Philosophy Now Forum

skakos wrote:What a noble cause.

So we fight... stupidity but no one is... stupid?

those who oppose learning and thinking would be stupid.

Exactly!
Stupidity - not merely ignorance, not merely bad reasoning, not merely gullible credulity, not merely the willingness to repeat unexamined slogans and the uncritical acceptance of oft-repeated assertions, not merely a weakness of mind or a susceptibility to propaganda and linguistic abuse, but all of those habits, together constituting a state of collective stupidity - is a condition present in all of us, all the time, to a greater or lesser degree. If it is pandered-to, cultivated, encouraged and rewarded, it grows. If it is identified, confronted, resisted and combatted, both in public discourse and private reflection, it recedes.
Pretty straightforward I'd've thought.

And I have to wonder why anyone would shift the discussion to political incorrectness where there was none.

As long as there are no specific criteria to determine what exactly is "stupid" the title is at least suspicious. Too many times you find someone with different (stupid) opinion on various matters and you conclude that he has these (stupid) opinions because he does not "know" enough on the subject. Let's not hide behind our own finger here.

In what way is the assessment of any particular opinion relevant here?
They're giving awards for essays, each on its own merit.

Nobody else is telling anyone how to use their fingers.

Skip wrote: Stupidity - not merely ignorance, not merely bad reasoning, not merely gullible credulity, not merely the willingness to repeat unexamined slogans and the uncritical acceptance of oft-repeated assertions, not merely a weakness of mind or a susceptibility to propaganda and linguistic abuse, but all of those habits, together constituting a state of collective stupidity - is a condition present in all of us, all the time, to a greater or lesser degree. If it is pandered-to, cultivated, encouraged and rewarded, it grows. If it is identified, confronted, resisted and combatted, both in public discourse and private reflection, it recedes.
Pretty straightforward I'd've thought.

Skakos asked for criteria and here you've named specific versions of it. Evidently that wasn't enough. Intelligence is sufficiently aware of itself in being prone to produce what amounts to stupidities or errors we succumb to without reflection and conversely aware that by reflection it must preempt much of its own output.

Nietzsche had this 'dualism' in mind when he said where there's great intelligence there is also great stupidity. A sifting intellect would eliminate most these collateral byproducts of its own functions. Knowing that intelligence invariably both performs and underperforms it does offer the means, if used, to be its own teacher and censor and that there is no such thing as 'fixed criteria' for doing so for such would actually negate the function(s) of intelligence which is, or should be, in a perennial loop of observing itself.

Then perhaps you did not get the main point of the argument: That these criteria offered are not objective but subjective.

Can you actually put values on these criteria?
Can you apply them easily to all cases?

ignorance = ignorance of what? of the "correct" opinion?
bad reasoning = what is "good" reasoning?
credulity = when is someone "too ready" to believe something?
willingness to repeat unexamined slogans = "unexamined" up to which extent?
uncritical acceptance of oft-repeated assertions = "uncritical" based on what? (similar to the above)
weakness of mind = oh, that is the "stupid" argument... I suppose the ones with the "correct" opinion are the "clever" ones

We can go on for ever but perhaps a specific example could persuade you...

Are you a theist or an atheist or an agnostic?
Which of the three options do you consider "clever" based on the above "specific" criteria and why?
Which one you consider "stupid"? Again based on the above "specific" criteria...
Because I bet I can get you clever arguments to persuade you that your opinion is "stupid" based on these criteria.

(no offence taken, I am referring to "objective" criteria anyway)

My current best thinking is that stupidity and non-stupidity is states of mind in most if not all human beings. And that's kind of also the definition of stupidity. Sounds circular and, well, highly subjective. But, well, that's how I see it. Best effort. When people really try to see the truth, try to get true justified belief, well, what beats that?

I don't think you'll get some kind of objective criteria for stupidity

skakos wrote:Then perhaps you did not get the main point of the argument:

Possibly because I supposed the main point of your argument to be that some unspecified person who held some unspecified opinion, which was in some unspecified way different from an unspecified accepted opinion was being labelled a stupid. Perhaps Dubious and others were under a similarly mistaken impression.
However,

That these criteria offered are not objective but subjective.

Yes. That's a description of stupidity from one off-the-cuff perspective.
When someone decides to give out an award, they can use their own description, their own criteria, from their own perspective.

If we had to formulate a law, whereby a certain kind or degree of stupidity would be punishable with specified unpleasant procedures, it would then become advisable* to be as objective and precise as possible.

*Advisable; not mandatory. Objective definition or quantification was never rigorously applied to religious law, or moral stricture, even though the punishments for failing to adhere were sometimes quite onerous. Again, describing the iron maiden as 'onerous' is obviously subjective and vague, but it's the best I can manage with this barely-adequate mental equipment.

I see that you easily bypassed my previous questions and argument.
Just claim "Yes, this is subjective" and on we go.

Cool.

Or rather: It WOULD be "cool" if the word "stupid" was not an offense in the language called "English" on this planet.
Unless what you say gives everyone the "Go" to start bashing people with "wrong" opinions as "STUPID" in this forum...
Based on anyone's subjective criteria of course...

Because if this is OK, then I would like to start using this word HERE AND NOW.

Is that OK with you?

Just a clever question...

skakos wrote: Unless what you say gives everyone the "Go" to start bashing people with "wrong" opinions as "STUPID" in this forum...
Based on anyone's subjective criteria of course...

Because if this is OK, then I would like to start using this word HERE AND NOW.

Is that OK with you?

Just a clever question...

...it all depends on whether the word denotes an opinion or an ad hominem. I don't think there is a single individual anywhere that one may designate compos mentis that wouldn't admit succumbing to the occasional thought virus called stupidity. The word can cover a huge amount of territory. To be more precise and hit the mark requires that the word be used in context and not as a sledgehammer. A stupid person, following his path of least resistance, calls that person stupid with whose opinion he doesn't agree. That's all it takes...which happens all the time in forums where thoughts and opinions flow freely.

In short, correct usage of the word requires fine tuning.

skakos wrote:I see that you easily bypassed my previous questions and argument.
Just claim "Yes, this is subjective" and on we go.

Cool.

Or rather: It WOULD be "cool" if the word "stupid" was not an offense in the language called "English" on this planet.
Unless what you say gives everyone the "Go" to start bashing people with "wrong" opinions as "STUPID" in this forum...
Based on anyone's subjective criteria of course...

Because if this is OK, then I would like to start using this word HERE AND NOW.

Is that OK with you?

Just a clever question...

Then lets' just pretend there is no such thing as stupidity on this planet, never use the word again, and then no stupid people can take offense as they go on merrily destroying it.

So, this award goes to something not human, yes?

Obviously. Leo?

It is a matter of how you formulate your arguments and on how you define things.
Yes, there are stupid people in the world.
But stupidity must be dealt with in a very structured way and with specific criteria at hand.
You cannot just have the "What is wrong is stupid" (this is generally the meaning of all the criteria mentioned above) as a criterion.
The more you generalize the more you are in danger of just making accusations and getting of the point.

And the most important thing: In philosophy, it is VERY HARD to define "stupid" people.
I mean Plato could be characterized stupid for his stupid idea of... ideas right?
By people who believe that this idea is stupid because he has no proof at all whatsoever about the existence of these "magical" things called "ideas".
But again where would we be now without such stupid ideas?

Philosophy needs open-mindedness.
Not characterizations.