Freedomain Radio

Stef,

I agree with your description of the alienation that occurs with those of us who are focused on these topics, and I'm totally with you, on the insistence that it's pointless to pursue these topics with those who are fundamentally disinterested.

However, I'm a little concerned about adopting a view of this problem that has it's origin in pure ego. Aren't we treading on some pretty dangerous ground, by insisting that we're some sort of higher-order of being, or that we have somehow come into contact with some sort of higher-order of insight, than the remaining "unwashed masses" of humanity? That, to me, smacks of religious dogma.

The opposite end of the self-destruction inherent in blaming ourselves, is the megalomania of blaming everyone else, right?

 

I do mention that we should not blame others, and I am certainly open to hearing other theories as to why no one wants to talk with us about philosophy, but I think I made a good case, and just calling it 'dogmatic' doesn't expose any logical flaws of course!

I think both empirical evidence and logic supports my view, but certainly tell me where I've gone wrong if I have. But my first impression is that you feel emotionally uncomfortable with my explanation, which is not a good reason for rejecting it...

You're exactly right. I'm VERY uncomfortable with the explanation. Admittedly, the post was a bit of a "flinch" reaction. But, aren't you the one who also says that sometimes our emotions are more rational than our intellect?

Even so, working strictly from an empirical standpoint, there doesn't seem to be much evidence in my past to suggest that I'm anything but average at best. Comparatively, you, and some others present here, could easily make the case empirically - published authors, folks in scientific and engineering disciplines, educators, and so forth. But, perhaps I'm just misinterpreting the "data". If I were as "superior" as you insist is true of everyone who comes here and stays, then where are the accomplishments that should accompany that superiority? As my grandfather used to say, "Shit in one hand, wish in the other, and let me know which one fills up faster." So, I'm not convinced it's false modesty to say that my life - up to the last few years, anyway - is hardly evidence for claims of superiority on my part.

Also, the fact that no one around me is interested in the same things I'm interested in (philosophy, art, literature, and such), may simply be a matter of personal preference, and a geographical accident of birth, rather than IQ. But, I've never taken an IQ test, myself, and don't know anyone who has. So, wouldn't it a bit presumptuous on my part, to just flatly accept that that's the cause of my alienation?

Goleman makes a similar case in his book, "Emotional Intelligence", that highly intelligent people tend to be emotionally inept. But, it just seems like a comfortable stereotype to me, and I wonder if it isn't putting the cart before the horse? If this assertion were universally true, then what should I infer from that, about those who are better judges of their own emotions? Is the inverse proportion consistent in both directions on the scale? Would people who are extremely sensitive to emotions, be intellectual dullards?  Is it better to be of slightly lower "IQ", so that you can also be of slightly higher "EQ"?

Ok, I re-listened to this podcast, and I have to admit that this is an incredibly seductive appeal. So, I'll take the plunge. I'll take your suggestion seriously, and I'll try it on for size, just so we can see what happens:

Ok, so, let's say I'm actually not just-some-guy who has a weird fixation with dead Greeks and Germans. I'm actually not the one guy in my neighborhood who isn't 'quite right', but isn't quite diagnosable either. Instead, I'm actually some kind of super-ethical hyper-genius god-man. Ok, Now, given this, your prescription is to let go, and give up trying to constantly reach out and communicate with most of the rest of humanity, because it's fruitless.

What are the implications of this?

Well, wouldn't it be to tell Prometheus that he's a jackass for trying to bring the flame to these cement-headed peons, and to simply retreat back to Mount Olympus, where I can lounge out the rest of my days in the comfort and security of my fellow genius gods? Or, is it better to pick up the torch from Prometheus, and try to carry on where he left off? Is the risk of being chained to a rock by pitchfork-wielding false-selves (and having your eyes continually plucked out for the rest of eternity) worth taking, in the face of the possibility of giving that flame to those same people?

Why should I bother to keep looking for things like the Tuesday group at all? Why not just do what I mused about months ago - load up the truck with all my books, and vanish into the woods? Then, I'd REALLY learn to operate from reality, because I'd have to live directly from it, rather than lingering in this fantasy land of "organized society".

 

I find its really easy to fall into the egotistical idea that you are smarter than everyone else because they dont understand you. I find a lot of people who arent good at socializing are going to spend more time in intellectual pursuits because they arent spending their time out partying or whatever. I find that people who cling onto the idea that they are somehow more intelligent then the 'masses' are just unable to be honest with themselves and admit that they have terrible social skills. I think the causation can go both ways and its usually a bad idea to overgeneralize these things.

