or
"emotional." For instance, we say
such and so is a
"natural" reaction, instead of
saying it is
"stupid"; or that such
and so person is under
"emotional
duress," hence his or her behavior
is "impulsive." In fact, the use of the term
"stupid" is often prohibited
or frowned upon in institutions, such as, schools, churches, or governmental
agencies, whose presumed aim is to uplift their subjects morally, teach them
right manners, or role model for them correct or appropriate speech.
2.
Webster’s Definition
Webster’s
dictionary defines stupidity as
"the quality or state
of being
stupid." Stupid in turn is defined as
"slow of mind... given to unintelligent or careless
manner... lacking intelligence or reason...marked by or resulting from unreasoned
thinking or acting.”
[1]
Synonyms given include dull, dense, and
crass. When we use the term
"stupid," we often, albeit possibly
unjustifiably, assume as a basis for our description at least some amount
of pre-existing intelligence. Thus we may not describe a tree, or chair as
stupid, as often as we do humans, because we assume that such
"objects" have no intelligence,
and therefore fall outside the parameters of what may be described as stupid.
The derogatory use of the term stupid implies that one is admittedly intelligent,
except at that particular moment they have done something presumably
unintelligent that was in their power to avoid. It seems, then, that by
comparison to chairs or trees, which are rarely called
"stupid," calling a person stupid
may be indirectly a compliment to his or her basic
intelligence.
3.
"Stupid" as Derogatory
Term
Calling
someone stupid to cause him pain is but a symptom of our larger social ill
regarding our intellectual purity. In turn this causes us, unintelligently
as it were, to denigrate stupidity. We demean our non-thinking corporeal
parts, which we describe in a derogatory way as
"stupid." It is one thing to describe
objectively a certain thinking process as
lacking perfect logical acumen,
in which case describing it as stupid may have no demeaning or morally
undesirable connotations; it is altogether a different story to associate
lack of thinking, or its derivatives, with something worthy of human ridicule,
repression or disrespect. Stupidity
by itself has no negative or moralistic connotations. It simply is. When
we use the term
"stupid" in a derogatory way,
it means that we chose to invest it with a moralistic meaning, particularly
of the type that causes other people to feel offended. Our intent in such
cases may be not only to warn others, as in a benevolently didactic approach
to learning, as might be done through any number of Aesop’s fables;
but to vindictively, or, alternatively, defensively prove to our ourselves
how much smarter we are by comparison to those whom we refer to as
"stupid."
Were others
never hurt when called
"stupid," there would have been
no reason for people to use it in a calculating way to hurt others. Whenever
someone calls us stupid, it
"sounds" as if he or she is trying
to take away, destroy or deny our rightful claim to being human. This may
explain why psychologically we may feel so offended when called stupid. Like
anything else humans believe in, so is our belief in being intelligent not
only tied to our definition of human, but literally to our well-being. If,
on the other hand, we did not place so much emphasis on intelligence, but
instead glorified, say, stupidity,
then being stupid might have been seen, as unbelievable as it may sound,
as a badge of honor. Witness, for instance, the important role stupidity
plays in certain social circles where education, reading of books, or logical
analysis are frowned upon. Sociologists have pointed our attention to such
circles, usually associated with subcultures where reading a book, or expressing
oneself logically, are less valued, than, say, machismo, mysticism, sex appeal,
or superstition.
Those
who are unsure about their own level of intelligence, or who have been perhaps
the victims of the type of ridicule the author is attempting to reverse here,
may react defensively against stupidity, or at least more so, the more unsure
they are of their own intelligence. Such defensive mechanism may make them
feel they are not themselves stupid. Ironically, it is precisely such aggressive
“anti-stupidism” that may lack sufficient intelligence to police
itself against its own
excesses, as in the tyranny
of reason over passion, or doctrinaire dismissal of our instincts. A more
thoughtful approach to ourselves and our environment might be to let the
course of our relatively brief existence as humans run its course unperturbed
by our emotional or cognitive hang-ups.
4. Unethical
Uses of the term “stupid“
Regarding
those who are unable to change their inherited level of intelligence, such
as the mentally retarded, an insulting remark regarding their level of
intelligence, such as,
"you are
stupid," may be morally
reprehensible. It may show a certain degree of callousness on the part of
the
"name
caller" regarding others who
can do nothing to change certain of their naturally given characteristics,
and therefore are
"stupid" for no fault of their
own.
The use
of the term may also be offensive whenever used intentionally to cause others
emotional pain. People prefer not be called
"stupid"
even if they behaved stupidly. Until the term obtains a less insulting
connotation in daily interaction, as it might, hypothetically speaking, through
such analyses as the one written here, people should refrain from using it
to describe any one individual (with the possible exception of describing
themselves as stupid) in order not to cause others unnecessary mental or
psychological pain. Such approach makes sense on the basis of any number
of ethical theories, from the belief in treating others as you would like
to be treated yourself, and therefore avoiding hurting others; to avoiding
using terms which may not only not help others improve their understanding,
but generate in others when they are insulted or called
"stupid" a strong emotional response.
Such response may actually cloud, than clear, their understanding.
On the
other hand, calling oneself stupid, or engaging in a detached analysis of
human nature, or analyzing a commonly used term on the basis of what does
and doesn’t make sense, seems to have none of the intent to cause others
pain, but merely to explain what
such term might mean, represent, or signify. If, for some reason, people
become offended by such
"academic" analysis of a term,
whether of stupidity or another one, such reaction should not be used as
grounds for self-censorship, particularly since it is not intended as an
insult against any one person, but perhaps as basis for further analysis
of the role
"analysis" itself should play in
understanding anything, including the language of
stupidity.
5. Linguistic
Culture
A word-less
person, or one whose verbal expression lacks in either elegance or substance
is often seen as dull or “stupid,” as if language is a badge of
one's intelligence. Since language is the result of our cognitive capacities,
it follows that in a linguistic culture non-cognitive aspects of ourselves
are looked down at as inferior. This linguistic narcissism sometimes drives
humans to an orgy of cognitive self-hypnosis, as when people start believing
in the magical powers of words. In a scientific culture, magic is often
associated with “primitive” rituals or beliefs that are the result
of ignorance or superstition.
Ironically such “magic” occasionally re-emerges in more
acceptable linguistic forms within even relatively "advanced" scientific
societies, usually so well camouflaged within acceptable cultural prototypes,
that makes it difficult to detect. Witness, for example, the widespread religious
belief today in God, soul, second judgement, or reincarnation, all of which
may be seen as “magical.” Likewise with prayers, which numerous
people use in their public or private lives. Such prayers may be compared
to magical incantations, for in both cases there is an underlying assumption
regarding the power of words by themselves alone to bring about social, or
even universal change. People
who swear they don’t believe in magic at the same time may be privately
using prayer. Through their use of such incantations, they have in fact
reasserted that which they openly deny, namely, the
magical power of words.
Within
academia words are often given a life of their own, as if words can be so
anthropomorphized as to have the
power to sustain themselves apart from human intention, interpretation,
or analysis. For example, within the fields of semiotics and deconstruction
there are some writers who view text as independent of the intent of the
authors who wrote them. Although there is a grain of truth in this, since
books, for example, can survive their author’s death and continue to
be read or interpreted, as have been many an ancient writer’s books,
there is also the danger of raising words to semi-magical status: we may
ascribe inherent meaning to words that really have none other than the one
the reader or their original author intended them to have. Within philosophy,
witness the clearly independent
pre-existence of ideas in idealism, first postulated
by Plato; or within analytic
philosophy, the attempt to build a “perfect language” that seems
to imply that language can be perfect apart from human intent. Such literally
“spellbound” interpretations treat words as if they were independently
existing biological organisms, thus ironically coming back full circle to
our stupidity. Such corporeal treatment of our incorporeal “verbal”
self has all the signs of giving our ideas physical characteristics.
