Proof: Sometimes people don’t want to understand

I’m inspired by this comment thread to finally prove something I’ve stated before: if a person fails to understand an idea after a certain amount of time and tutelage, it indicates either low general intelligence or immorality. If a person observably has high intelligence, then they must be suspected of immorality. There may also be ideas that are impossible to grasp without sufficient intelligence, perhaps due to sheer capacity or perhaps low learning speed and insufficient time (for instance, a person with 50 IQ could study math for a lifetime and never reach Fourier analysis).

I’ve previously defined intelligence as a generalized ability to surmount nonmaterial obstacles in pursuit of objects of desire. Given sufficient time and ability and desire, the obstacles will be overcome and the desire satisfied. If a preponderance of time and ability does not produce the object, then we must conclude that the desire was insufficient or did not exist. Because the strength of desire for truth is a virtue (in the Aristotelian sense), and Jesus is the Truth, then deficiency in this virtue is immoral.

In nitty gritty terms, sometimes people don’t understand because they don’t want to understand.

It also seems clear that certain sorts of minds can be artificially limited by a worldview. Math-y materialists who excel in formulaic application of rules have trouble understanding the philosophy that underlies their work until their delusional materialism is destroyed by Descartes’s cogito argument. Their tendency to materialism is likely due to their aversion to holding judgment in abeyance (local incoherence leading to dissonance). The mind-body problem, though absolutely necessitated by the existence of both external sense data and the cogito, is perceived as repulsive to such people because it is unsolved and possibly insoluble. This sort of phenomenon may be explained as low general intelligence, though the particular sort of intelligence (mathematical) may be quite high.

Edit: Inspired by an earlier comment by PhillipGeorge, I’m going to name the above form of immorality “foolishness”, and use this proof as the definition. It applies perfectly to the biblical usage.

Advertisements

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Proof: Sometimes people don’t want to understand

  1. Craig says:

    Ahh morality. I’ve been in compromising positions before. Take for instance being the passenger in a car, with a crazy driver… Young, dumb and full of cum as the saying goes. I’m surprised many of us make it past the age of 21 years.

    Sometimes it’s wise to be knowledgeable on how criminals or Cromags think, otherwise they will never be caught. On top of that it makes it a very fine sometimes translucent line which should and shouldn’t be crossed in differing circumstances.

  2. Heaviside says:

    Instead of trying to show that there exists another class of objects arbitrarily called “supernatural” which can be calculatingly grasped and manipulated in exactly the same way as the objects of everyday thought which takes fundamental questions as settled, you should ask naive materialists how they can be so sure the physical objects that they take for granted exist, though the point would be lost on all but a miniscule number of them.

    • Heaviside says:

      If you want to see the decline in a nutshell, just look up the etymology of the word “fact.” Think about how common phrases like “scientific fact” and “well accepted fact” and “I don’t have an ideology, I just look at the facts” and “fact-value distinction” are. If you want a glimpse of real “degeneracy,” don’t complain about revealing clothing(in the 18th century women would occasionally have necklines so low their nipples were exposed), instead draw your attention to the fact that a fact was once properly understood to have meant the doing of an active agent, or an occurrence, and not something which is just presented to us for us to passively accept without question.

    • Heaviside says:

      “But what is remarkable is that, precisely in the way scientific man secures to himself what is most properly his, he speaks, whether explicitly or not, of something different. What should be examined are beings only, and besides that — nothing; beings alone, and further — nothing; solely beings, and beyond that — nothing.

      What about this nothing? Is it an accident that we talk this way so auto­matically? Is it only a manner of speaking — and nothing besides?

      However, why do we trouble ourselves with this nothing? The nothing is rejected precisely by science, given up as a nullity. But when we give up the nothing in such a way do we not concede it? Can we, however, speak of concession when we concede nothing? But perhaps our confused talk already degenerates into an empty squabble over words. Against it, science must now reassert its seriousness and soberness of mind, insisting that it is concerned solely with beings. The nothing — what else can it be for science but an outrage and a phantasm? If science is right, then only one thing is sure: science wishes to know nothing of the nothing. Ultimately this is the scientifically rigorous conception of the nothing. We know it, the nothing, in that we wish to know nothing about it.

      Science wants to know nothing about the nothing. But even so it is cer­tain that when science tries to express its own proper essence it calls upon the nothing for help. It has recourse to what it rejects. What duplicitous state of affairs reveals itself here?” — Martin Heidegger, What is Metaphysics?

  3. Pingback: Pathological virtue signalling vs. pathological altruism | Aeoli Pera

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s