The Expression Of Language

It takes at least a small degree of intelligence to perceive or understand anything at all, even if a person does not realize they are relying on logical axioms and their ramifications in all things, both metaphysically and epistemologically.  However, since non-rationalists are still inherently reliant on reason even in their ignorance and stupidity, they are not intelligent in any sort of intentional, developed, rationalistic sense.  They are still able to do things like use language, not that words are logical truths or that use of language is anywhere near the most significant expression of rationality.  Rationalists can of course also use language, but even if they personally have trouble articulating things, they are still the only thoroughly rational beings in existence.  In actuality, the ways rational and irrational people use language could easily be identical in many cases.

The difference lies in the worldview and motivations they are conveying.  A very rational person might know just how to use the words of a given culture to very precisely communicate all kinds of logical truths or concepts, having a mastery over the arbitrary construct of language even as they fully recognize the distinction between words and what words describe.  Their use of words might be genuinely helpful to others and could even emotionally captivate them.  Despite being skilled with words, they know reason is more fundamental than language and that words only express things deeper and more transcendent than themselves.  All of this would be an expression of language, but it is more foundationally an expression of that individual's rationality, their grasp of the intrinsically true laws of logic.

Another person could use language eloquently but in a hollow manner.  Ignorant of or apathetic towards the necessary truths of logical axioms, of the necessary truths that follow from them, and of introspection, moral ideas, and scientific perceptions, he or she might use words in a way that seems to spring from philosophical depth, yet they are doing nothing more than speaking of what they do not understand (or maybe what they do not care about to begin with) or just blindly parroting what someone else has told them.  There is no fixation on truth, no love of necessary truths and absolute certainty, no determination to avoid assumptions, no pursuit of justice, and no attempt to build interpersonal relationships as strong as human epistemological limitations allow for.  There is only a shallow egoism or a blind coasting on intellectual waters they could know if only they decided to.

How certain people use language can be an expression of genuine intelligence (the intentional comprehension of logical truths and the things logical truths govern) or an expression of stupidity even if it gives the illusion of rationality.  Whether through premeditated rhetorical manipulation or pure stupidity, it is entirely possible for someone to wield words as if they are rational and deep when they are not.  These truths are not contradictory, or else only one or neither of them could be true.  It is indeed the case that no one can know just from the coherence of someone's words which kind of person they are--for unless one could see into their minds, there are all manner of metaphysical and rhetorical illusions that other people could be intentionally or unintentionally brushing up against.