6.
Philosophers: John Dewey, Plato, Aristotle
All
philosophers worth their salt are guiding us to think about what we say,
do, or believe in, thus opening up opportunities for humans to not only become
aware, but also become aware of their stupidity. Let us compare John
Dewey’s with Plato’s and Aristotle’s views of intelligence,
and by inference, their likely views on stupidity. Dewey seems to be using
our intelligence to serve our stupidity, such as, our non-thinking needs,
yet in the end he hopes that through the constant exercise of our intelligence,
we might develop intellectual habits. Plato would attack stupidity
directly[2].
He would relegate mortals incapable of controlling their stupidity to lower
status in society, hence Plato’s admiration for philosopher-kings. Such
"kings" embody not only the
antithesis of stupidity, including their idealistic admiration for immaterial
forms, but also know all too well how to manipulate stupidity to their advantage,
e.g., implement what Plato referred to as
"noble
lie" to guide the masses
to doing the right thing even in spite of their in-born
stupidity[3].
Plato would also use religion as an emotional means with which to control
the masses, while reserving truth for the
elite[4].
Plato’s student, Aristotle, would never directly demand that we suppress
stupidity, but instead allow it a modicum of satisfaction so that we live
relatively happy
lives[5].
Nevertheless, he asked that we manage it, instead of using it, as might have
wanted Dewey, as a starting point. Aristotle’s approach allows enough
stupidity to avoid becoming overwhelmed by it, as we
might should we attempt to suppress
it completely. To paraphrase Sigmund Freud, there may be no room for escape
from the pleasure
principle[6].
We can choose to deny it, only to have it return with a vengeance, albeit
often in the form of camouflaged exhortations, neurotic attachments, or extreme
denials of our stupidity.
7. On
Stupidity
What I
mean by the term
"stupid" in this paper is nothing
as derogatory as that which is often associated with abusive or disrespectful
language, but descriptively as a realistic assessment of anything that lacks
a developed mind. Because we can think, some of us have assumed that we are,
or should be, thoughtful. This is an age-old philosophical observation that
can be traced back to Aristotle’s first few lines in his book
Metaphysics[7].
Common sense will tell us, on the other hand, that mixed in with the blessed
intelligence of our souls is a whole array of non-thinking physical and
psychological aspects of our existence, such as, needs, emotions, instincts,
and non-thinking body parts. Since
humans are, in addition to their spiritual or intellectual side, a collection
of such parts, including hands, legs or torso, they can’t possibly be
described as being all-intelligent and not at all stupid. If they did, they
would be shown to be less intelligent than they think they really are by
virtue of the fact that they failed to understand themselves. In addition
to their corporeality, humans are a mixed bag of representational self-awareness,
on the one hand, and instinctively driven
"needs" and emotions, on the other. We may collectively
refer to such non-thinking aspects of our existence (body, instincts, emotions,
needs) as
"stupid." Given our stupidity,
any definition of humans as beings possessed with unadulterated intelligence,
as some people would have liked them to be, is obviously inaccurate. Underlying
such self-assured view of ourselves as all-smart and nothing-stupid may lurk
a certain degree of inner insecurity regarding our intelligence.
By distancing
ourselves from our stupidity, we pretend to have nothing to do with it.
Ironically, such distancing is in the end less intelligent because less truthful
than if we honestly embraced our stupidity. If those who are capable of
portraying themselves more honestly or truthfully are more intelligent, then
being aware of one’s stupidity, or incorporating it in his or her perception
of self, shows oneself to have some intelligence with which to view one’s
stupidity. Not unlike immigrants who attempted to compensate for being
discriminated against within anti-immigrant or
"nativist" cultures by organizing
societies in which they gave themselves aristocratic titles (such as, supreme
commander of this, or archon leader of that); or oppressed groups whose thirst
for recognition sometimes leads them to re-write history, as when they re-write
history as myth in which they become the most admired
figures[8],
so have humans assigned the highest status to themselves, mainly because
of their insecurity regarding their intelligence, while relegating almost
the whole of non-human existence to stupidity. Humans as a whole have attempted
to compensate for their stupidity by either denying it, as do people who
live in "denial;" or, as mentioned earlier, by describing themselves as mainly
intelligent. To make ourselves feel better about our supposedly superior
intelligence, we use the term
"stupid"
derogatorily to denigrate other animals who sometimes behave stupidly for
no fault of their own, but because they lack the self-awareness of a human
mind.
8. Body
Unless
we become hopelessly delusional, we can’t deny the fact that for most
people their bodies, which strictly speaking are
"non-thinking," are an indispensable
part of who they are, Plato’s views regarding the deceptively unreal
nature of our bodies
notwithstanding[9]. Otherwise, why not, as Plato
implied, put a quick end to our
lives so we can release that which is our true
nature, our presumably
self-sufficient mind (referred to by Plato as
"soul"), from its burdensome
corporeal
prison?[10]
On the contrary, no matter how Platonic our beliefs or Buddhist our inner
peace[11],
most of us would rather fight against threats to our physical well being.
When we visit our family doctor or hospital, we vote louder with our feet,
than we speak with our idealism.
9. Emotions
In addition
to the
"brainlessness" of our bodies, our emotions
can be just as unintelligent, as is my dog when it gets angry, hungry, or
horny. None of these emotional reactions are necessarily preceded by a well
articulated or analytic thought process. They are what they are even irrespective
of whether one thinks about them, as is the case of my dog who just is! If
our emotions were capable of thinking, we would be the first ones to realize
that they, too, can think, and therefore consider them as a
"second
mind" with perhaps a different
perspective on things. Unfortunately, thus far all evidence seems to indicate
that each human being has only one mind, albeit in some cases more developed
than others, or perhaps even more internally
"divided" (as in schizophrenia or multiple personality
disorder). Our emotions are not mindful, but at best thought about by our
mind. Based on our observations of ourselves, we cannot help but realize
our mixed predicament as beings with both intelligence and emotion. This
means we often become motivated to learn more about something merely because
we have become emotional about it; while at other times our emotions are
so strong, that lacking an education with which to keep them under control,
they may completely overshadow our intelligence, or even totally overwhelm
our better judgment. Witness, for instance, the frequency with which those
who commit murder, and were caught and punished as a result, often express
feelings of remorse at their inability at the time they committed such act
to keep their emotions under check.
10. Needs
and Instincts
Humans
are endowed with physiological needs and instincts that drive them to behave
in certain ways even in spite of their often wishing they did not. Aside
from the vast literature in psychoanalysis which deals mainly with conflicts
between, to use Sigmund Freud's terms,
the ego and the
Id[12], common sense dictates that we are
not merely logical beings. One does not decide on the basis of logic alone
to eat, sleep, or have sex, but is driven by such instincts to meet them,
if not fully, at least halfway, using logic as a means toward their fulfillment
(i.e., the best way to satisfy such needs, rather than always using logic
as an end in itself). If one were to be deprived of the fulfillment of such
needs or instincts, either as a result of circumstances beyond one’s
control, or severe self-imposed or even suicidal restraint, he or she may
suffer severe pain, feelings of deprivation, or, as is clearly the case in
food deprivation, even death. Likewise with strong emotional upsurges that
often overtake humans in spite of their better judgment to the contrary (i.e.,
falling in love with the wrong person, or becoming uncontrollably angry).
