On Intelligence and Philosophy

Shawn

I'm not a big fan of IQ tests. They seem to attract the wrong type of emotions and sentiment in society. Be it a motivating reason for eugenics, designer babies, scientific racism as seen in the Bell Curve, narcissism, confirmation bias, and so on.

Yet, we can't deny the fact that some of the greatest minds have had supreme intelligence. Goethe, Shakespeare, Von Neumann, Wigner, Einstein, Penrose, Plato, Leibniz, Newton. (you get the point?)

About myself, I took an IQ test when I was a child, and scored pretty high. Somewhere above genius level. I never joined Mensa or any other high IQ society, as the whole thing seemed funny to my mind. My father was also likely a genius. He influenced me with Plato at a young age, and I became naturally attracted to questions about metaphysics and reality from a young age. I spent considerable time reading on physics, mathematics, and other abstract subjects. In general, my youth was a very happy period for me. I have tried to understand my life, and have spent the past 10 years of my life living as a diagnosis. I am disabled due to it, and am paradoxically quite happy about the whole affair. I get to spend most of my time in abstraction and intellectualizing. Most of my uncertainties about who I am have abated or have been assessed by the proper individuals. So, I feel as though it is time to move on, accept my disability identity, and focus now on my strengths.

One of the paradoxes of having a high IQ (if you don't have co-morbid disorders like myself) is the ability to be good at everything you do. Intelligent people just learn at a faster pace, things come naturally to them, hence the labels "prodigy" or "genius". I never was able to find one specific domain of study where I was exceptional at. I've tried studying many subjects to no hope of finding one subject where I was good at. What makes me bitter inside is the way education is structured. Kids are taught early on that they should be good at one thing and one thing only. But, if you're good at pretty much everything, you kind of end up being shafted by such an educational system. So, with all that in mind, I had a natural predisposition towards the art of philosophy.

I'm going to come off as a prick; but, I honestly think that the domain of great philosophy is reserved for the brilliant. At least, matters not pertaining ethics. Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Marx, Russel, Wittgenstein, Kripke, undoubtedly had exceedingly high IQ's, and this doesn't get mentioned enough. Wittgenstein complained (despite his already enormous intellect) that only if he were more intelligent, that all his philosophical problems would be answered. This is not to say that people with an average IQ should not be barred from engaging in philosophy, like Plato's Republic. Especially, that philosophy concerns itself, as seen through ethics, with the welfare of all human kind, and not just a specific domain of science. It's strange that great philosophy is reserved for the brilliant, yet addresses in a prescriptive measure what is good on the micro level, such as character, standing, traits, and dispositions.

So, wrapping this post up, I resent the attitude here and elsewhere professed by some or others that philosophy is useless, for the mad, or impotent. This is simply not true. Philosophy has been the single most rewarding activity for some gifted people throughout the ages. It is contestable that what differentiates good philosophy from great philosophy is a matter of intellectual acumen, and I suppose I will stick with it, given that it seems true on face value.

deletedusercb

It seems like there are two main ideas above: 1) Philosophy is primarily for really smart people (there's even what I think is a Freudian slip in the double negative sentence regarding 'average IQ people being barred. Or it is it meant as a double negative, then my summation is even more correct.) 2) It's wrong of people to think philosophy is useless, for the mad, or impotent.

I think number two would be better supported by going into how it is useful and effective and for people who are not mad. Specific examples. Number one...I am not quite sure the point. Is the idea that since really smart people, some of them, have engaged in the activity, then philosophy must be useful?

Shawn

Hi Coben,

1) Philosophy is primarily for really smart people (there's even what I think is a Freudian slip in the double negative sentence regarding 'average IQ people being barred. Or it is it meant as a double negative, then my summation is even more correct.) — Coben

I meant to imply that most great philosophers that are known to us have had the quality of being exceedingly intelligent. Now, I wanted to highlight the fact that this doesn't necessarily mean that only high IQ people should only engage in philosophy; but, that they will likely attain a level of satisfaction, perhaps greater, than the laymen or people with average IQ's.