But even if it's true that a lack of social skills causes deeper philosophical knowledge, that deeper knowledge is still valid, isn't it?

If I prefer solo running to team sports because I am socially phobic, don't I end up a better runner?

I'm not sure I see how the cause has any real effect on the result...

Thanks! 

Oops...

Doesn't this:

Stefan Molyneux:

If I prefer solo running to team sports because I am socially phobic, don't I end up a better runner?

Counter this?

Stefan Molyneux:

I'm not sure I see how the cause has any real effect on the result...

If the effect we're after is "better runner", then I'd think that changing our causes from "100 meter dash athlete" to "basketball player" would indeed have a significant impact on the result...

This, of course, implies what I was saying earlier, that if this is true, then certainly the inverse would be. If social isolation is contributing a factor to the increase of philosophical capacity, then social integration would likely be a contributing factor to diminished philosophical capacity.

But, maybe this is a chicken-egg problem. Maybe, as Stef suggests, the increased capacity for philosophical understanding tends to lead to social isolation - and not the other way 'round.

I'm still a little dubious of this hypothesis, viewed from either angle, because if we use Stef as an example - and just going by what Stef has described of his own life - I'm not completely convinced he suffers from social isolation (at least not as I understand the term, which could be wrong). Yet, his superior capacity for philosophy is very well documented.

I know this is going to sound a little unintuitive (and anti-philosophical), but maybe this is one case where we ought to stop expending so much energy worrying about WHY we are the way we are, and just BE that way... ?

 

I don't see the contradiction - my argument is that we are superior in understanding, and that saying 'we are that way because we are socially phobic' doesn't alter the fact that we are in fact superior.

If, after studying logical philosophy, we are not superior in understanding, then studying logical philosophy has no effect on wisdom, which is entirely incorrect.

I agree, the 'why' isn't important, but the 'what' is, and the 'what' is that we are superior in understanding and wisdom, and disliked for that superiority because it threatens to expose the ignorance of others, who which to hide that ignorance.

That is a very important position to understand, because it explains so much about our lives, and helps us to become more benevolent. In the absence of direct threats, we are only really hostile to what we do not understand. Understanding why we are disliked can breed compassion for those who are less wise, instead of hostility, hopelessness and resentment.

Stefan Molyneux:

I agree, the 'why' isn't important, but the 'what' is, and the 'what' is that we are superior in understanding and wisdom, and disliked for that superiority because it threatens to expose the ignorance of others, who which to hide that ignorance.

That is a very important position to understand, because it explains so much about our lives, and helps us to become more benevolent. In the absence of direct threats, we are only really hostile to what we do not understand. Understanding why we are disliked can breed compassion for those who are less wise, instead of hostility, hopelessness and resentment.

Ok, this is a bit different from your podcast, and much more understandable to me. I'm not sure why it wasn't more obvious to me. The metaphors you were using, all had to do with innate biological attributes, like the surface area on Einstein's brain, or Tiger Woods' prodigy talent with golf, even at 4 years old. This new line of comment, instead seems to suggest that what we have is a learned skill (to which, some may indeed have a prodigy talent), and that all we really lack is perspective, having spent so long on the "expert" side of that scale of learning. I can completely agree with, and identify with that.

You know, I run into this all the time, in IT. You have to be VERY careful not to overplay your hand as a technical expert, lest you risk appearing the pompous know-it-all. At the same time, however, you have to be assertive enough to make sure people are comfortable with your judgement (you  especially don't want to appear indecisive; even when you don't know something, you have to make sure everyone understands that another resource will definitely be needed). Surely, when solving problems, or offering solutions, you really have to convince the 'other guy' that a collaboration is taking place (which, in reality, it usually is anyway), and not a lecture. That is half the battle, I find.

So, perhaps the same is true in philosophy. If we're more willing to take the approach that we're collaborating with whomever we're debating with, rather than lecturing or chastising or pleading, then maybe we'll see better results. What's more, perhaps a full accounting of our own developed skills, will make it easier to recognize when discourse is most likely not able to bearing fruit, and thus, spare us the wasted time and effort. 

Ok, I know, this all must sound like I'm just repeating your podcast back to you, but sometimes I just need to hear it in my own terms, before I finally get it.