All such emotional and instinctive states or responses make sense from a
balanced view of human nature as both stupid and intelligent, but do not
if human nature is viewed, as it has been by several mainstream philosophies,
ideologies and religions, as mainly intelligent.
11. Denial
of Stupidity
We limit
the definition of stupidity only to such acts as are presumably
"winnable" by reason. Some examples of such
"winnable
acts" are the postponement
of immediate gratification for some further end,
e.g., not getting up to have
lunch in the middle of class even if we are very hungry, but waiting until
the class is over. As John Dewey
might say, we obviously exercised considerable restraint on our hunger by
thinking of what might happen if we did not, and decided through a cognitive
process of analyzing the situation and possible consequences of our actions
to postpone eating until
later[13]. Had we behaved differently, and acted
immediately on our hunger, we might have been criticized as
"stupid," in this case meaning
that we are unable to understand the long term benefits of the postponement
of immediate gratification (such as, better grades).
On the
other hand, we don’t criticize other animals as being stupid if they
fail to postpone the gratification of their instincts, although we never
hesitate to apply such term to them when comparing them with humans. For
example, when a dog fails to postpone his immediate gratification, we don’t
criticize his behavior as acidly as we might a similar behavior in humans,
although occasionally we may still call such dog
"stupid." The reason we seem to
exercise more leniency toward other animals when calling them stupid may
be because their intelligence, by comparison to human intelligence, is weaker
and probably incapable of controlling instincts as
well as does human intelligence.
It seems, then, that we apply the term
"stupid" more frequently to humans,
and particularly in situations where humans should have known better because
they have the ability to behave intelligently. As a result of our higher
intelligence not only are we, to paraphrase Jean Paul
Sartre[14],
"condemned" to a paradoxical existence, but also we placed
greater demands on ourselves to behave
intelligently. This results in
more frequently referring to humans as
intelligent, as in
"Homo
Sapiens"
("Man the
Thinker"), than humans should be
given credit. Had we existed alongside another species that is more
"intelligent" than us, then we may
have applied the term stupid to ourselves as a species more often, or at
least with sharper
"perspective" or understanding. By
living daily alongside this other species, we might have been reminded of
how much less intelligent we are than the higher standard set by this other
species of more intelligent beings. As it stands, we usually have only other
less intelligent animals with whom to compare ourselves, and may have formed
a somewhat
"slanted" understanding of our
intelligence as being by far more intelligent than we really
are.
We may
infer from this analysis that the way we use the term
"stupid" in language and the frequency with which we
use it to describe a person, thing, or animal, does not necessarily reflect
our own or others’ level of stupidity, but the kind of expectation we
have of someone or something to act intelligently. Such expectation is based
on the extent to which such thing, person, or animal is constitutionally
or through its upbringing become capable of overcoming its stupidity, as
in a
"winnable
contest" between intelligence on the one hand, and stupidity, on the other.
By
"winnable" I mean the ability to exercise a certain
degree of self-restraint, for example,
the ability to subdue instinctive and emotional drives to purely
intelligent ends.
II.
Living in Harmony with our Stupidity
1. Beyond
Inner and Outer Conflict
We
should not have to live constantly in conflict with ourselves, but
ought to find ways to turn what we are given, including our instincts, to
our advantage. In fact, without our stupidity we may have been ignorant of
the happiness that the fulfillment of such stupidity can bring about (i.e.,
the fulfillment of our needs and instincts). Thus, even in spite of our
paradoxical existence, if given a choice between living as a pure mind, and
living as a combination of stupidity and intelligence, we may choose to live
paradoxically, if only to have access to the pleasures associated with the
fulfillment of needs and instincts.
If there
are incorporeal beings somewhere, such beings may lack the same access to
the kind of corporeal happiness experienced by humans, and therefore are
less "happy," in a corporeal sense, than humans. It is for this reason that
if we obtain that which we often wish for, which is an incorporeal or totally
spiritualized existence of the type we imagine God to have, we may come to
regret it. Without our inborn stupidity we may be unable to achieve the level
of happiness which our stupidity, such as, our underlying
“physicality,” in combination with, or, more correctly, cooperation
with our intelligence, could make possible.
We could
learn to accept stupidity more readily for who we are-when-stupid,. Our
intelligence could play the role of partner that interprets our stupidity.
Instead of always trying to suppress our stupidity, which of course occasionally
we may have to, if for no other
reason in order to allow for certain ethical, educational, mathematical,
or other such intellectual
"pleasures,"
we
could learn simply to manage it. For example, instead of suppressing our
stupidity to the point where we become either, to paraphrase Sigmund Freud,
neurotic or
unhappy[15], we learn to live
"ethically,"
without harming others, without so much guilt or
self-denial. Anything short of
this self-realization of our dualistic existence risks condemning us to ever
repeating cycles of self-deprecation and misery, or wishful description of
idealized states of being as pure minds, disembodied ideas, or spiritualized
souls.
For as
long as we live in denial of who we really are, we can expect our bodies
to conspire with our emotions in a never-ending war against reason. The result
may be the life of non-reason, where whatever reason builds, our emotions
destroy or undermine. This may also serve as a practical lesson to educators
who may impose so strict a regimen of hatred for stupidity that students
gradually build up their reservoir of potentially explosive behavior.
A balanced
acceptance of our stupidity, including in schools by students, parents, teachers
and administrators, may project a more self-accepting climate for students
to live and learn in. This self-acceptance may be a sign of humans coming
of age, meaning, accepting themselves, or, more correctly, their inescapably
biological limitations.
The author
proposes a reversal of our attitudes toward stupidity by better understanding,
and learning to live in harmony with, our stupidity. He proposes that we
adopt a radically perspectivistic
attitude[16]
not only toward others outside, but also within ourselves toward those parts
in ourselves that are stupid. Instead of denying that they exist, as in the
often belligerently defensive denial of one’s stupidity, he proposes
that we attempt to understand their perspective. This doesn't mean that we
jump to the other extreme of suppressing our intelligence, but only that
we use our intelligence "intelligently," as it were, to better understand
and live in harmony with our non-intellectual self. Just as one is capable
of imagining the perspective of a non-human world part, how much easier it
should that he can imagine the numerous perspectives of our stupidity, say,
a non-thinking need, emotion, or body part, such as, respectively, hunger,
anger or hand. Such individual
meets his needs without guilt, uses his mind as a tool with which to represent
himself or others, and manages himself as firmly, as is his choice of life
over death.
Perhaps
Friedrich Schiller’s playful
solution[17] to our inner conflict between our
mindfulness and our stupidity makes it easier to reconcile the two. A solution
might be to recreate our egos along universal lines of
identification[18].
Our minds may then be seen as "gifts" humans are lucky to have been allowed
to develop, but also responsible for using them reciprocally to help the
universe. Instead of thinking selfishly, arrogantly, or belligerently, humans
could think respectfully, globally, physically, naturally, and democratically.
For example, instead of satanizing other animals, anthropomorphizing or trying
to control nature, or thinking of themselves as superior, humans realize
not only their own inescapable stupidity, but come to accept it in others.
