On the Nature of Stupidity

On the Nature of Stupidity

Alexander Makedon

Chicago State University

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 lower to something higher, 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