• Matias
    85
    I am currently reading the book "Le novel âge de la bêtise" by Pierre André Taguieff. Unfortunately, the author gives a lot of examples of this "new stupidity", but he doesn't give a definition of stupidity.

    I like Kant's definition best, which he says is a "lack of judgment" (= Mangel an Urteilskraft), whereby for him judgment is the ability to subsume sensory impressions under the concepts of reason. (Kant: "intellectual concepts as such are empty, mere perceptions are blind) . This ability of judgment is therefore the "hinge" between the world outside and the world of ideas and concepts. If this hinge is defective, as in the case of stupidity, then the ideas and concepts work idly, in a void, so to speak, without any connection to reality.

    This is particularly the case with all kinds of ideologies which, as the word suggests, are not about one thing (such as life in biology or the soul in psychology), but are only about ideas and their connections to one another. Ideologies are therefore always a sign of stupidity, as they lack a link to reality. Ideologies arise when ideas only have sex with each other, when they pile up into grandiose intellectual buildings (philosophies, theologies, theories....) that can be very impressive, even internally very coherent, but if they lack a connection to reality, then they are a case of stupidity.

    This is also the reason why stupidity is not the opposite of intelligence, because there are very intelligent people who are also very stupid, namely when they only use their intelligence to play with ideas and theories, detached from reality (Nowadays there are whole departments at universities where very intelligent and very stupid people gather and "study". One sign is: They don't call their subjects "science", but "---- Studies".

    Well, following Immanuel Kant, this is my idea of stupidity. How would you define it?
  • universeness
    6.3k

    This area has so many shades in its spectrum of possible mind states.

    How would you connect 'stupid' to making mistakes or bad choices based on having been fed faked information or having been manipulated or indoctrinated all of your life or simply due to your own misinterpretation of accurate information?

    Can you assign any blame for being 'stupid,' if you have not had a good general education?

    Do folks who have some malfunctioning brain processes, ever deserve to be labeled stupid?

    Is it stupid to spend a penny on scientific research or space exploration and development unless you can guarantee beneficial results?

    'Stupid' is such a subjective label based on the scenario being judged. Consequences and results of actions taken or words spoken, may well be judged by many as being at source, 'stupid,' but may be found not to have been so stupid later on. Einstein's cosmological constant may prove to be such an example.

    I don't think we can discover new knowledge without risking the chance of looking or being stupid.
  • Echarmion
    2.6k
    How a term is to be defined depends on its function. Words are tools for communication, they don't contain some deeper truth.

    So the question cannot be meaningfully answered outside of a specific communicative context.
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    This is also the reason why stupidity is not the opposite of intelligence, because there are very intelligent people who are also very stupidMatias

    That is a poor argument.

    People can say horrible things and not be horrible people. Stupid people are not intelligent and vice versa. That is not the same as saying intelligent people cannot do stupid things nor that stupid people cannot do intelligent things.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    Here's an old post from a thread "Stupidity" wherein I collect a number of my own attempts at defining & clarifying what being stupid means ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/622062

    And at long last I've finally realized that it's stupid to tell stupid people that they are stupid.180 Proof
  • Mww
    4.8k
    How would you define it?Matias

    Kant works for me, but it comes with the burden of attributing to judgement more power than most common folk, and too few current philosophers, are prepared to grant.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    The early Confucian philosopher Hsun Tzu holds that man's original nature is bad or imperfect. Thus man desires improvement in the same way that anyone who lacks something beneficial desires to increase it. So stupidity would be not desiring to correct one's own deficits.
  • Christoffer
    2k
    How would you define it?Matias

    Stupidity is extreme bias. Bias towards a specific thing that overtakes the ability to critically judge it in context. Bias towards emotion, bias towards an ideal, an idea, a method, practice etc.

    The opposite is to be able to see past the bias, see further context, see alternatives, engage in the ability to weigh different perspectives choosing rationally rather than emotionally, or even being able to choose emotionally as opposed to cold rationality if that has a moral rationality to it.

    However things gets boiled down, extreme bias is pretty much at the core of stupidity.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    So stupidity would be not desiring to correct one's own deficits.Pantagruel
    Stupidity is extreme biasChristoffer
    That looks like stupidity to me. A pervasive refusal to try to learn.fdrake

    :cool: :up:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/853027
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    The best definition I have heard is someone doing the exact same thing in identical circumstances and expecting a different outcome.

    This is why human stupidity has its benefits. Sometimes something different does happen.
  • Christoffer
    2k
    The best definition I have heard is someone doing the exact same thing in identical circumstances and expecting a different outcome.

    This is why human stupidity has its benefits. Sometimes something different does happen.
    I like sushi

    I don't think it has to do with stupidity at all. It's mostly on the same level as some plaque saying "Carpe Diem", a pop culture psychology meme.

    It's rather the opposite, as I said with biases. Stupidity is doing the same thing in changing circumstances and outcomes, demanding reality to fit the bias.
  • fdrake
    6.5k
    A pervasive refusal to try to learn.