This means that politically they cease to behave as the conqueror or colonizer,
and more empathically as self-aware parts of a universe that
“allowed” them to evolve their
intelligence. Ultimately humans
become perspectivally thoughtful about themselves, including their stupidity.
Humans realize that they are part of an evolving universe in which some world
parts, such as, themselves, may have evolved more “intelligence”
than other known parts until now. Sooner or later other parts may evolve
similar types of thinking mechanisms, or everything in the universe become
as intelligent as humans are now. This means, as mentioned earlier, that
nothing is really stupid, but, to paraphrase from John Dewey’s analysis
of educational growth, everything is at some stage of a growth continuum
that becomes ever more intelligent. It behooves us humans to stop acting
"stupidly" by embracing only our intelligence, and begin to realize the value
of our stupidity. From an evolutionary standpoint, stupidity is but the universal
framework of a derivative intelligence.
2. Salvaging
Stupidity
Much of
what we do today, even if dressed in language that sounds teleologically
wrapped around only our intelligence, is in fact done to salvage our stupidity.
As Abraham Maslow
showed[19], once we meet our basic physical and
emotional needs, we may begin to engage in thinking for its own sake, as
when wondering why such and so is that way, or wanting to know more about
something merely to know more about it. Ironically, even when justifying
through Maslow’s humanistic psychology the priority of basic needs,
which are in themselves stupid, we do so necessarily through a cognitive
process of justification. Such a process may be seen as an intellectual
reaffirmation of our stupidity, namely, acknowledging it as the foundation
as a result of which our higher thinking capacities are
"unleashed." Our highest
levels of abstraction may thus be tied to the fulfillment of our stupidity.
The
realization of the importance of fulfilling one's
basic as a prerequisite to learning is probably one of the reasons why many
educators have been in favor of school lunches and similar
programs. These programs attempt
to ensure that students meet their basic need for food so they can more easily
concentrate on their studies. What may seem selfish and blind at first, such
as fulfilling our physical needs, may turn out to be a contributing factor
to the growth of our cognitive development. Once we meet our own needs, we
may then begin to think about, care for, or wish to know more about the needs
of others.
Just because
we are intelligent, we don’t have to feel bad if our happiness is not
always smart, or our actions non-instinctive. Being nice or ethical doesn’t
require that we are only intelligent, since then we may end up as cognitive
tyrants to ourselves and others, but also accepting of our own and others’
stupidity. A doctrinaire
“intellectualist,” meaning, someone who does not acknowledge the
role stupidity plays in our lives,
may not have the common sense to recognize the physical or emotional harm
pure intellectualism may cause. Such harm becomes particularly potent when
institutionalized, as through state censorship of presumably stupid expressions
of emotion or pleasure, as advocated by Plato in the
Laws[20]; or policies of extermination
toward people or world parts which are perceived as stupid, as did the
Nazis[21]. Being ethical means treating others
as
ends-in-themselves[22],
which in turn requires that we treat them with a wholesome view of their
physical and emotional well being.
3. Idealized
Expectations
Had humans
been designed differently, perhaps as incorporeal beings, as they often imagine
themselves will become after death, then they may have had a mind more aligned
with their preferred philosophical ethics, as an end-in-itself, self-sustaining,
"free,"
and unfettered by the demands of the body. Unfortunately, experience over
the known history of humans has shown that humans are inescapably dualistic,
and must learn to live with themselves as physical beings. Rene Descartes
even compared the human body to a thoughtless machine, albeit intimately
intertwined with the development of our
intelligence[23]. Perhaps it is indicative of our stupidity
as humans that we have tried so desperately to deny it, only in the process
of doing so to confirm it.
Through
the ages, we have denigrated stupidity as condemnable, a state of being that
should be avoided. Like the drug addict who, when confronted with a reprimand
regarding his drug addiction, vehemently denies his addiction, so is the
human more vehemently in denial of his stupidity, than if he were really
stupid-free. As anyone familiar with the logical connection between ends
and context can attest, we constantly fail to meet our idealized goals. Hence
the design, also, of legal institutions, such as, courts of law, in whose
venerable halls of justice lawyers and laymen alike quickly find out not
only the central role played by stupidity, such as, crimes of passion, but
also the dominant role of reason, as in the application by judges of yardsticks
of
"reasonableness." Unfortunately,
no matter how didactic the judge’s tone, severe his punishment, or
preventative his exhortations, humans will always act stupidly. They must
do so in order to survive, and therefore end up needing courts to tell them
not to. Had humans been constitutionally all-reason and nothing-stupid, they
would have had no need for courts to order them, police to arrest them, or
teachers to exhort them, as they would have always
acted, as Immanuel Kant might
have wanted them to, in accordance with reason.
Perhaps
in their vain attempt to prove their intelligence, ancient Athenians refused
to serve as the local police in their own town, preferring, instead, to assign
such role to
foreigners[24].
They thought that police function
in a state as an outright admission by the citizenry of its failure to act
in accordance with reason or principle. When people are incapable to act
completely in accordance with reason, a method must be invented to make them
do the right thing even in spite of their stupidity. Hence the need for a
method of scaring people into submission through force, rather than convincing
argument. Such force implies a certain inability in people to control their
stupidity, which Athenians simply refused to accept for themselves. Their
choice may represent yet another possibility of humans designing social living
arrangements to remind them daily of their idealistic
goal.
Had humans
never been stupid, then the view held by Socrates in Plato’s Meno
that ignorance is at the root of all
evil[25] might have driven the evolution of
social ethics. Like anything else tangible that others can see, so is the
historical record of our sins proof of the overriding role played by stupidity.
Our stupidity has been such a driving force that we have often justified
it by dressing it up, as mentioned earlier, in the language of reason. Thus
we end up justifying our corporeal existence with pragmatic logic, as in
a
"needs-based"
child-centered
curriculum[26].
Such curriculum sounds reasonable if one takes into account our in-born
stupidity, but does not if one thinks of humans as “pure reason,”
Kant’s critique
notwithstanding[27].
III.
Stupidity and Religion
1. God’s
Regret
God's
incorporeal existence may be so lacking in stupidity, that He knows nothing
of human pleasure. God might bemoan not us for our sins, but himself for
not being like us. Without intending to sound disrespectful, whenever God
enters the human realm through embodiment, as did presumably Jesus, He may
be doing so not so much to save humanity, but Himself. This is particularly
so if there are more possibilities for happiness for us even in spite of
our stupidity, including the limitations of our bodies, than for an incorporeal
being, such as, God, who may have never known what it’s like to have
a body. If God were to give us a choice right now of whether to live like
He does, without a body, or continue to live tragically, as we
do, I am not sure how many of
us would choose to live like God.
2. God’s
Envy
Not unlike
humans who sometimes become envious of others' good fortune, so might God
become envious of humans. He might want sometimes to join us to experience
for himself what's it like to feel pleasure or pain, which presumably an
incorporeal being is incapable of, or else it is not truly incorporeal.
Alternatively, not wishing to relinquish his control, God may attempt to
convince humans, as attempted
Jesus, to worship Him, place
less value on earthy pleasures, or even consider pleasure to be sinful. Perhaps
over evolutionary time humans, too, may find ways to control their stupidity
completely, or even do without it, and become god-like, only to suffer the
same type of corporeal anorexia that presumably is the lot of all totally
spiritualized divinities.
3.
