Newton, arguably the smartest man in history, was obsessed with 666 – the so-called number of the beast. Einstein, not far behind in IQ terms, subscribed to pantheism. Hawking, another super-intelligent individual, believed that the universe came into being due to natural law. There was a time I used to wonder how undeniably intelligent folks could hold such silly beliefs.
The straight and simple answer, of course, is that intelligence is absolutely no bulwark against silly views. Its presence then is by no means a litmus test for a consistent world view, let alone a sound one.
There is no shortage of men who have the insight to visualize how quarks behave and how black holes operate, and yet at the same time fail to notice the most obvious thing in their line of sight. People find it hard to wrap their heads around the fact that a successful man in one arena can hold extremely nonsensical views about some other aspect of life. Especially when somebody like that has an excess of money and/or fame, it becomes that much harder to see the ridiculous views for what they are. Hence the surplus of social media celebrities (who are famous for being famous) critiquing religion, film actors dispensing life philosophies and religious scholars refuting scientific theories with abandon.
Intelligence would no doubt have led to sound philosophies, provided it was in the position of calling the shots. As it happens, intelligence– or rationality, to use a broader term– is merely a tool. Positions are typically taken first. Logic to justify those positions is found later. It is for this last task that intelligence comes in handy.
It is not reason but the will that provides the world view to be justified. Acting as the slave of the will, intelligence dutifully proceeds to gather arguments to support the position taken. Just like in the school debates where one does not necessarily pick the side one speaks for, intelligence is able to provide arguments both for and against any motion under the sun.
If intelligence is governed by the will, the will is powered by passions and emotions. Since views are adopted first and the evidence to justify them comes later, having an undistorted nature becomes crucially important. Once one’s nature becomes distorted, there is no limit to the silliness or atrocities one can be attracted to. Rationalizing the silliest belief or the most heinous of crimes is thenceforth a piece of cake for intelligence. People, after all, have been presenting arguments in favour of hypotheses based on racial discrimination and have even been rationalizing genocides. It is not intelligence that is to blame for it. The problem starts much earlier: when somebody adopts a silly or unjust belief or practice in the first place, that is.
That intelligence does not necessarily make for a sensible world view by no means implies that dopiness does. Let no one invert the point made in this article to use it to glorify stupidity.
There are cases where the least complicated view happens to be the most sensible one and the simplest explanation is the best one. Such views generally are too simple for men of extraordinary intelligence. They crave more intricacy, more twists and turns. Neither their imaginative impulse nor their creativity potential (key aspects of intelligence, both) is satiated by simple world views. Hence the popularity of mystic experiences, Trinity, the elaborate stages of descent (or ascent) in the unity of being, the theory of monads, and the like.
Intelligence is thus a double-edged sword. The more intelligent the man, the more his capacity to construct an intricate world of make believe. Philosophers from Plato onwards have, over the centuries, presented many systems like that. Untold number of book pages have been filled with words describing such worlds. Numerous PhDs have also been earned discussing these systems in all their minute details. The more intelligent among the reading public finds such narratives much more stimulating and exhilarating than mere novels, although there is no denying that they all fall under the ‘fantasy’ or the ‘fanciful speculation’ category. Bertrand Russell, no mean philosopher himself, acknowledged this when he remarked that when he had taken a break from philosophy to dabble in novel writing, it was nothing more than a momentary switch from one form of fiction to another.
Intelligence is certainly not above advising sweeping of uncomfortable facts under the carpet, setting different standards for things that appeal to one and for those that do not, having inconsistent implications of evidence, making claims about things one has no clue about, and accepting a thesis but rejecting its antithesis on ‘grounds’ that it is too abstruse, or vice versa. Intelligence comes with all sorts of tricks to assure a man regarding the justification of his belief system. While the fool would typically do all the same things subconsciously, there is usually a method to the smart man’s madness.
Finally, a few words on how one’s nature can be kept reasonably pristine and undistorted, although some bumps and dents are inevitable. Honesty and sincerity most certainly help. The desire to win arguments (one of the many manifestations of the will to dominate), for instance, cannot simply be checked by reasoning alone. Logic is no match for passion. Ego is too potent to be suppressed by mere reasoning. Only passion can overpower another passion: the pursuit of truth, an uncompromising commitment to justice and/or a passion for consistency, for example.
Somebody’s nature does not get distorted overnight. The process starts small and proceeds slowly but unmistakably. It can be reversed (equally slowly) up to a point. One’s attitude in small matters decides one’s behaviour in the bigger ones. As one goes on betraying truth and reason, the distortion increases until one’s nature cannot be distorted any more. There is no turning back after this stage. All sorts of silly views are apt to appeal to it now, and the intelligence will always be at hand to rationalize each. The religious traditions that focus on the heart do so because they understand that it is the heart not the head (intelligence) that is crucial in this regard.
*
Note: That intelligence does not necessarily make for a sensible world view by no means implies that dopiness does. Let no one invert the point made in this article to use it to glorify stupidity.
