The Unintelligible is not Necessarily Unintelligent
One of Nietzsche's main insights, which he had ever since the beginning, ever since The Birth of Tragedy, is this one:
There already is a discussion going on regarding conceivability but I think this goes deeper, because to be conceivable, as amply illustrated by the OP of the said discussion is ultimately equivalent to being intelligible. Personally I am getting quite tired of some of those who call themselves philosophers and spend their time debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (and of course start out by quibbling over the definition of angels and pins). I almost can't be bothered to answer them, because of what use would it be? Would it help me or them become better, stronger, more capable or more compassionate human beings? No. Thus their endeavour is useless except for serving their obsession with intelligibility.
In the past, Emperors and the like surrounded themselves with philosophers as advisors. Alexander was raised and trained by Aristotle, he paid his respect to Diogenes, and so forth. Nero had Seneca (even though he was too arrogant to listen to him and follow his advice). Some of them were philosophers themselves - Marcus Aurelius. Why did they surround themselves with philosophers? Because philosophers did their job properly - they gave practical advice that worked in achieving their goals and running a Kingdom. This is true even in the East, where texts such as DaoDeJing were always used by rulers in order to govern their Kingdoms. But scholasticism has destroyed philosophy, and rendered it a vacuous masturbatory intellectual exercise. What use would anyone have for a Descartes? He couldn't even run himself, much less give useful advice to others. And so philosophy has lost the respect it used to have allotted to it - it ceased being the Queen of the sciences because it became useless. Philosophers became concerned with intelligibility rather than consequences. But the truth is intelligibility is only useful when it can predict consequences. But many times it fails to do this - and thus it becomes, as Nietzsche would say, unintelligent.
Friedrich Nietzsche:Perhaps - thus he [Socrates] should have asked himself - what is not intelligible to me is not necessarily unintelligent? Perhaps there is a realm of wisdom from which the logician is exiled?
There already is a discussion going on regarding conceivability but I think this goes deeper, because to be conceivable, as amply illustrated by the OP of the said discussion is ultimately equivalent to being intelligible. Personally I am getting quite tired of some of those who call themselves philosophers and spend their time debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (and of course start out by quibbling over the definition of angels and pins). I almost can't be bothered to answer them, because of what use would it be? Would it help me or them become better, stronger, more capable or more compassionate human beings? No. Thus their endeavour is useless except for serving their obsession with intelligibility.
In the past, Emperors and the like surrounded themselves with philosophers as advisors. Alexander was raised and trained by Aristotle, he paid his respect to Diogenes, and so forth. Nero had Seneca (even though he was too arrogant to listen to him and follow his advice). Some of them were philosophers themselves - Marcus Aurelius. Why did they surround themselves with philosophers? Because philosophers did their job properly - they gave practical advice that worked in achieving their goals and running a Kingdom. This is true even in the East, where texts such as DaoDeJing were always used by rulers in order to govern their Kingdoms. But scholasticism has destroyed philosophy, and rendered it a vacuous masturbatory intellectual exercise. What use would anyone have for a Descartes? He couldn't even run himself, much less give useful advice to others. And so philosophy has lost the respect it used to have allotted to it - it ceased being the Queen of the sciences because it became useless. Philosophers became concerned with intelligibility rather than consequences. But the truth is intelligibility is only useful when it can predict consequences. But many times it fails to do this - and thus it becomes, as Nietzsche would say, unintelligent.
Comments (40)
Nietzsche said a lot of insightful things, despite his many other failings. Descartes had no insight apart from quibbling about evil demons and incoherent skepticism. He was purely concerned with the fictive as the source of his philosophy instead of the real.
Would you say that's all he was doing in Passions of the Soul or in the physics sections of Principles of Philosophy, say?
Quoting Agustino
Really? I can see no justification for such a conclusion whatsoever.