Anti-intellectual God
By showing
an unwillingness to help humans become smart, the Biblical God may have betrayed
His inner insecurity at having others become as intelligent as He. As a result,
He may have shown us perhaps even His own stupidity in failing to understand
the developmental possibilities of His creation. Of course, whether the Biblical
account is any better, truer, or more sensible than any of the other religious
or secular accounts of Genesis remains to be seen. If nothing else, such
an account may represent humans’ own insecurity with their self-awareness
as dualistic beings, at least of those who authored the Bible, who chose
to create a totally spiritualized god to compensate for their own struggle
with stupidity.
4. Genesis
and Genetics
Apparently,
our Maker , whoever
such
"maker" might be, either
as a result of evolutionary circumstances, or outright “creation”
of the conditions for human evolution, never trusted our intelligence enough
to allow us to behave on the basis of reason alone. In addition to what potential
for intellectual development we may possess as humans, we have inherited
certain pre-programmed needs and
instincts[28].
Fulfillment of such needs is often necessary for our survival as a species
(i.e., the need to eat). A self-effacing intelligence that never feels any
pain as a result of being physically disconnected from its body may end up
accidentally starving itself to death. Someone who lacked the warning that
pain provides may decide on the basis of reason alone never again to eat.
To make matters worse, not only does the fulfillment of needs act as insurance
against death, but also we are rewarded almost every time we meet a
"crying
need" with considerable amounts of pleasure. For example, not only does it
make sense that one eat to survive, but as a result of doing so one also
feels good. Such pleasurable results, incidentally, might have led many people
to unreasonable levels of almost uncontrollable gluttony, showing us, in
the process, the possibly deleterious side-effects of uncontrollable stupidity.
Thus, not only do we survive as a result of satisfying the preprogrammed
needs or
"instincts"
we inherited or were born with, but
also are further reinforced to do so through the biological application of
what I like to refer to as a
"unified
pleasure principle of positive
reinforcement"
(UP3R).
Jokingly,
perhaps our Creator, if there ever was one, has had experience testing salivating
dogs, or their equivalent at the time, and as a result became so convinced
of the invincibility of behaviorism, that He (or She or It or They) decided
we should be rewarded for behaving stupidly with
a certain appreciable amount
of pleasure. Unfortunately, unlike Pavlov’s dog that had relatively
limited thinking capacities, we can think for ourselves, and therefore would
rather not be seen as incapable of taking care of our own. For example, we
have the capacity through the consistent application of our higher thinking
capacities to postpone the gratification of our instincts. Witness, for instance,
how often we resist instinctive drives, as we would rather not have to salivate
if our minds tell us not to, even if biologically we inevitably do.
Unfortunately, because of our dualistic nature as both intelligent and stupid,
we often find it very hard to overcome ourselves, including overcoming our
physical, emotional, or psychological
"drives."
5. Are
We Happier when we are “Smart” or Stupid?
A perfectly
spiritualized existence may not be as totally happy as it is sometimes portrayed
to be in Biblical Paradise. Such existence has none of the common pleasures
that come from, as my colleague Joseph Yacoub said last year when he read
his paper, scratching oneself; or, for that matter, to paraphrase Zorba’s
analysis of God in Nikos Kazantzakis’ well known
novel[29],
the pleasure that comes from company, as opposed to the loneliness that comes
from pure thinking.
If we
were indeed somehow created, we may have been intended as an evolving experiment
by God in the pursuit of happiness: are beings happier when they exist, as
we do, in corporeal form, albeit intelligent enough to be aware; or are they
happier if they are incorporeal entities endowed only with intelligence,
as, indeed, might be God? It seems that God didn’t know the answer,
and is still waiting to find out the results of his human experiment. Given
our constantly dreaming alternately about an incorporeal existence, or a
hedonistic one, it seems that so far our thoughts have been predictable,
while our happiness hangs precariously in the balance. Predictable, because
anyone could have told God, or anyone else, for that matter, that when you
mix intelligence with instinctive and emotional drives, you are bound to
generate inner and outer conflict, and therefore possibly a lot of unhappiness;
and out of balance, because no matter how instructive the philosopher’s
admonitions for a temperate life, we often kill the goose that lays the golden
eggs, for example, by trying to squeeze unlimited pleasure from our limited
existence, only to return to our senses sometimes happy, but sometimes also
full of regret.
6. Biblical
Paradise
I take
issue with the biblical view of the
"Fall of
Man." According to the Biblical version of paradise,
humans were forbidden from eating from the tree of
knowledge[30]. Such view implies that prior to eating
from the Tree of Knowledge, humans lived happily as stupid beings that never
bothered to ask why, ponder, or learn something new. On the contrary, it
would have been impossible for humans to know they are happy if they were
completely stupid: they would have lacked the critical self-awareness required
to assess their situation as happy or unhappy, and therefore at best might
have had a generalized feeling of euphoria, as does, say, my dog when he
is running with me, but not what might described as “happiness.“
Apparently, God did not trust humans enough to allow them to think for
themselves, and would rather that they behave instinctively, obey Him blindly,
and remain ignorant. Once Adam and Eve did eat from the tree of knowledge,
they were no longer completely stupid, which in turn may have caused them
to experience intense inner conflict between their newly found intelligence
and in-born stupidity. This may be seen as part of the
"punishment"
God
meted out to disobedient humans. In
other words, humans began having conflicts between what they found out through
thinking, and what they were driven to do as a result of their hereditary
biology.
It is
to their credit that humans eventually did eat from the tree of knowledge,
thus arising as intelligent beings even in spite of God’s exhortations
to the contrary. Perhaps, to paraphrase Aristotle, humans did posses the
potential for self-awareness even when they were kept in a state of stupidity,
in paradise, or else they may have never decided to eat from the tree of
knowledge. By gaining knowledge, they became endowed with the ability to
reexamine their own status as physical beings, albeit with often disappointing
results regarding their inability to overcome their corporeal nature. Their
initiative in disobeying God proved their leadership ability long before
they finally came to dominate the planet. By deciding to elevate themselves
to a higher level of intelligence, instead of remaining just stupid, they
also took it upon themselves to play God’s role as interpreters of the
universe.
We may
conclude that if there ever was a paradise from which humans have
"fallen," it would have to have been the exact opposite
of the Biblical one, or else it would make no sense that they have
"fallen"
from something higher to something lower, but instead
"risen"
from their earlier stupidity, to their newly found intelligence on planet
earth. On the other hand, there may be a grain of truth in the Biblical account,
namely, the risks that accompany enlightenment (i.e., finding out how much
there is out there that we don’t know and can’t control, and the
inner or social conflicts, or unhappiness, that such awareness can bring
about). Had humans remained as stupid as they once were in
Paradise, they may have never developed
the awareness required for self-expression, in-depth analysis, or critical
understanding of what happens to them or others, and therefore not bother
as much with what happens to them. Their lives would have continued in
Paradise to be not unlike other animals
that are driven mainly by instinct, thus allowing whoever pre-designed their
basic DNA to exercise through their pre-deterministic design considerable
amount of control over their behavior. Such control by the Biblical God over
almost totally stupid humans may be compared today to humans designing software
with which they can control computers, or their associated machines. In this
analogy, humans who write software play the role of God toward their computers,
just as the Biblical God did toward humans by pre-designing their DNA. As
I discuss in the second alternative interpretation of Biblical Paradise,
below, humans even at the time they still lived in Paradise could not have
possibly been as stupid, as apparently God assumed, since they were intelligent
enough to finally grab the apple, and become educated, to the consternation
of an anti-intellectual God who would rather have kept them stupid
forever.
