The approval of other people does not make anything true except that they harbor approval. It could only be stupid, because the concept itself is objectively erroneous, to think that one person or group considering another person to be wise is what means the latter really is such a thing. The latter individual believing they have this quality is likewise not what makes it so or reveals the truth of the matter to them. Now, intelligence is not necessarily the same thing as wisdom. However, the same point would be true either way of rationality (real intelligence) and wisdom, for someone is not lacking in either trait simply by believing or not believing they possess it; they alternatively do not possess it by virtue of others believing or not believing that they do. It all comes down to whether they truly have the characteristic. When Proverbs condemns people who are wise in their own eyes, it is in actuality warning against a person having the false belief they are wise, not against anyone ever thinking they are wise.
Proverbs 18:2—"Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions."
Proverbs 26:12—"Do you see a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them."
As with many statements in Proverbs, the claim of 26:12 is extremely hyperbolic. To be wise only in one's own eyes (according to one's perception/assumptions but not in reality) is to be irrational, and to be irrational is to be a fool, so the person wise in their own eyes, who believes they are what they are not (and thus could only be assuming this), is by nature foolish. He or she is wise only in their own eyes and not in truth. Someone who falsely thinks they are wise on the basis of assumptions neglects or denies reason, perhaps rooting their worldview in sheer intentional egoism. Thinking one is rational or wise is not erroneous if it is true and one is not making assumptions. These things are true and knowable by logical necessity independent of the Bible and its veracity, of course, but Proverbs 18:2 very plainly contrasts genuine understanding with holding to subjective, preference-based opinions.
There is no way to have anything more than an entirely illusory understanding apart from strict adherence to rationalism, requiring that someone start with recognizing the utter truth and foundationality of logical axioms and make no assumptions. Anything else is to have a worldview that is unproven or unprovable and that ignores the only things that have to be true in themselves. Of course a rationalistic person can know that they are rationalistic, and thus intelligent. Logical truths and introspective states of mind, for the person who is not a slave to assumptions, are absolutely certain because logic cannot be false—if logic was false, it would follow by logical necessity from the nature of reality that it is false, and so it would still have to be true—and one's own mind is directly experienced. If a person knows reason and knows their own mind, it follows that they can certainly know that they are intelligent, aka rational, aka rationalistic. This person cannot possibly be rational or wise merely in their own eyes (though wisdom is again not the same as pure rationality, which is pure ideological alignment with necessary truths).
The person who believes in falsities or in assumptions can only be in error, and thus he or she is not intelligent to the extent that they neglect the self-evident (logical axioms and their own conscious existence) or embrace any kind of assumption. They would be an example of the fool of Proverbs who delights in their own preferences or arbitrary, false, assumed beliefs because they find this appealing, as if reality hinges on subjective whim—not even the whim and power of God can alter what is true by logical necessity. Someone who believes they are intelligent because they recall philosophically secondary or unimportant information about historical or scientific matters that cannot be logically proven anyway [1] is an example of a person wise or intelligent only in their own eyes. Though they deny or neglect logical axioms or make a myriad of assumptions, confusing hearsay for proof and history and science for the heart of reality one way or another, they are utterly deluded.
[1]. For instance, see elaboration here:
No comments:
Post a Comment