Nietzsche disagreed with Plato/Socratic emphasis on the Apollonian, he thought we are comprised of both Apollonian and Dionysian forces, each forming the limit of the other and each necessarily present and equal in a healthy person.
Descartes is known for his coordinate system regardless of his other philosophical achievements.
Wikipedia
My point is that Descartes took philosophy in absolutely the wrong direction, and many followed suite. And this isn't merely evil demons, doubting mathematical truths, skepticism, but also things like dualism, mind/body separation, homunculus in the brain and so forth. Again, I don't want to quibble over Descartes - it's really not important, that's not the topic of this thread. Descartes served merely as an example - merely as the representative figure for modern philosophy - he's not known as the Father of it for nothing is he?
Quoting Cavacava
Yeah, thanks for lecturing me on Nietzsche, I surely needed that :-}
Quoting Cavacava
Quoting unenlightened
How about you guys stop bothering with mere examples and discuss what this thread is about? This thread isn't about Descartes, nor about his achievements or lack thereof. This thread is about discussing the idea that "the unintelligible is not necessarily unintelligent" and what consequences this idea has for philosophy.
When else is intelligibility useful?
How would one know? Stanslaw Lem explores the idea of unintelligible intelligence in Solaris, but apart from engendering a certain humility, I don't see how the unintelligible can have any intelligible consequences.
How about when it facilitates understanding? In any case, on what basis is "usefulness" the only criterion for intelligibility (or anything else) to be valuable? How are you defining and distinguishing "intelligible" from "intelligent" in this thread?
Nearly everything is unintelligible in a supreme sense, until we have to sit and listen to the mind give us a lesson on whatever it is it wants to explain.
Ye shall know them by their fruits.
Quoting unenlightened
Perhaps you meant INTELLIGENT, not intelligible. Take Donald Trump. His unintelligible actions had the intelligent consequence of winning him the Presidency. How did he outsmart all the pundits and managed what mostly no one would have thought possible? And think about it - all the big heads, with all the facts backing them up - they all lost, and the baboon who didn't give a shit about any facts won - why?
Take other examples. Someone falling prey to his cognitive biases may consistently perform action X better than someone who doesn't. Yet this seems befuddling and strange - indeed unintelligible. But acting unintelligibly isn't necessarily acting unintelligently. This raises a significant problem. We typically consider our actions, and plan our life whether in mundane affairs, or in more daring goals - at least in modern society - by attempting to be intelligible at all costs. But if what is unintelligible isn't necessarily unintelligent, then does it not follow that we are cutting ourselves off from options which may be intelligent? How must we change the way we operate in order to profit, rather than be harmed from unintelligibility?
Take another final example. Deep Blue is being perfectly intelligible against Kasparov. It checks every single move, and checks every single consequence and into the future. It checks millions of moves. But Kasparov obviously doesn't. His mind doesn't function by checking millions of possibilities. While it is true that skipping millions of possibilities is unintelligible because hey - there may be one which has great future benefits, and how can you know without thinking through it? - what Kasparov's mind does is that it automatically doesn't see 99% of possible moves, and instead focuses on the 1% which actually have a real chance of being winning moves. So here lies the whole thing - it's not about being intelligible - it's not about having the biggest brain. It's about knowing what to focus on. The computer doesn't know what moves to focus on, and thus seeks to check everything, even blatantly stupid moves it will check. This is the unintelligible - what Kasparov's mind does vs the intelligibility of the computer. What his mind does is unintelligible - you can't say HOW he eliminates those 99% worthless moves, and focuses on the 1% which has potential. And yet - it's not unintelligent - it is in fact VERY intelligent, and it is Deep Blue who is being stupid.
In fact, I find it fascinating the difference between how computers function and how human minds function. Computers have a very brute kind of intelligence. Even the more intelligent algorithms, they're not as capable as the human mind is in eliminating possibilities in a flash - they don't have insight. But the human mind follows principles. In chess for example, controlling the centre, developing your pieces, castling as soon as possible, etc. These are principles - dogmas. But the computer has no principles to follow - it's all math and calculation for it. But these dogmas, which seem unintelligible, actually are quite intelligent because they cut through the fluff right away. How is it that the human mind can develop such dogmas? And how does the mind form them?