7. Tree
of Stupidity?
A
second Alternative Interpretation
An alternative
hypothetical interpretation to the Biblical account might be that the tree
from which Adam and Eve ate was not the tree of knowledge, but of stupidity.
Its sensuous fruits led Adam and Eve to mire themselves in their stupidity,
and allowed their passion for fruit to overwhelm their reason. Prior to doing
so they may have been wise, capable of self-control, and intellectually in
harmony with their physical and emotional sides. After they ate from the
tree, they became incapable of such harmony, living instead as tragic
contradictions, as, some may argue, they continue doing so to this day.
Nevertheless, it may be argued that ever since their sinful fall, humans
have attempted, step by step, to climb back to their original mastery of
stupidity, and become once again wise, including non-destructive, thoughtful,
knowledgeable, helpful, and self-disciplined. In a somewhat Hegelian
fashion[31], humans have gradually attempted to
overcome themselves, particularly their stupidity, by building civilization,
writing laws, and designing educational institutions with which to keep stupidity
under control. One day they may finally reach a
"critical
mass" of sufficient wisdom to recreate their original
intellectual paradise on earth. On the other hand, their stupidity may be
so deeply embedded in their nature that they are incapable of pulling themselves
away from it. In fact, there is the danger that as they become technologically
ever more sophisticated, they may be so overtaken by their stupidity, that
they use their inventions to wreak havoc (such as,
use weapons of mass destruction).
8. Third
Alternative Interpretation
Finally,
a third hypothetical interpretation to the Biblical account, offered here
for discussion purposes, might
be that there is really no distinction between intelligence and stupidity,
or, as Friedrich Nietzsche
argued[32]
, between good and evil, but
that the two are two different sides of the same ontological coin. Such a
"coin" may be sometimes
intelligent, and sometimes stupid, or as seems to be the case with humans
right now, somewhere in between.
9. Human
Predicament as a Contradiction
If we
were to draw the Biblical account to its logical conclusion, we notice that
even though humans left paradise behind, they never escaped their corporeal
reality, albeit now under surveillance by their newly found intelligence.
Thus, if humans are sinful, it is not because they once were not, as when
they were in Paradise, but because as a
result of arising with a relatively higher form of intelligence than other
animals, they became aware of their limitations. It seems hopeless to pray
to God to forgive one’s sins, since doing so would require that they
become again as totally stupid as they once were in paradise; nor could they
become as totally spiritualized or
"incorporeally
intelligent"
as they often dream about. We find ourselves trapped in a contradiction,
on the one hand struggling to survive, including, in the process, satisfying
a number of pleasures with which to make our existence bearable to ourselves;
while on the other becoming self-aware, and thus engaging in a constant struggle
to liberate our thoughts from their pragmatism, even as we use them to meet
our practical needs.
10. God
as Imperfect
It is
often said that God is endowed with superior intelligence; or that He is
not stupid. If by
"God" we mean whatever original
causality preceded our existence as humans, or caused us to be, then such
God may be by far less perfect, than humans ever imagined Him. For example,
we may surmise that as a result of His never having been stupid, He may either
know very little about stupidity, or be incapable of knowing what it feels
like being stupid (for example, hungry). As a result, He may have made mistakes
in designing us, humans, who are by definition stupid, by not taking into
account how our stupidity may make us feel. By allowing us to be less intelligent
than He, He may not have realized the extent to which our in-born stupidity
often overwhelms us, or even subdues or redirects our intelligence. Witness
the extent to which intelligence is used instrumentally in the world of
entertainment by bringing about stupid ends (i.e., making audiences feel
good by appealing directly to their lowest common denominator of needs and
feelings). Several TV programs, including talk shows and soap operas, use
intelligent production techniques at the service of stupid ends. If God intended
us to behave intelligently, then why did He infuse us with so much pre-programmed
stupidity? Or, again, could it be that God Himself is possessed by an imperfect
intelligence, for example, His imperfect understanding of stupidity? Our
own inner conflicts between our stupidity and our intelligence may reflect
a larger weakness in our Creator to understand stupidity, as He had no way
of directly knowing anything about
it. If indeed we are the end product of
either evolution or Creation, whatever preceded us (God,
"first
cause," evolution)
may have created a
"monster." We are now left with the Herculean task of undoing prior mistakes
in our design, as when we attempt to find ways to live harmoniously within
and without ourselves, and in more extreme cases, completely suppress either
our stupidity, as is often the case within academic circles; or our intelligence,
as has often been the case with our American
past[33].
IV.
Intelligence and Stupidity
1.
Intelligence within Stupidity
Stupidity
can turn our intelligence to a mere handmaiden, as during secular and religious
wars, avaricious exploitation of the environment, the design of huge
entertainment conglomerates , or ingenious means of destruction with which
to win wars (most of which are derived from human needs and instincts, such
as, greed, hunger for power, or, as the saying goes,
"sex and
violence"). During such times, we invest our endeavors with tremendous
amounts of brainpower, only to realize, in the end, the stupidity of our
goals. Our stupidity is so tenacious that a direct assault on our stupidity
risks generating in humans a long list of maladies that in the end prove
such attacks to be even more stupid. Many people find it easier to engage
in intimate conversation with members of the opposite sex if they are
intoxicated, and thus a little less
"intelligent."
Humans may choose to become less intelligent, for example through
intoxication, to allow them to feel less constrained by either the dictates
of their duty, or the gravity of their
stupidity.
Our
dualistic nature often leads us to inner and outer conflicts that could be
potentially disastrous, if not occasionally lead to our extinction as a species.
Witness, for instance, how close we came to destroying ourselves with our
smartest weapons as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Our pride, egocentrism,
patriotism, and vanity, all of which may be seen as by-products of our stupidity,
often draw us inside a cataclysmic emotionalism that can be self-destructive.
Such emotionalism can be highly intelligent methodologically, as when employing
in war times intelligent strategies, eloquent speeches, or smart weapons,
but at the service of ultimately stupid ends. Perhaps it is in this sense
that wisdom is the highest form of intelligence, if by wisdom we mean the
ability to foresee the consequences of our actions in their universal, long
term context, such as, the deadly result of "smart wars," than just present-day
"utilitarianism."
Often
our stupidity is so overwhelming and seductive that it manages not only to
use our intelligence for stupid ends (i.e., the design of weapons of mass
destruction), but does so clothed in the language of our intelligence, as
when making the argument that a strong nuclear arsenal would prevent others
from attacking us. Such arguments seem to assume that the earth is not a
single planet with world-wide repercussions of atomic warfare, but divided,
instead, among several impenetrable parts, one of which is our presumably
well-protected country. As we know, the after-effects of nuclear war are
inevitably world-wide, for example, the global reach of nuclear dust, or
the resulting world-wide effects of nuclear winter. Inevitably even a nuclear
victory after a protracted war can return to haunt the victor almost or equally
as destructively as it did the defeated.
Our
stupidity may have its own inner logic that is often by far more demanding,
if not even
"intelligent," than
intelligence herself! Given the long history of our stupidity, it may be
argued that our stupidity is in some ways more intelligent than our intelligence.
