Why Call Me Stupid?

What is meaning? And what is stupidity relative to the lack thereof? Do you even have a basis for what you’re saying here? And yet you insist on saying it. Why?

Life has no meaning. It’s all arbitrary. This is a perfectly valid assessment is it not? But why bother to use the word “perfection” if perfection doesn’t exist? Isn’t that the least bit strange? And yet it seems to describe the situation PERFECTLY!

Iacchus wrote:

What would a non-arbitrary world look like to you? What feature do you suppose could be included to render this world necessary? necessary for whom? for what? Do you suppose that a necessary world would automatically confer meaningfullness upon its inhabitants?

What does stupidity have to do with meaning or the lack thereof? Would you please explain the linkage that you have in mind here?

Regards,
Michael

Stupidity is relative to a situation. But the concept is real. If you don’t get it, maybe it is because you are too stupid?(sorry I couldn’t resist)

Your post topic is, "Why call me stupid?

I would call me stupid if I were not wise. Now the world says that if someone is not intelligent or brilliant it means that they are stupid. I don’t think that is true because very intelligent and brilliant people can be very stupid because they are not wise and this lack of wisdom has to do with their experiences in life.

As to, “What is meaning?” Meaning is an explanation in simpe words to help us understand the word or idea or concept.

Stupidity is relative to wisdom and not intelligence.

And I sure have a basis for saying what I say here, THEREFORE I insist on saying it!

“Life has no meaning. It’s all arbitrary” Perhaps in your eyes, I wonder why you INSIST upon saying that and why call it a perfect assessment when it’s not? :wink:

By the way perfection does exist but only for a short time because it starts to “stink” soon after. If it didn’t then there would be no motion at all and we would all die.

Would you go so far as to say that reality is absolute? And, that everything we do is relative in relationship to it? We have to establish a basis for what we believe in something don’t we? And, if it’s not based upon anything that’s anywhere near absolute, then in effect it doesn’t mean anything, right?

In which case what gives you the right to call anybody stupid and, what makes your version of it better than anyone elses?

I see where you are going…

Nice. :smiley:

So you are saying,
Since it is a purely relative term it has no objective value and it is in effect objectively meaningless?
The same could be said for things like ‘good’ ‘bad’ ‘morality’ etc…
I completely agree, if that is indeed what you mean here.

but there is another side to the coin…

Because it is mine. Words like ‘good’, ‘morality’ , ‘stupidity’ have meaning because people measure their values against their own standards (even if their own standards were prefabicated by someone else)
I can call someone stupid because I think they are stupid, in relation to the absolute standard of stupidity I see fit to set.
It’s my mind, after all

Absolutely not.

I call you stupid because your inability to understand, or your proclivity to question, threatens an opinion I have of myself (an opinion which serves an ego-defensive function) that I am a very capable teacher/communicator, or because it threatens the status of ‘unquestionably obvious’ to which I have elevated my most functionally ego-defensive (subjective) values.

Either that, or when I call you stupid, I actually mean “weak”, in that you are intelligent enough to see, even admit, the error in your thinking/behavior, but you fail pathetically to think/behave differently, due to your psychological bondage to the erronious thinking/behavior… and /that/ threatens me because it reminds me indirectly of my own bonds and how hard they are to break, how hard I work at transcending them while you laze out right in front of me – so I project my guilt onto you, I hold you responsible for my weakness, which also serves an ego-defensive function.

I didn’t say you were ‘objectively’ stupid – just stupid relative to ‘me’.

Iacchus wrote:

No, that’s not right, Iacchus. Given that we don’t know anything for certain, it doesn’t follow that we don’t know anything.

“When one admits that nothing is certain, one must also add that some things are more certain than others.” – Bertrand Russell

Despite my skepticism, I can’t, for example, say with certainty that a UFO hasn’t visited the earth. And yet when I see a front-page supermarket tabloid photo of a freakish baby, supposedly begotten by a woman in Alabama and her extra-terrestrial lover, I feel quite justified in rolling my eyes.

We don’t think and act according to what is certainly true, but what we think is most probably true.

Michael

Yes, this is typical and it’s kind of what I’m getting at.

Still born out of insecurity huh? :smiley:

Of course that’s usually not the way it comes across now is it? :wink:

Not certain enough to get out of bed in the morning? :smiley:

Certain relative to what? That which is uncertain?

Same here. :wink:

Oh, so you admit it, that which is “certainly true” does exist?