Consider also you could add many other examples to the pile. Religion is in many regards unintelligible - is it also therefore unintelligent? I don't think so.
Quoting aletheist
And is understanding itself not useful? Don't we become better people the more we understand?
Not necessarily, on both counts.
I will ask again--how are you defining and distinguishing "intelligible" from "intelligent" in this thread?
As I understand it you are saying there are mysteries which can never be made intelligible, and that we ought not, on that account, become closed off to the possibilities inherent in such mysteries. If this is what you want to say then I heartily agree. We should not allow our intelligence to be limited by the limitations of our intellects.
There is little unintelligible about the ducky. Rabble rousing is a well known, tried and trusted technique that is quite well understood. But even if folks found it unintelligible, that doesn't make it unintelligible, just as quantum mechanics isn't unintelligible just because it is a closed book to most of us.
But here's something that you may find unintelligible; winning is not always intelligent.
When your examples fail to exemplify what they are intended to make example of, then it's time to reassess that principle which the example was meant to elucidate. Perhaps the principle was produced from a misinterpretation, if the relationship between the example and the principle demonstrates a misunderstanding.
What you describe here is nothing more than deception, and we should all be very wary of any claim that deception is good. Any time we act intelligently, but our actions are made to appear unintelligible, this is an act of deception. Yes, this procedure is acceptable in strategies of some game playing, and also strategies of war, where there is a real enemy. But the moral status of profiting from unintelligibility in our day to day communion with others is very suspicious, if not downright wrong.
How is it deception? Why is it that an action is deceptive if it's not intelligible? It's deceptive only for the person who expects and demands that you act intelligibly, but to say so, is merely to assume that one should be the kind of logician Nietzsche criticises.
Sure - many people in fact lose because they win the wrong battles. That's what immorality consists in. Winning at the wrong time - that's acting immorally usually. Whenever you act in a way that contravenes morality, you are putting yourself up for a great future loss - for only a temporary and short-term victory.
Intelligible is something that makes sense according to the prevailing worldview/culture - in other words, an action that others can understand.
Intelligent is something that works - that gets the job done in a way that doesn't create future hidden costs.
As I suspected - that is not how either of those words is normally defined, especially within philosophy.
Intelligent doesn't have a special philosophical definition. Intelligible on the other hand you could claim has - it follows a logical structure. But even if that's the chosen definition - it's not always intelligent to follow a logical structure.
You describe the act as "intelligent". Therefore it is inherently intelligible, even if it is only intelligible to the one carrying out the act. To present this act to another human being as unintelligible, is therefore to misrepresent it, and this is deception.
It is quite clear that what is at stake here is the issue of hiding your true motives from others, in your dealings with these people. Generally speaking (except in situations like I mentioned), this is morally reprehensible.
How does this follow? Nietzsche and me are challenging precisely this - that something has to be intelligible in order to be intelligent. I disagree - it doesn't.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This has nothing to do with hiding your true motives at all. I don't see how you'd draw that conclusion... In fact I do see how it follows. It follows only if we both accept the premise that what is intelligent must also be intelligible.
I was responding to this:
Quoting Agustino
Along with your examples, what is being described here is deception, acting intelligently in a way so as the actions appear unintelligible.
Quoting Agustino
Your conclusion only follows if there is a form of deceit which is impossible to be determined as deceit. If it is possible that the deceit may be exposed, then the intelligent act which appears to be unintelligible really is intelligible, and your claims are wrong.
And, as I said, the intelligent act is inherently intelligible to the one who is acting or else it would not be an intelligent act. Therefore the intelligent act is necessarily intelligible.
.
