Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
anada288
`````````````+++````````````````````+`````````````````
`````````````+```+```````````````````+``````````````````
'''''''''''''+''''+''+++''''+++''''++++'''+++'''''''''''''
''''''''''''''+'++++''+''+''+'''+''+'''+''+'''+'''''''''''''
'''''''''''''''+'''''+'''''++'+++'++'+++'++'+++'+'''''''''''''
||||||||||||||||+||||||+||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||+||||||||||||||||||||||||anada.net|||||||||||||||
' '
' anada "The Ideal Textfile" 13 feb '
' 288 by X-tabai 2001 '
` `
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Upon reading Jason's file about stupidity, I started to think long
and hard for five minutes about what exactly constitutes a stupid person. I
used to define stupid people as "everyone else," but that isn't completely
realistic. Then I decided that stupidity had to do with how quickly and
effectively people can assimilate information, and I pretty much stuck with
that. Stupid people are those who process new information at the speed of
dead snail, with little comprehension and zero retention.
The thing is, Jason mentioned that idealists were stupid. At least I
think that's what he was getting at. I don't really consider myself an
idealist, but I think I'm pretty close. The question is, does this make me
stupid. The answer is a hearty perhaps.
I'm not saying that Jason is wrong about most idealists being stupid.
He's right simply because since most people are stupid, and idealists are
people, then it follows that most idealists will be stupid. However, is
there a certain quality to idealism that makes idealists more stupid than
average people? Or makes the percentage of stupid idealists higher than
that of stupid people? I don't think so, but I don't have any proof...
So I've decided to stick myself under the microscope here, try to
figure out if there is some stupidity inherent in my idealistic ideas. My
hypothesis is that there is not an intrinsic stupidity in idealism, there
are simply a lot of stupid idealists. So, without further ado, my
arguments. And I use the term "argument" loosely. I'm actually just
chattering like a monkey.
First of all, I want to fix everything. Even big things. I want to
help the starving children across the world. I want to make peace in the
Middle East. I want to single-handedly stop deforestation. I want everyone
everywhere to be happy as often as possible. A big facet of this is that I
want to fix people, and damn it all, they don't want fixing. This causes me
no end of grief, because when I can't "fix" someone I feel as if I have
failed them in a fundamental way. I feel that I have not served the very
purpose for which I exist. I am the voice of reason. I am the beacon of
logic. I am the all-powerful answer person who can pinpoint the cause of
your anxiety better than you yourself can. Don't you all understand how
happy you'd be if you would just listen to me?
One problem here is that I probably don't know what I'm talking
about. Or, to generalize, that idealists don't really know how to fix
anything, they just think they do. Simple fallacy. Idealists elevate
themselves to a level above that of everyone else, then proceed to judge
everything through their own narrow viewpoints. However, I think that this
is not an exclusively stupid or idealistic thing to do, because even smart
non-idealists put themselves on a pedestal and pretend they know everything.
The difference is that smart people usually have broader viewpoints than
idiots.
Next problem is that I want to change things. However, that isn't
stupid in and of itself; smart people want to change things as well. Is
there, then, a proactive element to idealism that smart people lack? No,
because you can have armchair idealists as easily as you have proactive
geniuses; geniuses just tend to be lazier. Next point.
Even if I am right regarding whatever I am being idealistic about, I
make the Libertarian/Kantian assumption that everyone is rational. I assume
that if I have the might of logic on my side, then of course people will
listen to what I'm telling them to do. Yeah, right. Even if the Almighty
Himself descended from the sky, pointed at me and said, "Listen to this
chick," while choirs of angels flittered past in the background with a sign
reading, "She knows what she's talking about," I would still be ignored.
Which would probably be good, since I'm an atheist and I'd be busy
questioning my sanity if that happened.
I'll say right now that it's stupid to make assumptions. However,
this again is not an inherently idealistic thing to do. So is there
stupidity in this particular assumption? No, just lack of insight, which is
ignorance more than stupidity, and something which idealists are not alone
in experiencing. Even perfectly intelligent people can ignore the fact that
nobody wants logic, they want sympathy. They want someone to tell them how
right they are, so they can blame that person later when they realize
they're wrong. If anything, it would be stupid to allow yourself to be
manuevered into a position where you can be blamed for something. So maybe
idealists are actually on the right track here. It can be better to argue
and be right than agree and be wrong. Maybe. Next point.
I care too much. I see crap on the news about people getting shot by
toddlers, fighting in Israel, Bush withdrawing funds from international
organizations that provide abortions and pumping that money into developing
an improbable missile shield, and I get sad. I sit here and read all these
deep unhappy things that people write, and I want their lives to be good. I
want them to have nothing unhappy to say. I want them to sit around all day
and marvel at the greatness of their homes, schools, work, and the rest of
the world in general. I exist in a swamp of guilt that grows with the
knowledge of each new person that I can't help.
So is this the inherent stupidity? The belief that I can actually
make a difference in this world? Hmm. That kind of vague statement is what
screws over a good argument, because it can be interpreted in many ways. I
will say that persisting in the belief that I can help everyone in the WORLD
is quite absurd. There are somewhere around 6 billion people on this
planet, and I will NEVER be able to help them all. I won't even be able to
help most of them, some of them. I can hope at best to help a few, a half-
percent of a half-percent of a half-percent. Even that is a pretty big
number. I hate math.
On a small scale, however, I can conceivably make changes to the
environment in which I live. I can do stuff like recycle, clean beaches,
counsel teens, whatever. There's nothing stupid about caring for other
people, also nothing stupid about helping them. And I think my sense of
guilt is a personal thing, caused by a disgustingly painful childhood, so
I'm not going to address that part.
I'm losing track of my argument. Probably because I'm sitting in a
film class that is slowly draining all independent thought from my tiny
brain. I think my conclusion is that idealism isn't inherently stupid, thus
there probably isn't a greater percentage of stupid idealists than stupid
people. Also, stupid idealists are not dumber than other stupid people,
they're just more opinionated and/or optimistic. Idealists don't
necessarily stick their heads in the ground and pretend that their asses
will be fine. They don't really think they can turn the world into a
utopia, they just want to make it as good as possible. Or maybe the dumb
ones go for that utopia crap. The scientologist ones. Maybe that sucking
sound was my last brain cell being drawn into my professor's droning black
hole of a mouth.
Pickles. Caribou. Slurp.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
' '
` anada288 by X-tabai (c) 2001 anada e'zine `