Why call me stupid?

To me, and I may be wrong, I am stupid if I continue to repeat the same mistake over and over again. Inability to learn from my mistakes is the definition of stupidity. In the words of Forest Gump, stupid is as stupid does.

But I think it is uncharitable to ever call someone stupid. It is a credible philosophical method to assume that people have very good reasons for their actions. Even when they are wrong.

Yes, how can one make a point to those who don’t believe there’s a point to be made … without the risk of sounding stupid that is? :smiley: And yet the word stupid is totally uncalled for, because the word stupid doesn’t exist, not in their book anyway. So why call me stupid? :laughing:

Ive posted this with something in mind - something which I’d read on the subject recently. Do confirm what you think about it…

Should stupidity be regarded in the sense of our roles in a society? Society confers rules, some written and some unwritten, upon us. Failing to act in a favourable way to us and to society while still not violating these laws could be considered stupid. Still others violate these laws at expense to themselves and to society, which is also stupid.

We could violate these laws at an expense to ourselves but at a gain to society. This way we let others take credit for our actions. This could be termed "hapless " behaviour.

We could use these rules and laws or manipulate them to the advantage of ourselves and society. This could be considered ‘intelligent’.

We could also act in accordance or non-accordance of these laws, with gains to ourselves but at a loss to society. This could be considered “bandit” behaviour.

There is an interesting essay on the topic which I have referred to in another thread here which goes by the name “The power of stupidity?”. It is by Giancarlo Livraghi and it is at :

rageboy.com/Stupidity.html

Another one at:

mentalsoup.com/mentalsoup/basic.htm

Hope you have the time to go through it, given your curiosity in the matter. You may find it interesting or funny in the least :smiley:

That’s a good one and what is this - what is? Can you enlighten us please? :smiley:

No, it is not uncharitable to call someone stupid because it is not wrong to call someone brilliant. For the same reason if someone is fat, it should not be wrong to call them fat even though it hurts because when this person is extraordinary about something it is not wrong to compliment them about this talent or whatever. Otherwise, I’d call you a hypocrite, baby! Don’t care what the world thinks, if the world is stupid, I don’t have to be. :smiley:

And to be unable to learn from your mistakes is not stupidity. In fact, the truth is that as soon as you learn from your mistakes, you will not be able to implement that learning anywhere, so we don’t really learn from our mistakes either because life goes too fast for us. Remember, “Experience is the comb life gives us, when we go bald.” I’m not taling about small learnings here but big lessons in life!

This is the mistake that the masses of men make. They think that because something is true you are justified in spouting it. Discretion is the better part of valor. Kindness and consideration of the feelings of others are forms of virtuous behavior. Furthermore, the arrogance to elect yourself judge of what is stupid and what is brilliant is an almost certain plan for error. Underestimating others and overestimating yourself is a sign of a weak character. Most great ideas were once called stupid by somebody. If nobody ever calls you stupid then you are probably a sheep, following the herd mentality. Finally, there is a core method and practice of philosophy to be charitable in your assessment of the views and opinions of others. Rather than calling people stupid, one gains far more influence by acknowledging why someone thinks what they think and by even incorporating the reasons why they think something in your counter philosophy. If you acknowledge understanding why people hold certain opinions rather than resorting to just name calling and labeling such as “Stupid”, then your philosophy will meet with far more acceptance because it is clear that you are being charitable.

As to experience not being a teacher, then if you say that you do not learn from your experience then I accept you at your word. On the other hand, I have learned much from my experiences in life.

Philosophic Caveman,

You have a point.

Stupidity is relative. We might in fact be very smart at several things, but must be adherent to society largely, and usually profitably to not be called stupid. However, to fit in completely is very difficult as we are all conditioned differently by experience. Standing out from the crowd may seem be as smarter than it actually is, for reasons of pay off. We may actually lose more than we gain for these reasons we havefor supporting only our ideas.

Theories should consider all and must be all encompassing to work well. And I guess this includes the fact that we cannot grasp most of the information which comes our way yet - we have not developed ourselves so.

But what do you do when people start calling you stupid, merely because your beliefs don’t coincide with theirs? Doesn’t that seem the least bit hypocritical, especially when they base their ideas of stupidity upon that which is merely relative and has no foundation? But then again, the fact that I can even suggest this might state otherwise. :slight_smile: Hmm … Is it possible that meaning may be based upon that which is absolute?