intelligent versus rationally inclined

intelligent people are everywhere. donald rumsfeld is intelligent. sorry, but it’s true. the basis for “a beautiful mind,” john nash, was a bit more than intelligent. he was also borderline insane. heidegger was as brilliant as they come. he was a nazi.

rationally inclined people are much tougher to come by. it takes a strong individual to face life’s harsh realities. as fat as your ass may be, you’d probably rather not think about it or accept it for what it is. if you can come to grips with it, you’re a rationally inclined person in that respect, and may the toothfairy bless you. in this case the question “do i have a fat ass?” is legitimately answered (assuming it’s true; if you’re anorexic, that’s a whole different ballgame). the question is asked, considered in its own right, and answered. if you can then do the same regarding political issues, you’re officially not part of the problem.

the bulk of the problems in the u.s. don’t require proactive solutions so much as the discontinuation of currently harmful policies devised by people-who-believe-whatever-they-want-to-believe-in-spite-of-any-evidence-to-the-contrary.

in the 70s, rumsfeld believed the russians had supersecret high tech underwater weapons poised to strike the u.s at any time. (i assume he actually believed it because it didn’t serve him well politically, not to say he didn’t succeed politically in spite of it.)  he did everything he could to find them, even sent a second investigative team after the CIA failed to find them. after this second effort failed, he remained convinced. he believes what he wants to believe. must be nice. in related news, rumsfeld could beat chuck liddell in a fight and is awaited by a loving old man sitting in the clouds- always cumulus, always cumulus, i say- who will love him for all eternity in spite of his paranoid, mass-murdering lifestyle. but rumsfeld is capable of interweaving abstract concepts in complex ways, and so he is intelligent. but he starts with his answers and so, he’s supremely irrational.

as for my fat ass, well, it’s not true, damn you!

the media monkeys

if you’ve ever argued with a fundamentalist about well, anything, you may have tried to use rational-ish arguments (I add -ish because i’m not a fan of any school of rationalism) to persuade them of your well-reasoned conclusions only to find it was like trying to play chess with a monkey.  you threw your arguments at them, they threw their – and your- pieces at you and pounded their monkey chest in victory.  it happens on TV all the time, where actual arguments are at a more severe disadvantage in these monkey fights than usual, what with the hyper speed of the medium only enabling those who like to throw things.  

this is not to insult fundamentalists, not more than necessary anyway (no offense to monkeys either, some of whose close relatives like to sunbathe).  really, we’re all fundamentalists about some things.  it’s more convenient to believe what you want to believe.  it starts in kid-dom, as i see it.  kids need to find answers fast just to deal with life.  with limited reasoning ability, they take shortcuts and will tend to choose the most convenient conclusions, in spite of contrary facts, as long as it satisfies their rational-ish side just enough.   want an old man in the sky who will love you when you die?  well there’s an old book and millions of people who believe it so it’s true.  want to be the next peyton manning? it hasn’t been proven otherwise so you probably will be.  

as adulthood arrives, people hold onto many of their childhood-derived assumptions as well as their conclusion first mentality.  some people are lucky enough to go to college, read Descartes, have an epiphany, have a good teacher, or something of the sort, and figure out how to question their old assumptions.  you can’t question everything though and the issues most wrapped up in emotional vulnerability – the groups you see yourself belonging to and which your ego leeches off, for example - are the toughest to legitimately question.  It’s worth wondering if it’s a good idea to question everything or just certain things.  On the other hand, if you’re not legitimately beginning with questions, you’re a monkey and pawns have as much value as kings in your hand. 

here’s where i change the subject because, as much as monkey talk allows me to mask the serious tone that inevitably befalls everything i write (i just used the word “befalls,” for example), i want to explain the basic point of the weblog i’m hoping to get going here.  i can and will get back to the monkeys later.  rational-ish people spend a lot of time arguing with each other about difficult questions that have multiple rationally defensible approaches.  The issues discussed in the debate-like performances of the media monkeys, on the other hand, are almost always much simpler and rarely have multiple defensible positions.  the evolution debate is over.  the ”should corporations ever be involved in government?” debate is over if it ever started.  and so on with countless issues that rational tending people end up discussing with people-who-believe-what-they-want-to-believe-because-they-can, again and again imagining that they’re involved in some sort of rational discussion…as if a clever endgame matters when you’re talking to Bill O’Reilly.  i want to find more effective ways to win the arguments that have already been won.  this blog, as long as i get my stick-to-it-ive-ness on, will be about finding the most effective pawn throwing tactics without sacrificing the integrity of the game.

for the record, i’m not a conservative, progressive, or libertarian and i don’t particularly like playing chess.