    I like Kant's definition best, which he says is a "lack of judgment" (= Mangel an Urteilskraft), whereby for him judgment is the ability to subsume sensory impressions under the concepts of reason. (Kant: "intellectual concepts as such are empty, mere perceptions are blind) . This ability of judgment is therefore the "hinge" between the world outside and the world of ideas and concepts. If this hinge is defective, as in the case of stupidity, then the ideas and concepts work idly, in a void, so to speak, without any connection to reality.Matias

    It strikes me that subsuming sensory impressions under concepts of reason is something that people do involuntarily, all the time. Even as part of perception. If someone was totally unable to do that, they wouldn't be able to see, hear, think etc. at all. Which is an absence of consciousness, rather than stupidity. Stupidity must be in how things are done, not in what things are done.

    I'm bad at chess. Unskilled in it. I can't "see" the lines of play in a board like regular players can, and masters can with a glance. I don't have the ability to subsume the sensory impressions of a chess board state under the concepts of chess playing in that regard. I don't think that makes me an idiot, just bad at chess.

    If I was bad at everything in life like that, perhaps I am simply unskilled at living, or unable to exercise my capacities to function adequately in life's typicalities. Some people are like that, and need help - children, people with disabilities. Are they stupid? No.

    What if someone is able to learn, calculative, intelligent, wilful, determined, of sound mind and they still do not learn and grow? Still don't try to excise their errors and expand their strengths across many domains they are in fact able to?

    That looks like stupidity to me. A pervasive refusal to try to learn.
  • Joshs
    5.6k
    What if someone is able to learn, calculative, intelligent, wilful, determined, of sound mind and they still do not learn and grow? Still don't try to excise their errors and expand their strengths across many domains they are in fact able to?

    That looks like stupidity to me. A pervasive refusal to try to learn
    fdrake

    I agree. Stupidity is typically a blameful judgement of moral culpability we level against others (or ourselves) which supposes bad intent. Related terms of blame include laziness, stubbornness, self-indulgence, negligence, thoughtlessness, selfishness, inconsiderateness, greed. The question is, when others fall short of our expectations of them in this way, is the failure in their intent or in our failure to separate their perspective from our own norms?

    There are more interesting ways of defining stupidity that take into account the irrationality grounding rationality. Deleuze, for instance, defines stupidity in terms of what produces the paradoxical gap between perspectives, both between and within persons.
  • baker
    5.6k

    This song captures well what I think stupidity is:


    Pretense, faking; no sense of fear, loss, danger; lying; blindly seeking adoration from others; immaturity.
  • baker
    5.6k
    The question is, when others fall short of our expectations of them in this way, is the failure in their intent or in our failure to separate their perspective from our own norms?Joshs

    Allowing for another's perspective (and first of all, learning what it actually is), surely feels like lack of confidence on one's own part (for many people, at least).

    Stupidity is typically a blameful judgement of moral culpability we level against others (or ourselves) which supposes bad intent.Joshs
    Yes. This also seemingly exculpates the one who calls another person stupid of their own bad faith, and places the whole responsibility for the quality of the interaction on the other person, the "stupid one".
  • baker
    5.6k
    A pervasive refusal to try to learn.fdrake
    "Husband beats wife so that she ends up in the hospital with multiple fractures. Because she pervasively refused to learn what he sought to teach her."

    Many teaching situations are like that: The teacher is authoritarian, the student (possibly not even considering themselves a student) is seen as completely inferior.

    Often, people seem like they don't want to learn because they don't want to learn in such a teaching situation; because they cannot cope with the stark difference between what is nominally being taught and what is taught as the hidden curriculum (eg. "the tense system in English" vs. "one must unquestioningly submit to those in position of authority").

    What if someone is able to learn, calculative, intelligent, wilful, determined, of sound mind and they still do not learn and grow? Still don't try to excise their errors and expand their strengths across many domains they are in fact able to?fdrake
    How can you know that they are in fact able to do so??
  • Joshs
    5.6k

    The question is, when others fall short of our expectations of them in this way, is the failure in their intent or in our failure to separate their perspective from our own norms?
    — Joshs

    Allowing for another's perspective (and first of all, learning what it actually is), surely feels like lack of confidence on one's own part (for many people, at least).
    baker

    I would think the opposite is the case. The more confident one is in the usefulness and flexibility of one’s approach to understanding others, the less one is threatened by strange, alien values and perspectives. Thus, the confident person, instead of frantically erecting barriers around their viewpoint reifying it as the correct position, can boldly experiment and tinker with their outlook to make it even more flexible, expansive and inclusive.
  • baker
    5.6k
    I think so too, but in my experience, most people consider allowing for different perspectives as somehow wrong, a sign of weakness, self-doubt, lack of self-confidence, lack of knowing "how things really are".

    Our previous prime-minister said that democracy means that we must also tolerate lies and wrong opinions. To him, there is just one correct way of seeing things.

    Most people are like this:



    "You're entitled to your wrong opinion, that's fine."
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    And at long last I've finally realized that it's stupid to tell stupid people that they are stupid.180 Proof

    :rofl: Stupidity is more contagious than Covid. Better keep your distance! :yum:
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    :victory: :mask:
  • Tom Storm
    9k
    I have no theory of stupidity to offer but I 'm partial to the notion of an incapacity for sound judgment. For me stupidity is often associated with tragedy. The 'stupid person' could have a much better experience of life, but owing to this lack of judgement, or an inability to make certain inferences, ends up suffering. As such, the 'stupid person' is frequently engaged in a battle with themselves which they may perceive as a struggle with others and the outside world.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    ... an incapacity for sound judgment.Tom Storm
    Do you think this "incapacity" is (1) either

    (a) cognitive disability,
    (b) an acquired, incorrigible habit,
    (c) combination or
    (d) something else?

    (2) and

    (i) the same for all / most cretins or
    (ii) varies with each individual?

    Anecdotally I'm inclined to (b) & (i), which makes 'stupidity" an ethical aporia (à la akrasia) as much as or more than a congenital diagnosis. :chin:
  • LuckyR
    480

    Based on my experience I look at the "stupidity" definition differently.

    Namely that there are several axes that together are what lay persons determine whether someone is generically "smart".

    One axis is the volume of information one has retained (learned vs ignorant).

    Another is the mental dexterity to process information (intelligent vs stupid in my lexicon)

    Probably the most useful is the ability to discern social cues and communicate effectively with others (savvy vs naive)
  • Tom Storm
    9k
    Interesting questions. I agree there are lot of (b)'s out there. But is this stupidity, or are they wilful fools? I'm not sure. I think there are a lot of damaged folk out there who reason based upon patterns of paranoia or superstition or narcissism. I'm not sure to what extent they are responsible for their choices.

    Taking (b) - which is nicely worded - what do we make of the 'acquired' aspect of such a habit? E.g., acquired through trauma or by laziness? I imagine there are some folk who are partly redeemable on the basis that their habit was initially a learned survival response. Thoughts?
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    CBT, which I assume you're familiar with, is in large part derived from both Socratic methods and Hellenistic philosophies such as Stoicism & Epicureanism as a therapeutic practice focused on mitigating and minimizing "willful foolishness" (i.e. acquired incorrigible habits). In many cases therapy also includes medication, etc. I agree stupidity can be a trauma-induced
    "survival strategy" but in the medium to long term it's insidiously maladaptive (i.e. self-defeating). Ancient Greek philosophies of life had proposed various daily "exercises" (P. Hadot) in order to cultivate eudaimonia (+ ataraxia, aponia & eukrasia) contra each person's everyday foolery & stupidity. Those ancients are still very relevant and essentially modern, don't you think?
  • Tom Storm
    9k
    Those ancients are still very relevant and, essentially, modern, don't you think?180 Proof

    Indeed. Stupidity is eternal. So it seems is human nature.

    CBT, which I assume you're familiar with, is in large part derived from both Socratic methods and Hellenistic philosophies such as Stoicism & Epicureanism180 Proof

    You bet. I'm partial to the Epicureans over the Stoics. I first got interested in Albert Ellis' RET which was the precursor to CBT. It works. Later DBT, especially for people experiencing borderline personality disorder. But it does take the person to identify that they need support with persistent, unhelpful ways of thinking and relating. That seems to be the nub of our problem when it comes to finding help: insight.

    On a separate vein, some time ago I saw interviews with Trump supporters. Most of them said they would vote for him again because of his significant achievements and his great policies. Not one of them could name any. They just liked him. Is this because they are dumb, or has the American system (education/media/corporate influence) failed people, making them rubes and willing victims of a demagogue? We can't use CBT for political stupidity can we?
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    Is this because they are dumb, or has the American system (education / media / corporate influence) failed people, making them rubes and willing victims of a demagogue?Tom Storm
    This brain rot is virulent in Britain, Germany, Hungary, Turkey & Poland too. :eyes:

    We can't use CBT for political stupidity can we?
    No, we can't. We have to out-vote them (and continue to out-breed them). :mask:
  • Tom Storm
    9k
    This brain rot is virulent in Britain, Germany, Hungary, Turkey & Poland too. :eyes:180 Proof

    :up: Good point. I was saying just this at a meeting today.
  • Jamal
    9.6k
    A pervasive refusal to try to learn.fdrake

    My favourite definition too. But I see it more as a lack of curiosity about the ideas and opinions of others, rather than, as you seem to describe it, a refusal to use one's learning ability to become more successful, i.e., to "excise their errors and expand their strengths across many domains they are in fact able to." Although I guess it can amount to the same thing, mutatis mutandis.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    Stupidity: n, thinking philosophy can be found in a dictionary. :wink:
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    Stupidity: n, thinking philosophy can be found in a dictionary. :wink:unenlightened
    :smirk:
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.