2) It's wrong of people to think philosophy is useless, for the mad, or impotent. — Coben

Yes, pretty much. It's like saying that theoretical mathematics has no application to hard sciences, which simply is false.

I think number two would be better supported by going into how it is useful and effective and for people who are not mad. Specific examples. Number one...I am not quite sure the point. Is the idea that since really smart people, some of them, have engaged in the activity, then philosophy must be useful? — Coben

Can you flesh this out a bit more?

deletedusercb

I think number two would be better supported by going into how it is useful and effective and for people who are not mad. Specific examples. Number one...I am not quite sure the point. Is the idea that since really smart people, some of them, have engaged in the activity, then philosophy must be useful?
— Coben

Can you flesh this out a bit more? — Wallows

If you want to say philosophy is useful, it might be implied by the fact that smart people do it, but it is more clearer shown, it seems to me, by showing its use. It did seem like a response to somethign, even posters here. Maybe if Understood what you are respnding do it would be clearer why you took the tack you took.

I meant to imply that most great philosophers that are known to us have had the quality of being exceedingly intelligent. Now, I wanted to highlight the fact that this doesn't necessarily mean that only high IQ people should only engage in philosophy; but, that they will likely attain a level of satisfaction, perhaps greater, than the laymen or people with average IQ's. — Wallows

I can see that. It came off as a response to something. Either people are putting forward the opposite or a different opinion or something is making you thnk we need to know this. Could you tell me why you are saying this.

T Clark

I'm going to come off as a prick; but, I honestly think that the domain of great philosophy is reserved for the brilliant. — Wallows

Western philosophy exists in a universe of words. As far as I can see, the "greater" it is, the more that's true. Much of philosophy is playing with words while lost in the illusion that they represent reality when, often, they are just as likely to obscure it.

Intelligence, to a significant extent, is a measure of verbal skills, so, of course the most prominent philosophers are really smart. Smart people tend live in a world of ideas more than other people. They may come up with the best ideas, but they also come up with the worst.

I wouldn't say you come off as a prick, but you sure come off as arrogant.

Deleteduserrc

@Wallows OP is veering toward r/iamverysmart territory. It's good to acknowledge strengths, including intellect - but be wary of fetishizing any attribute. That'll rapidly hamper any capacity for clear self-reflection.

Emma33

Intelligence does not mean you have wisdom. A requirement for philosophy. From my experience, some or most of the smart people I have encountered are individual with a narrow mindset moulded by our society. A trait which great philosophers do not have.

Theologian

Somehow I find myself reminded of this...

fdrake

Legendary violinist Isaac Stern was once confronted by a middle-aged woman after a concert. She gushed, “Oh, I'd’ give my life to play like you!” “Lady,” Stern said acidly, “that I did!”

Shawn

If you want to say philosophy is useful, it might be implied by the fact that smart people do it, but it is more clearer shown, it seems to me, by showing its use. — Coben

I think, self-improvement is one aspect of philosophy that doesn't get mentioned enough. People are often drawn towards philosophy to improve their lives.

I can see that. It came off as a response to something. Either people are putting forward the opposite or a different opinion or something is making you thnk we need to know this. Could you tell me why you are saying this. — Coben

Well, philosophy is such an abstract endeavor that I feel as though people do it to become better people. Part of this feel good post of mine, which is trying to highlight that people should feel good about doing philosophy because it tends to enhance one's quality of life. It seems to me that people who are drawn to philosophy have a more sensitive mind than others along with a higher intelligence. That's just my take on it.

Shawn

I wouldn't say you come off as a prick, but you sure come off as arrogant. — T Clark

What's arrogant about stating the obvious? Philosophy is such a wide field that if you want to be good at it, I suppose you need a higher IQ to be good at it...