Is this for real? Is this for example about deception:
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Explain this to me please. The act may be intelligent to me, but not also intelligible. For example, I don't understand how specifically it will help me, but yet I still believe it will, and hence it appears to be intelligent to me.
This may certainly be true of religious sacraments.
The blood and flesh of Jesus were once that of Dionysus (wine representing the spirit of the that god). Maybe Jesus is far more Apollonian now, an formal image emptied of ritual ecstasies or awe with an oppressive cultural entailment, in the light of our hyper rational age.
I wonder if Nietzsche ever talked about the symbolism of Christianity as it relates to these two impulses.
Yes indeed. I have found this to be my relation to many of the Church rituals and practices.
Yes, that's exactly it. Kasparov is capable of deceiving the computer, the computer is not capable of deceiving Kasparov.
Quoting Agustino
If there is nothing to make the act appear intelligent to you, then the act is not intelligible to you. In that case, the act does not appear intelligent to you. If something makes the act appear intelligent, then by the very existence of this thing which you apprehend, the act is intelligible. So any act which appears intelligent to you, must appear so for some reason, and by virtue of this reason the act is intelligible.
No that's not the point. The point is that the computer behaves in an entirely intelligible manner, while Kasparov's mind doesn't. The real point is that the human mind is superior to the computer, not because it can out-calculate it, but precisely because it can't, and therefore finds a better way. It's unintelligible how the human mind skips the 99% of bad moves - without doing any calculation - and focuses on calculating just the 1% potentially useful moves. And yet, what the human mind does when it does this is intelligent - even though it appears foolish.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes it appears intelligent to me because I think it is good, even though I can't specify how it is good.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Not really. For example, I believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead as specified in the New Testament, and yet I maintain that such an event is incomprehensible and entirely unintelligible to me. Yet it appears intelligent to me to believe in it because it resonates with my soul - there's no real rational reason for it.
I don't believe this to be unintelligible, it's a matter of habituation.
Quoting Agustino
I disagree with this. If a potential act appears good to you, and you can't say how, or why it is good, then I think it would be false to say that it appears like an intelligent act. That is exactly what separates an act which appears like an intelligent act, from one which just appears like a good act. if there is reason for the act, then it appears as an intelligent act. if you cannot find reason for the act, then it might still appear good, but it cannot appear as an intelligent act.
Quoting Agustino
Again, that "resonates with my soul" is not a matter of it appearing intelligent, it's a matter of emotion or some such thing. I think it is contradictory to say that an act, decision, or believe, appears intelligent, if there is absolutely no discernible reason for that act. On what basis would you say that it is an intelligent choice?
>:O Yeah sure labelling it a certain name surely makes it intelligible
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
For example it leads to my spiritual well-being - but HOW it leads to my spiritual well-being remains mysterious. And I don't need to know HOW it leads to my spiritual well-being to know that it does.
How are you using the word "scholasticism?" Descartes is often considered to have brought on the death of that particular school of philosophy.
Yes he did bring an end to the scholasticism of men like Aquinas, however, he took philosophy away from ethical concerns, and down into scholastic concerns. Thus philosophy became a field for academics, rather than for those interested in practice.
Indeed - there was a remnant of the Greeks left in the Middle Ages, which almost vanished after Descartes - except for a few exceptions like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and their ilk. But then they were always on the outskirts of Academia.
I don't think so. The philosophy you are talking about is characterised by the intersection of both scholastic concern and the intelligible. For them philosophy is not merely ethics (that's a position of heretical post-modernism), but an intersection of ethics and worldly truth which cannot possibility be denied. Without God, the world is unintelligible. God is necessarily so regardless of what happens.
It's world in which the intelligible is the highest order and it's necessarily bound with the only possible outcome: the presence of God, a practice of religious philosophy and particular cultural tradition. Rather than merely being about how one ought to live, it's about how people must think an act, what the world can only be, without falling into the unintelligible and so being impossible.
