glass house philosopher / notebook 2
Friday, 12th November 2004
Lesson Six How much intelligence does a philosopher need?
Dirty Harry once said, 'A man's got to know his limitations.' Good advice, but so hard to live by. We philosophers don't know our own limitations. We are constantly breaking our heads and our hearts on the rock face of irrational, brute facts; a world recalcitrant to reason; blind, unfeeling, reality. It kicks you in the face every time. Do you feel lucky, punk?
And there's me, delicately, humorously poised between two realities, the capitalist money machine and the silver world of Plato's dream. Like Nietzsche's tightrope walker, eyes tightly shut, I can feel the ground rushing to meet me even though I remain immobile. Or wobbling, a little, just enough to thrill the spectators below.
Academic philosophers are, by and large, more stupid than most. Every ounce of common sense is knocked out of you in your first year as a philosophy undergraduate, and its down-hill all the way from there onwards.
Glad I escaped the academic hot house when I did. Too bad, though, that it was after I lost all my common sense and not before. I don't know, I can't remember, what it's like to walk on solid ground. I'm so used to looking at things upside down that I've forgotten which way is up.Back to reality
Oops! there goes gravity...
Back to the question. Don't bother to apply for a Pathways program if your IQ is less than 85. I can't help you. No-one can. But don't worry, there's lots of things you can still do. Like going into politics.
I'm joking, of course. Tony Blair, my favourite politician, cut his teeth as an undergraduate on the philosophy of John Macmurray. Blair is smart. There's no doubt about that. But not the smartest Labour politician of all time. That laurel goes to ex-Prime Minister Harold Wilson, Economics Fellow at University College Oxford. What was really smart was the way he kept it so well hidden. What a superb act.
Philosophy major Steve Martin was far too clever for the academic world, so he became a comedy actor and gave us The Man With Two Brains.
(I can see a tenuous line of thought emerging here. To do well in philosophy you need to be almost clever enough to be a politician, almost clever enough to be an actor.)
Philosophers like to please the crowd, for all their pretend disdain. They don't mind being laughed at because they think that they have the last laugh. As Plato taught, philosophers know while everyone else only believes. But they're wrong. The last laugh is on them. Because there's nothing to know that's worth a damn if it doesn't make a difference in this world. And in this world, more or less reliable belief is all you need.
As Macmurray said,
All meaningful knowledge is for the sake of action,
and all meaningful action is for the sake of friendship.
John Macmurray The Self as Agent, p. 15
What am I saying? There's more than one kind of 'intelligence'. What philosophers crave is in fact the last thing they need: the ability to calculate, analyse, brute ratiocinative power. That's sheer brain poison. Getting high on mental speed. No, what makes a good philosopher is not brute force analytical ability but judgement, which includes above all else the ability to judge when enough is enough, to know when to stop; and vision, the ability to see where you're going, to grasp the whole, to see the wood, not just the trees.
I've said all this before. But this time I'm thinking of someone making the first tentative steps towards philosophy, curious, wanting to know more, but fearful that one's brain might not be muscular enough to cope with the mental strain.
It would be easy to say that stupidity is an asset which it can be, for example, when you're too stupid to see the 'solution' which everyone else accepts, not realizing that it isn't a solution at all, too stupid to accept 'truths' which are 'self-evident' to everyone else easy, but sophistical. I'm not saying that. That kind of stupidity isn't really stupidity but more like contrariness, bloody mindedness, ultimately, intellectual courage. There's no argument about that. But intellectual courage is something that can be acquired over time rather than a brute natural asset which you are either born with or not.
No, I'm talking about human intelligence, as such. What you're born with. Researchers are only beginning to get to grips with the varied powers of the human mind. First, there were 'IQ tests'. Then tests were devised for 'visual ability', 'linguistic ability', 'creativity'. But that's only scratching the surface of a deep, complex, mysterious phenomenon. I'm not denying that empirical correlations can be drawn between results of the various tests devised and success in the 'real world'. But merely measuring correlations is not understanding.
The latest thing is 'left brain' and 'right brain' ability. I read in a magazine that researchers are claiming that geniuses have the rare ability to use both sides of their brains at once. Most of us ordinary mortals flounder between attempting to think things through, or letting go of reason and going with what we intuitively feel. (Pirsig's 'Classic and Romantic split', remember that?). What's really clever is that you don't have to take what nature dishes out. There are various devices, like headphones that make funny squeaking noises in your ear, or even weird kinds of sunglasses, that are supposed to 'wake up' the two halves of your brain so that they can work at full capacity. Manufacturers will soon be lining up to put these devices on the market. So now you will be able, literally, to buy intelligence.
Well, here's an alternative suggestion: when you do philosophy, it wakes up both sides of your brain because that's just what philosophy requires. Don't buy some stupid piece of apparatus. Take a philosophy course!
Send me an Email
Ask a Philosopher!