|
About This Author
Come closer.
|
Complex Numbers #1054851 added August 30, 2023 at 9:20am
Restrictions: None
The Problem of Stupid
I've done entries about this topic a few times, so I had to double-check to ensure I hadn't linked this particular article before, or that it's not some variation on a previous article. And also to try not to duplicate a title. It looks like something different, though I can always make stupid mistakes.
I'm not so sure evil is so easy to identify and fight against, but I guess that compared to stupidity, it's a cakewalk.
The most relevant previous blog entry is here, from two years ago, if you're interested in comparing views on the subject: "Fight The Power" 
Today's article isn't all that long, so this entry won't be, either.
There’s an internet adage that goes, “Debating an idiot is like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.” It’s funny and astute. It’s also deeply, depressingly worrying.
I would like to once again draw a distinction between stupidity and ignorance. Ignorance is our natural, base state; it's only through learning stuff that we become not-ignorant. The key there is to be open to learning stuff, even if it sometimes contradicts stuff we've already learned. Ignorance is, therefore, forgivable, and fixable... if it doesn't turn into willful ignorance.
For theologian and philosopher Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the stupid person is often more dangerous than the evil one.
The core of theology and philosophy is to build logical edifices. Unfortunately, often those edifices have no foundation. Someone can be smart and still wrong, due to false premises.
In comic books and action movies, we know who the villain is. They wear dark clothes, kill on a whim, and cackle madly at their diabolical scheme.
The whole point to comic books and action movies is to have a clear villain, someone that the very clear hero can successfully thwart. It simplifies, and is therefore satisfying. More recently, both sides have been written to be on shaky moral ground, which can be satisfying, too.
Once something is a known evil, the good of the world can rally to defend and fight against it.
Except that it's blindingly obvious that this doesn't happen on a regular basis. You know Russia's still trying to invade Ukraine? Sure, we're helping Ukraine (the clear Good Guys), but not enough to win a definitive victory against the Bad Guys.
And propaganda has convinced some people that the Good Guys are the Bad Guys, and vice-versa.
Stupidity, though, is a different problem altogether. We cannot so easily fight stupidity for two reasons. First, we are collectively much more tolerant of it. Unlike evil, stupidity is not a vice most of us take seriously. We do not lambast others for ignorance. We do not scream down people for not knowing things.
I don't really buy this, either, and once again, let's not conflate ignorance with stupidity. There are words I struggle to pronounce, because I've only ever seen them in writing. Other people struggle to spell words they've only ever heard. Which of us is more ignorant? Neither, really. But I tend to be more judgmental of people who can't spell than of people who can't pronounce, because I can relate better. I'm aware of this flaw and can therefore work to mitigate it; certainly, I have others I'm not aware of.
Bonhoeffer’s argument, then, is that stupidity should be viewed as worse than evil. Stupidity has far greater potential to damage our lives.
I mean, I kinda see the point, and agree, to some extent. But none of this addresses the definition problem, whereby, for example, the extreme right thinks that the extreme left is stupid, ignorant, and evil, while the extreme left believes these things of the extreme right.
But stupidity is much harder to weed out. That’s why it’s a dangerous weapon: Because evil people find it hard to take power, they need stupid people to do their work.
This is why the trope of the criminal mastermind with brainless minions is perpetual. Think Lex Luthor and Otis in the 1977 Superman movie.
So, in short, I'm not completely convinced. This may be source-bias on my part (theologians in particular are always suspect for me), but, in keeping with the theme, I try to keep an open mind. I think that earlier entry's article presented a more cogent argument. |
© Copyright 2023 Robert Waltz (UN: cathartes02 at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Robert Waltz has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work. |