Anthony

I'm not a big fan of IQ tests. They seem to attract the wrong type of emotions and sentiment in society. Be it a motivating reason for eugenics, designer babies, scientific racism as seen in the Bell Curve, narcissism, confirmation bias, and so on. — Wallows

I share these sentiments.

More generally, quantification of life is an ethical problem which has yet to be an obsolete way of thinking. Whether it be the concept of net worth, or selling one's life by the hour (wage slavery)...romanticism of numbers continuously goes too far. We can blame scientists, with their autistic-like obsession with metrology, and also economic fundamentalism (which fractionates objects for sale in most arbitrary ways, combining qualitative value with quantitative appraisal in a manner that doesn't really make sense, having had the outcome of people unwittingly accepting commodification of their life, and phrases like "labor market" still being used). For incomprehensible, subliminal reasons eugenics lingers as an inchoate ethical doom (faith in science and tech, transhumanist, technocratic elitism) whereas auto de fe (elitism of nobles and church prelates). is generally agreed to have been superseded and decried by the better, more ethical stance of scientists eradicating superstition. Same type of people either way...history has been written of the elites, by the elites, for the elites....and it still is so right now. Who are they? Those who sew violence and discord, dark triad sentinels lying to themselves and others that they may get their just reward, which is always presented by the powerful to those who wish for like power. If you desire no power, you won't "succeed," will suffer, and perhaps die young.

Surely there's no such thing as generalized intelligence. I'm not smart in ways you are, and, perhaps, vice versa. If it weren't this way...we'd basically all be the same. Kinda like the personalities of those who live motivated by money profits(definitely not "prophets"). They are usually the same type of people which believe money is the measure of a person's intelligence, or success, what have you. Riffraff all.

I.Q. is a standardized test. These tests rank people that have the same strengths and weaknesses...essentially replicants of each other. Different types of intelligence are a sort of checks and balances against sterile uniformity and social decay of our specie.

deletedusercb

I think, self-improvement is one aspect of philosophy that doesn't get mentioned enough. People are often drawn towards philosophy to improve their lives. — Wallows

So, what are examples of this? How does it happen? Is there a concrete change that you attribute to philosophy? Could a similar change have happen with literature or some kind of spirituality?

Well, philosophy is such an abstract endeavor that I feel as though people do it to become better people. Part of this feel good post of mine, which is trying to highlight that people should feel good about doing philosophy because it tends to enhance one's quality of life. It seems to me that people who are drawn to philosophy have a more sensitive mind than others along with a higher intelligence. That's just my take on it. — Wallows

It tends to be men drawn to philosophy is the first thought that came to mind.

But I am still trying to get at this....

So, wrapping this post up, I resent the attitude here and elsewhere professed by some or others that philosophy is useless, for the mad, or impotent. — Wallows

Where have you encountered this here?

Shawn

So, what are examples of this? How does it happen? Is there a concrete change that you attribute to philosophy? Could a similar change have happen with literature or some kind of spirituality? — Coben

Well, philosophy is born out of existential questions like, who am I, or, what should I do, or, what's the right way to live. These questions fundamentally give rise to a desire to improve the world or improve the life of the would be Kantian or Stoic or Epicurean. Yes?

It tends to be men drawn to philosophy is the first thought that came to mind. — Coben

In the past, yes. But, that has changed quite a bit.

Where have you encountered this here? — Coben

Well, if you search around you can see this issue raised in terms of posing the material worth of philosophy, as if it had any. I won't name posters; but, some of our most prominent posters claim that philosophy is a waste of time or for the mad. Quite a paradoxical statement in my mind.

T Clark

So, what are examples of this? How does it happen? Is there a concrete change that you attribute to philosophy? Could a similar change have happen with literature or some kind of spirituality? — Coben

I had always been skeptical of philosophy as a pathway to becoming a better, happier person, but I have met people here on the forum who have convinced me otherwise. There are people here who use philosophy as a tool to help them work out issues they are dealing with in very concrete, practical ways. I've been really impressed and sometimes moved. Inspired.

