While I usually enjoy your lectures I have to deeply
dis-agree with this one. Unpopular I know. It may confer some Resentiment.
1.
Since I mentioned Nietzsche let us get straight
intuit. You mentioned that Nietzsche rejected democracy on the principle that
the Herd could not lead. Nietzsche’s elitism is founded. You all so spoke of
Febrazi and the notion of owning up to one’s own skills and short-comings. I
personally never aspired to be regarded as “philosophical”, “deep”, “kind”, or “brilliant”.
In fact at times in my life I felt like I lacked all four of these qualities.
Oh, and “mysterious”. But if one is constantly referred to in this way, with
affection and at times even envy, ought one to DENY that with some sort of
false humility? That would be to lack febrazi and actually to lack humility.
There must be SOME thing there that people see in me. And I seem to see it in
certain others.
2.
Which brings me to this point. The perception of
intelligence neither as social function or a biological function. As Husserl
brilliantly intuited the perception precedes the labeling of it. And as Marcel
pointed out we tend in (and there-by post-)modernity to identify too often with
our functions. So it is that that professor in the film Waking Life claimed
that his discontent with the post-modernists stemmed from the fact that the
more one regards the individual as a confluence of forces the more some thing
absolutely essential (or existential) is omitted. So for you to dismiss Intelligence
as non-existent entirely seems like an atheistic positivistic argument: Just
because we cannot empirically prove its existence, God is disproven. Yet we
forget what Buber said about the I-Thou dialogue. We forget that in a state of
Relationship we might be able to perceive Intelligence or even a Divine
Intelligence, but this can never be quantified scientifically because Analysis
belongs to the realm of the I-It relationship.
3.
Intelligence is marked by a kind of
attentiveness, curiosity and receptivity. It is marked by what Marcel calls
Availability. The intelligent person, when she agrees with you, makes you feel
incredible, [ and even surprised, as though you were just shown another
dimension of an existing conviction or saw your own views with greater clarity
and a more secure confidence ] and when she disagrees with you, she challenges
you. Conversely the stupid person’s affirmations all ways strike suspicion and
seem superficial or seductive, where as dis-agreements, far from inspiring any
thing, only tend to frustrate, because they tend to arise over dogmas that are
unyielding. The dogmatic person tends to force you to adhere to your own dogma,
lest you be a hypocrite, even if he does not believe in that dogma his self.
Only the intelligent person can help you to dis-entangle your self from this
dogmatic mess. And ultimately that SENSE of Confirmation, of genuine Love and
Attention, must be valued as a fact ( to re-call your Wittgenstein lecture. ),
and if bad company corrupts character one must sever ties with stupid people
even if it pains one’s self to do so affectively. But so long as it is
difficult to do so one at least knows that one’s own emotions are not “getting
in the way”.
4.
You mentioned Sartre. De Beauvoir. All of these
people. As being Brilliant. Brilliance does not seem to be a product of their
conditions. It is Mysterious, as Marcel would say, not problematic. You seem to
reduce intelligence to a construct of hierarchical school systems. Yet many of
your arguments are hierarchical rather than rhizomatic in nature. That is to
say that you argue that there is no evidence for intelligence, and so it must
not exist, because only scientists believe it to. Well that is not necessarily
true, and it prioritises scientific thought over intuition. Or you argue that
it is created by school systems which are less progressive than others. Well,
no. There are a number of stupid people at Yale Berkeley and Case. There are a
number of geniuses at Palomar College. [Look it up!] I would not dis-miss the
few genuine people in my life with whom I can talk for four hours straight
with-out problem but with enthusiasm and inspiration as the mere products of
their environment. One of them was a home-less hitch-hiker. Another deals with
the superficiality of her class-mates and professors daily, some times to
tremendous degrees of struggle apparently. And my ostensibly “brilliant” friends
can be some of the stupidest because they have cleverness and academic drive;
that’s it.
5.
Intelligence is really miss-understood. I think
that it is a rare gift. I could expound but instead I will conclude. People
miss-take genius for madness often. It is not fair. Most brilliant people are
brought up to believe that every one is equal so they project their
intelligence upon people. And then they get screwed over and/or locked up in
mental asylums because they expect people to understand them. But perhaps you
as a University Professor do not have to deal with this.
That is all that I will say on the matter.
With respect and trepidation,
Dmitry.
Dm.A.A.
Post-scriptum: Just look at YouTube comments usually to see
what I mean about stupidity.
No comments:
Post a Comment