In terms of the unintelligible, it is an utter rejection. The outcome which can never be is a believer finding the world to be unintelligible. No matter what, the world will always meet the expectation and specification of their tradition.
Quoting Agustino
I agree that your definitions are too fuzzy. Intelligible means logical structure to me. It is not about being in accordance with custom. It only make sense to others because it is rational.
But anyway, the issue seems to be that creative intelligence is clearly something more than just "pure intelligibility". Reasoning is not merely computation.
And we can see this in the computer chess example.
Intelligence is the ability to recognise and exploit intelligible patterns - discover the generalities that predict the particular.
A computer is not really being intelligent if it is merely making an exhaustive search of every possible combination of moves to find the winning choice. To be like the human player, it would have to start to generalise in a fashion that would allow it to constrain its play so that it is limiting its possibility of making bad moves.
The need is to restrict the patterns of the pieces so they leave the player in "a strong position" - one that, in complementary fashion, steadily reduces the options of the opponent until s/he only has bad ones.
It is impossible to "figure everything out" - especially in an inherently unpredictable world. And even in the highly regulated and predictable world of a board game, it is more efficient to limit your scope for mistakes. while attempting to force your opponent into a realm where there can only be "mistakes".
It is just the same on the tennis court or any other sport. You want to move your opponent into places where all the choices are weak ones.
So you seem to getting at the point that intelligence is not strictly intelligible because reality offers always a near infinite variety of "intelligible" paths. If you focus on trying to predict particulars, that is in fact cognitively quite dumb. The better approach is to work to constrain uncertainty. Do that, and eventually the smart path is going to pop out, all the less smart options having been filtered away.
Of course that still leaves room for the smart flashes of insight in which a pattern of connections can suddenly be recognised.
But insight always comes to the prepared mind, as any psychological study of creativity shows. Hard work constrains the possibilities. Then it becomes easy work to make the last step.
I would agree that outside of Pragmatism - which of course argues for abductive reasoning - philosophy shows a poor understanding of this constraints-based approach to reasoning or problem solving.
Philosophy is largely either analytic (in love with deduction and suspicious of induction), or continental (in love with romanticism and thus itself). ;)
Analysis is a good thing. It is a mode of thought that is great for producing machines like computers. But life and mind have a holistic or Bayesian approach to reasoning that is based on the ability to constrain possibility in fruitful fashion.
Logical structure is great for churning out concrete possibilities. A computer is a machine for generating every conceivable alternative.
But the world already has an over-abundance of possibilities. Real intelligence is about reducing them by applying generalisations. To locate answers, we just need to trap them into some tight enough corner.
Yes, and even more than that, in chess, and especially in reality, there's is no "best play". No series of moves that are guaranteed to win, no strategies that are guaranteed to win either, because things are always changing, and even an opponent's mistake may so alter the game that the initial plan/strategy can no longer succeed. Computation is a useful skill to have - being able to see a few moves ahead - since it's what it takes in order to be able to execute tactics. But if all you have is tactical capability, and little strategy, then it will all come to naught.
But strategy cannot be taught in terms of computation or figuring things out. Strategy is always about, as you call it, constraints. Whoever manages their own constraints, and those of their opponent better wins - so long as he can also execute the tactics required. But in philosophy, especially Western philosophy, there is little discussion of this level that is beyond mere computation. This is what I call unintelligible precisely because there is no "best way". In strategy for example, there never is a best strategy. When you're playing chess for example, there is no "best" strategy, which if you adopt and execute perfectly you will win. Every strategy always has a counter-strategy. Every strategy generates both weaknesses and strengths in terms of constraints. There may be best tactics in order to fulfil strategy X, but there never is a best strategy. Why this happens is difficult to say, except that it's to do with the ever changing interaction between circumstances.
In chess, most of the world champions agree that given perfect play, the game ends in a draw - this also seems intuitively obvious for me. A perfect strategy, against its perfect counter-strategy end in a draw.