On the other hand, that is certainly not my way. Philosophy for me is an intellectual exercise. I'm here to practice recreational thinking in front of an audience. Philosophy is playing.

christian2017

↪Wallows

at the end of the day, if an individual isn't productive, then their intelligence or lack of intelligence doesn't matter either way. There is also such a thing as counter productive. Einstein is said to be not so much of a good family man. Life is extremely complex.

Fooloso4

I think, self-improvement is one aspect of philosophy that doesn't get mentioned enough. People are often drawn towards philosophy to improve their lives.
— Wallows
So, what are examples of this? — Coben

See Pierre Hadot's "Philosophy as a Way of Life".

Rather than what we might find in the self-help section of a bookstore it is what Socrates called the examined life. This has a double sense - an examination of life and a life of examination - how one lives and how one ought to live and how to bring the two into alliance.

Thoreau gives an example of the professor of philosophy who spends his day at work teaching and writing and comes home and lives a life no different than his neighbors:

There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers. Yet it is admirable to profess because it was once admirable to live. To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust. It is to solve some of the problems of life, not only theoretically, but practically.

deletedusercb

I had always been skeptical of philosophy as a pathway to becoming a better, happier person, but I have met people here on the forum who have convinced me otherwise. There are people here who use philosophy as a tool to help them work out issues they are dealing with in very concrete, practical ways. I've been really impressed and sometimes moved. Inspired. — T Clark

My question was more rhetorical. IOW I found the OP strange and was trying to both tease out what was really going on, what was behind it, and also suggesting that if you want to say something is useful, it is best to show how, it seems to me, instead of saying that really smart people do it.

That said: could you give an example, a specific example.

deletedusercb

Rather than what we might find in the self-help section of a bookstore it is what Socrates called the examined life. This has a double sense - an examination of life and a life of examination - how one lives and how one ought to live and how to bring the two into alliance. — Fooloso4

As I said in my previous post, I was mainly trying to tease out what was really going on in the OP and suggesting that answering that quesiton was a better way to show how philosophy is useful than saying that really smart people have done philosophy.

Is philosophy more effective than the self-help section?

How, specifically, have you seen philosophy improv people's lives`?

Fooloso4

How, specifically, have you seen philosophy improv people's lives`? — Coben

I can only speak for myself. It is not as if philosophy has done this for me while I passively enjoy the benefits. None of us can say how we would be different if some part of our life had been different.

I think that for some people philosophy can be harmful. It can be destabilizing, calling into question what one believes to be true and known.

deletedusercb

I can only speak for myself. It is not as if philosophy has done this for me while I passively enjoy the benefits. None of us can say how we would be different if some part of our life had been different.

I think that for some people philosophy can be harmful. It can be destabilizing, calling into question what one believes to be true and known. — Fooloso4

Thanks for the honest answer. I enjoy philosophical discussions and I am pretty damn sure philosophy has helped me questions some assumptions that were getting in my way. I think the discussions have taught me a lot about how people think and think sloppily, and this includes thoughts and positions that have, I think great detrimental effects. It has also taught me that it is very rare that someone changes their mind via discussion. I do think philosophy can improve people and I would guess it has, very modestly, improved me. Probably more from readings of classic texts than discussions. But I am a bit skeptical it changes most people for the better, though I suppose they may use it to feel better. I also wonder if perhaps other methods are not more effective.

T Clark

That said: could you give an example, a specific example. — Coben

This is the place where I discuss philosophy, so any examples I describe will involve members of this forum. So, I'd rather not be more specific.

deletedusercb

This is the place where I discuss philosophy, so any examples I describe will involve members of this forum. So, I'd rather not be more specific. — T Clark

I didn't mean that you had to reveal their name or even details so it is clear who it is, but something about what facet of philosophy it was and how it changed them. Perhaps that's too much and if it is fine. But like 'one person read Being and Time' and what they realized was X and this led them to....' Or a work of existentialism and this affected....

On Intelligence and Philosophy

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions