On Stupidity
Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of goodness than evil. Against evil one can protest, expose it, and, if necessary, prevent it with force. Evil always carries within itself the seed of self-destruction, as it leaves at least some discomfort in the human conscience. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor violence can accomplish anything here; reasons do not work; facts that contradict one’s own prejudices simply do not have to be believed—in such cases the foolish person even becomes critical—and when they are inevitable, they can simply be dismissed as insignificant individual cases. In contrast to evil, the fool is completely satisfied with himself; indeed, he even becomes dangerous, as he quickly turns to attack when provoked. Therefore, we must exercise more caution toward the fool than toward the evil person. We will never again try to convince the fool with reasons; it is futile and dangerous.
To know how we can combat stupidity, we must seek to understand its essence. One thing is certain: it is not essentially an intellectual but a human defect. There are intellectually highly agile people who are foolish, and intellectually very clumsy people who are anything but stupid. We make this discovery to our surprise in certain situations. In doing so, we are less likely to get the impression that stupidity is an innate defect, and more likely to observe that under certain circumstances people are made to be stupid, or allow themselves to be made stupid. We also observe that people who live in isolation and solitude show this defect less often than those who tend to socialize or belong to certain groups or communities. It seems, then, that stupidity may be less of a psychological problem and more of a sociological one. It is a special form of the influence of historical circumstances on humans, a psychological by-product of certain external conditions. Upon closer inspection, we find that any strong external display of power, whether political or religious, strikes a large part of humanity with stupidity. Indeed, it seems as though this is a sociological-psychological law. The power of one group depends on the stupidity of another.
The process is not that certain intellectual faculties suddenly atrophy or fail, but that under the overwhelming impression of power, a person’s inner independence is taken from them, and they, more or less unconsciously, cease to find their own response to the situations in which they find themselves. The fact that the fool is often stubborn should not obscure the fact that they are not independent. One can almost feel it in a conversation with them that they are not really themselves, personally, but that one is dealing with slogans, catchphrases, etc., that have gained power over them. They are under a spell, they are blinded, they have been abused and mistreated in their own being. Having become a will-less instrument, the fool will also be capable of all evil and, at the same time, incapable of recognizing it as evil. Here lies the danger of a diabolical abuse. Because of this, people can be ruined forever.
But it is precisely here that it is clear that not an act of teaching, but only an act of liberation could overcome stupidity. One will have to accept that a genuine inner liberation in most cases will only be possible after external liberation has taken place; until then, we must give up all attempts to convince the fool. In this situation, it will also be justified to ask why, under such circumstances, we fruitlessly strive to know what “the people” actually think, and why this question is so utterly irrelevant for those who think and act responsibly—always only under the given circumstances. The Bible’s word that “the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom” says that the inner liberation of man for responsible living before God is the only true overcoming of stupidity.
By the way, these thoughts about stupidity have one comforting aspect: they do not allow us to consider the majority of people to be foolish under all circumstances. It really depends on whether those in power expect more from the stupidity or from the inner independence and wisdom of the people.
On Stupidity (modern English version)
Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of goodness than evil. We can resist evil: we can protest against it, expose it, and, if necessary, stop it by force. Evil always carries within itself the seed of its own destruction, since it leaves some trace of guilt or unease in the human conscience. But against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor violence achieve anything here. Arguments fail; facts that contradict a person’s prejudices simply need not be believed. The stupid person may even become critical when confronted with evidence, and when the facts cannot be denied, they can simply be dismissed as unimportant exceptions.
Unlike the evil person, the fool is completely pleased with himself. In fact, he can become dangerous, for he is easily provoked into attack. We must therefore be more cautious around fools than around the wicked. We should never again try to persuade a fool with reasons—it is pointless and can even be risky.
If we want to understand how to fight stupidity, we must first understand what it is. One thing is certain: stupidity is not primarily an intellectual failure but a human one. There are people with quick, sharp minds who are foolish, and people with slow minds who are not stupid at all. We often notice this to our surprise. This suggests that stupidity is not an inborn defect, but something that people become under certain circumstances—something they allow to happen to them.
We also notice that people who live in solitude show this trait less often than those who live closely connected to others or as part of large groups. So stupidity seems less a psychological problem than a sociological one. It arises as a particular effect of social and historical forces—a kind of mental by-product of certain external conditions.
Looking more closely, we find that every strong display of power—political or religious—makes many people stupid. This appears to be a general sociological-psychological law: the power of some depends on the stupidity of others. What happens is not that a person’s intellect suddenly weakens, but that, overwhelmed by the presence of power, they lose their inner independence. They stop forming their own judgments about the situations they face.
Although the fool may appear stubborn, this should not hide the fact that he is not truly independent. You can sense, in conversation with him, that you are not really speaking with a person but with slogans and catchphrases that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell—blinded, misused, and violated in his very self. Having become a will-less instrument, the fool can commit any evil and yet be unable to see it as evil. This is where the danger of a truly demonic corruption lies: such people can be lost forever.
Here it becomes clear that stupidity cannot be overcome through teaching, but only through liberation. True inner freedom can usually come only after external freedom is restored. Until then, all efforts to convince the fool are in vain.
Given this, it makes little sense to ask what “the people” really think under conditions of oppression or manipulation. For anyone who acts responsibly, that question is irrelevant—at least under such circumstances.
The Bible says that “the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.” This means that a person’s inner liberation—living responsibly before God—is the only real victory over stupidity.
Still, these reflections offer one comfort: they do not require us to think that most people are stupid in every situation. It depends on whether those in power expect more from the people’s stupidity or from their inner independence and wisdom.
No comments:
Post a Comment