Unless that was an off-hand, unpublished remark, I would suggest finding the paragraph/page/book from which that quote is taken and finding out for yourself. I don't know why you would expect anyone here to have the answer. I might be the only poster on the forum who has even heard of or read anything by Ortega y Gasset!

Has to rate as an all time obscure question, though. You can imagine being asked on a Mastermind show, 10 questions on Ortega Y Gassett, your time starts now.....

Toward a History of Philosophy by Jose Ortega y Gasset (page 71)

Tell me what Pascal's 'imperative of stupidity' is when you find out.

Nils with the Googling work. (Y)

Tell me what Pascal's 'imperative of stupidity' is when you find out. — Nils Loc

It seems to be a Nietzschean summary of Pascal's Wager.

Nietzsche: 'On the Genealogy of Morality' and Other Writings

Firstly, please excuse my writing style, I'm not formally educated.

Now to the meat and potatoes. Ortega is a dead man, we can never know without asking the man himself. With the proverbial gun to my head though I think I can make an informed guess. He's referring specifically to the wager. If you subscribe to the wager you are not necessarily a good person. You're not a bad one either, but the crux is this. The wager, as well as the punishment of hell itself are a threat. A psychopath could easily live the Christian, or any, view of good if the outcome of not doing so is eternal suffering. It becomes a cold and logical choice to live well under such wager. It lacks genuine altruism, And therefor isn't a mark of a possible objective good. This isn't to say people who believe the wager or religion are bad. What it does say is the person who believes in nothingness at the end of life yet still acts in an altruistic fashion would be easier to peg as "good" if we assume such a thing is objective. From this perspective it's clear to say he doesn't "hate" Pascal, rather he is weary of him, his ideas, and there implications. This is why I have long since learned, as a measure of elementary hygiene, to be on guard when anyone quotes Pascal.

It can't be too obscure. I was first made aware of this quote from a cartoon created in an eastern nation. Guess that shows my less than scholarly background.

Well said

@MyOwnWay Psychopass is the cartoon you referred, is that right?
Thank you for the dissertation, I was just looking for such a meaning for this Ortega's quote. By the way I am Spanish and from now on I am willing to investigate this question. Very interesting though.
If I got something I will post it right here.
Greetings

Yes that's the one. It's loaded with all sorts of interesting literature and philosophy.

Hopefully my thoughts on this quote were useful.

Ortega y Gasset took a dim view of Descartes and the German Ideology thing.
I don't have the books with me any more (they were not returned after loaning) but the criticism against them mostly took the form of making things more mysterious than they required.
But Ortega y Gasset had a sense of humor and the exact location of where such a text appeared in his work would help in finding the meaning.
Chance are, his view of Pascal was tempered by other points of view.

Not long ago a read an Quote from Ortega:

"I have long since learned, as a measure of elementary hygiene, to be on guard when anyone quotes Pascal."

I would like to know why he dislikes Blaise Pascal. — Rafael Rossi

my guess it is has something to do with Christians often quote pascal, and sometimes christians are associated with being d-bags. Right, Wrong, or indifferent.

I'm sure you've heard of Pascal's wager.

Firstly, please excuse my writing style, I'm not formally educated.

Now to the meat and potatoes. Ortega is a dead man, we can never know without asking the man himself. With the proverbial gun to my head though I think I can make an informed guess. He's referring specifically to the wager. If you subscribe to the wager you are not necessarily a good person. You're not a bad one either, but the crux is this. The wager, as well as the punishment of hell itself are a threat. A psychopath could easily live the Christian, or any, view of good if the outcome of not doing so is eternal suffering. It becomes a cold and logical choice to live well under such wager. It lacks genuine altruism, And therefor isn't a mark of a possible objective good. This isn't to say people who believe the wager or religion are bad. What it does say is the person who believes in nothingness at the end of life yet still acts in an altruistic fashion would be easier to peg as "good" if we assume such a thing is objective. From this perspective it's clear to say he doesn't "hate" Pascal, rather he is weary of him, his ideas, and there implications. This is why I have long since learned, as a measure of elementary hygiene, to be on guard when anyone quotes Pascal. — MyOwnWay

Who gets to decide who is a psycho path. Perhaps nurture versus nature decides who does psycho path type stuff. If pascal's wager helps a person make better decisions more often, that falls under nurture versus nature. All of our decisions are 100% based on particle collisions, and this also falls under situations versus dna (or nurture versus nature).