If one borrows a pragmatic definition of intelligence as anything that in
the end works, or succeeds in bringing about one’s ends, then judging
from how often we behave stupidly, it may be said that our stupidity has
been by far more successful in outwitting our intelligence, for example,
through the arms race, than our intelligence could ever manage! In addition
to our recognizable stupidity, we often behave stupidly, but don’t know
it, and have no way of remembering or recording such event as
"stupid." This is
because history is written by the "victors," in this case, our presumed
intelligence, and therefore likely to repress anything that reminds us of
our stupidity, including the numerous times we behave stupidly in our personal
or national lives, but don't want or can't recognize
it.
2.
We “are” Because we are Stupid
Given
the stupidity of our primordial roots, such as, original matter that followed
the Big Bang, it may be argued that we exist because we are stupid. Instead
of existing because we think, as Descartes would have us believe2, we exist
because in the past we did not think. We owe our existence to the evolving
stupidity in ourselves, or, more correctly, the intelligence in what seem
to humans to be stupid.
3.
Intelligent Design
Let
us now turn to the possibility of intelligent design in the universe. One
may be hard pressed to find anything in the universe without some form of
intelligence. For instance, one may argue that there is intelligence in matter,
which is commonly found everywhere in the universe, such as, mathematically
predictable orbits of electrons, or quantifiable properties of chemical elements.
In fact, if intelligence equals complexity,
meaning, the complexity with
which something is designed, or
"works
", then given
that much of what we see out there is by far more complicated than humans
could ever make or reproduce, one may argue that what humans may perceive
as
"stupid," such as,
parts of nature, or even as stale an object as a chair, are by far more
intelligent, or at least intelligently
"designed,"
than humans give it credit
for[34].
In fact, no matter how intelligent humans may think they are, they
do not come even close to designing anything as complicated, as, say, another
animal or planetary system, except perhaps copy what is already there in
their laboratories.
Even
when humans copy nature, they do so clumsily, proving that by comparison
to nature, or the intelligence embedded in natural design, their intelligence
is like that of an infant copying a picture. Witness, for instance, the clumsy
human-like robots that humans have had such a hard time even making them
walk, let alone walk or behave as
"naturally," as humans do. Or in the field of cloning, what better example
of the human inability to create new life, than this apparent admission that
so far the best that humans have been able to do in re-creating nature is
emulate it, than build it from scratch, as when they clone
life-forms[35].
Given their propensity for copying nature, humans may be compared
to students of a foreign language who begin to learn their sounds by repeating
them, and copying them in their notebooks, than by designing an altogether
different language.
There
may be some support, then, for the view that nature conceals a design by
far more intelligent than anything humans themselves could build. Parts of
nature which humans so far may have looked down at as being unintelligent,
such as, rivers and forests, and therefore fair game for humans to do as
they like, may in fact not only
be anything but
"stupid," but conceal
within their design an intelligence which is so superior to human intelligence,
that humans are themselves fooled into thinking such
"world-parts" are
stupid.
We
may conclude that in the final analysis, both stupidity and intelligence
may be a matter of difference in degree, than in kind. If the above analysis
regarding Intelligent Design makes sense, then both are fundamentally
intelligent, with only non-being devoid completely of intelligence.
3.
Counter argument
As
a counter argument to Intelligent Design, it may be said that while atoms
and subatomic particles may exhibit certain regularities that one could argue
make such particles “intelligent,” such as, electron orbits and
forces of attraction, repulsion and bonding, such microscopic view of
intelligence does not describe how people behave intelligently in daily life.
For example, no matter how intelligent microscopic matter might be, in the
end a piece of wood, which consists of countless atoms, seems stupid by
comparison to humans, such as, the carpenter who sculpts it, the forester
who gathers it, or the businessman who sells it. Intelligence may thus be
defined by some as strategic decisions made within human-time. It follows
that on the basis of this definition of intelligence, which is admittedly
contrived to make a discussion of... Intelligence “intelligible”
to readers accustomed to such view, those world parts that are able to interact
with environmental conditions within human-time in complicated ways possess
higher levels of intelligence than those that depend on patterns of behavior
acquired, or “learned,” over evolutionary time. Witness, for instance,
the ability of humans to find solutions to problems that other animals may
require much more time to learn, or require some type of
“instinctive” mechanism even after they “learn” it to
be able to transmit their learned behavior to their young (such as, bird
migratory patterns). On the basis
of this view, then, it makes sense to see humans as by far more intelligent
than any other known world part, as, in fact, humans have historically described
themselves to be. Unfortunately, at the same time that humans became self-aware,
and therefore also aware of their intelligence, they became, as mentioned
earlier, defensively dismissive of their stupidity.
4.
Evolution
One
may argue that evolution in nature might have been impossible without the
intelligence embedded in the evolving universe that made the emergence of
new forms of life, including human intelligence, possible. If that were not
the case, then presumably human intelligence evolved either out of nothing,
from nowhere, or from stupidity. Unless one believes in unscientific explanations
of how things come to be, such as divine intervention, one must conclude
that human intelligence could not have evolved from nothing, but must have
evolved out of something. If it evolved out of something, does it make sense
that it should have evolved from non-intelligence? For how could
non-intelligence, or
"stupidity," have the
means with which to
"allow" the necessary conditions for intelligence to evolve, unless
it was itself of superior intelligence? In other words, how could intelligence,
including human intelligence, evolve from so stupid an environment, as many
presently assume is our non-human habitat? By definition, if not on the basis
of plain common sense, stupidity could not possibly project intelligence,
unless it were not really stupid. It follows that for the theory of evolution
to make sense, the environment in whose context evolution takes place is
not stupid. Could it be that our environment has been by far more intelligent
than we have given it credit for?
Humans
have sensed the intelligence that may inhere in nature, except they have
so far been unable to accept it fully. Instead, they express their intuition
in religious or vaguely metaphysical terms (i.e., pantheistic, polytheistic,
or pan-psychic ideologies and mythologies). By investing nature with supernatural
powers, including one or more deities, they bestowed it with an anthropomorphic
intelligence which is, nevertheless, by far superior to their
own.
If
everything is intelligent, then being-as-being is itself by definition
intelligent; while by contrast only non-being, or literally
"no-thing," is
unintelligent. Baruch
Spinoza[36] came close to postulating
such view, except couched in spiritualistic tones that lack the logical
simplicity, if not scientific validity, of Charles Darwin’s theory of
evolution[37].
If everything is intelligent, then one is led to conclude that nothing
is stupid: all being is constantly adaptive, and therefore by definition
intelligent! We have always been
surrounded by intelligent non-humans that we didn’t know even in spite
of our self-aware
"civilization." Such intelligent
non-humans include other parts of nature. In our rush to congratulate ourselves
for our admittedly admirable achievements, we attributed all of intelligence
to ourselves, while sparing very little or almost none for non-humans.
5.
The Intelligence Divide
Given
the increasing educational demands by the
"marketplace" on aspiring
employees, there is the risk of ever more widely separating those who remain
largely stupid, from those who have at least attempted to overcome it. This
seemingly ironic twist of events, where a stupid demand for a more comfortable
lifestyle, meaning, more generously materialistic, drives the cultivation
of the mind, for example, someone taking college courses so he can get a
"better" job, is
but a symptom of the larger human paradox of a dualistic being whose intelligence
seems often to run literally ahead of itself. Man can’t ...
"live by ideas
alone." It may be
"smarter" for humans to acknowledge, if not celebrate their stupidity,
thus allowing themselves to become happy by taking advantage of their biological
make-up, than always have to fight it. By making stupidity a part of their
acceptable social paradigm, than deny, suppress, or denigrate it, they may
be better able to resolve their in-born dualism in their favor through the
fulfillment of their physical needs while simultaneously enjoying
"pleasures
of the
mind."
6.
Stupidity and Schools
Almost
every educator knows the role played by stupidity in the lives of high school
students. Their thoughtlessness, beginning with their sex drive, and ending
with their emotional attachment to their peers, is almost
legendary[38].
Instead of acknowledging stupidity as an ontologically inescapable
attribute of the human condition, and more so at certain stages of our lives,
than others, and making attempts to incorporate it in our daily lives, we
fight it with every means at our disposal, from rules regarding school decorum,
to cameras and metal detectors to minimize its presumably criminal
side-effects. By acknowledging
the limitations of our intelligence a healthier approach may be found for
us to treat our stupidity more intelligently, while realizing the potentially
intelligent aspects of our stupidity, as did, for instance, John Dewey, whose
child-centered education may be seen as a logical acknowledgment of our
stupidity[39].
V.
Politics and Stupidity
1. Democracy and Stupidity
In
a democracy we often vote for, or succeed in bringing to, or maintaining
in
office,
incompetent, inarticulate, or inefficient leaders. In such cases,
the public has correctly understood its privileged position in a democracy,
and chooses to bring to power someone not much more intelligent that itself.
Thus if the public is to a certain extent "stupid," for example, through
its blind consumerism, materialistic orientation, or blind patriotism, then
it may prefer to be led by people who make it feel comfortable the way it
is. Perhaps occasionally the public is right to act stupidly to preserve
its sense of self-respect or even adulation, as when thinking that, say,
the United States is the greatest nation that has ever existed on the
planet[40].
To reaffirm mainly our self-deception, or in some cases, connectedness
with one's stupidity, people in a democracy may vote "down" than "up," meaning,
for someone a little more stupid and less intelligent than may be currently
available (for example, for someone less intelligent or well informed than
his or her political opponents in a presidential race). Such event happening
was predicted by Plato, in his book Republic, where to his
consternation[41]
he noticed what happened to his beloved teacher Socrates when justice
was left in the hands of the Athenian
public[42].
2.
Elections
As
if to prove democracy right once more, the public in a consumer society with
certain anti-intellectual bend knows in its heart it could not be fairly
represented by someone too smart for its own good, and therefore may vote
in favor of
"stupid." Thus, no
matter how intelligent a candidate’s exhortations might be, if the public
perceives them as antagonistic to its values (some of which, according to
Hofstadter, may be
anti-intellectual[43]),
it is likely to reject such candidate. For example, although Europeans
considered the Democratic candidate in the last presidential election to
be by far better educated, and more honest and intelligent than the
Republican, and
therefore,
according
to traditional European cultural assumptions, which have
historically been more intellectually inclined than American, the former
to be more deserving of becoming
president
than the
latter[44]; in the United
States,
a
straightforward intellectual approach may be perceived as a liability. Such
rejection of intelligence, in the intellectualized sense of the term as someone
well-informed, is particularly easy to do either in the privacy of the voting
booth, where voters don’t have to reveal their choice to anyone, with
the exception, perhaps, of their civilized superego, or in massive rallies,
where their educated group guilt finds cover behind the faceless crowd,
exaggerated sloganeering; or, as in the Nazi movement prior to, and during
World War II, adoption of symbols of emotional life. As Wilhelm Reich showed
in his analysis of fascism, it is in this context of mass politics that humans
are susceptible to emulative
"attacks" of emotional
stupidity[45]. In a mass movement of this type one
binds instinctively with a group that is confused about the role of the mind,
and therefore willing to abandon it in favor of stupidity, albeit instinctively
still attracted to its presumed superiority. Instead of being able to explain
in the clear light of day their stupidity, which they may be unable to do
due to severe repression at the conscious level of that which they desperately
seek to reaffirm, they engage in the creation of mystical symbols, such as,
the swastika, that allow them at least some type of symbolic relief. Such
behavior may degenerate into mass hysteria, or more dangerously, aggressive
belligerence against perceived enemies to their well being (presumably, in
the case of the Nazi movement, non-Aryan peoples). These behaviors may have
nothing
"intelligent" about them,
except a twisted intelligence used by instinct to satisfy itself. Such extreme
forms of repression of, and rebellion by, instinctual aspects of human existence
should serve as warning to humans to learn early in their lives to live in
harmony with their stupidity (including one’s instincts), in order to
avoid later becoming completely overwhelmed by them, as in any number of
obsessive-psychotic behavioral patterns observed by Sigmund Freud, and numerous
other psychoanalysts.
VI.
Time
Presently
it seems that humans understand stupidity to mean something within the parameters
of a human-centered understanding of time. For example, most time measurements
are made within limits that any one human could keep a count of within a
human lifetime. When measuring intelligence on a so-called intelligence test,
or, for that matter, any number of academic assessments, there are usually
time limits, which in turn imply that time as defined by humans is a prerequisite
factor in the measuring, if not understanding, of intelligence. Thus instead
of allowing one unlimited amount of time to complete a test, test takers
are asked to do so only within a
pre-specified time limit. One
may argue that in the context of the larger order of things, including evolution,
such definition of intelligence is itself unintelligent, since it is limited
to what can be demonstrated happens within only human-centered time limits,
as contrasted to the relatively infinite amount of time in the universe.
VII.
Radical Perspectivism
The
process of accepting our stupidity is similar to a radically perspectivistic
acceptance of ourselves. The author defines radical perspectivism elsewhere3.
Suffice it to mention here that by such term he means interpreting ourselves
without trying desperately to deny, suppress, or alter ourselves. What is
ironic is that no matter how much we may try to “not-become,” meaning,
become the nothing that we are capable of imagining, such as, a spiritualized
soul, we are in fact incapable of ever becoming so without at the same time
recreating the universe to make it possible for us to exist without matter.
Perhaps in the distant future the universe itself may evolve to a non-physical
state of being where humans in their future spiritualized form will be able
to survive incorporeally, albeit
probably without the same types of satisfaction, life expectations, or reasoning
abilities they now possess. Whether such universal evolution is possible
or attainable; or whether there are other types of co-existing universes
with altogether different ontological paradigms, as some have
suggested[46],
is not only beyond the scope of this analysis, but also so speculative
as to make such hypothetical speculation merely rhetorical.
VIII.
Conclusion
Intelligence
interprets, while stupidity, apart from being necessary for our survival,
adds spice to our lives. Such
redefinition of humans as not only intelligent, would cause negative meanings
associated with the term “stupid” to evaporate, and become associated,
instead, with a past that had wrongly fallen under the sway, unintelligently
as it were, of our intelligence. Such approach may lead to social reform,
for example, of our social or environmental policies. We may no longer see
cultures that are in touch with their stupidity as inferior, let alone worth
conquering or, worse, exterminating, as might have been
certain "nature-embedded" or
other cultures in the past that were conquered or colonized by presumably
“civilized” peoples. By “nature-embedded" the author means
cultures that respected non-thinking parts of their existence, such as, trees,
mountains, or other animals, as much as they did their own ability to think.
Likewise at the individual level, humans may no longer feel they must choose
, to paraphrase Freud, between civilization and
instinct[47], but use their intelligence
to understand and live in harmony with their
stupidity.
Endnotes