Key Framework: Disagreement with the Initial Thesis
The author disagrees that aggression can unequivocally be considered a sign of irrationality, and distinguishes between intelligence and reason.
1) Objection to an “Objective” Judgment
- One cannot claim to possess intelligence superior to human intelligence in order to pass a definitive, objective judgment on the subject.
- The other participant’s assessment is perceived as their own particular logic, not as a universal criterion.
2) Distinguishing Concepts: Intelligence ≠ Reason
- In the author’s view, the model described concerns high intelligence more than rationality.
- Intelligence is associated with solving problems effectively and extracting benefits.
- Reason is primarily awareness of connections and consequences, not merely computational power.
3) Examples of Awareness
- A fly is given as an example of irrationality: it does not learn through awareness.
- A crow is an example of rationality without full self-awareness: it perceives connections and is capable of learning.
- Apes are rational but may be aggressive, so rationality does not in itself rule out aggression.
4) Why People Act “Stupidly”
- Hormones, impulsiveness, and a poor understanding of long-term consequences all have an influence.
- The problem lies not only in motivation, but also in an inability to grasp complex concepts.
- Short-term benefit is often chosen because of limited awareness of connections.
5) Two Types of Aggression
- Short-lived (impulsive) aggression is generally acknowledged as weak and destructive.
- Instrumental aggression (as a means to achieve a result) is sometimes regarded as an effective instrument that, in certain situations, “cannot be ruled out.”
6) The Author’s Final Conclusion
- If the discussion is specifically about intelligence, the thesis of “cold efficiency without emotions” is accepted.
- If it is about reason and the moral condemnation of aggression as an absolute evil, the author disagrees.
- The historical character of philosophical frameworks is also emphasized: ancient philosophers are recognized as rational, but their models are regarded as partly outdated under modern conditions.
- Problem-solving belongs to the domain of intelligence; awareness of life can develop differently and does not always correlate with computational power.
Original
I disagree.
You don’t possess intelligence above that of humans that would allow you to judge this objectively. That’s your personal logic.
You’re describing high intelligence rather than reason. If so, I generally agree with you. If we imagine an intelligent being, it will most likely be driven by benefit. There is no benefit in spontaneous aggression.
I may not describe it perfectly, but reason is more a matter of awareness. Not even self-awareness, but an understanding of consequences. We cannot call a fly rational because it cannot be taught, due to its lack of awareness. But take a crow, which does not recognize its own “I” yet can understand connections: it is rational. Apes are quite rational, but nevertheless can be very aggressive.
2.1. Hormones and insufficient intelligence are precisely what drive fools. They want something and simply do it. They are not driven by awareness of connections. They just don’t understand that long-term benefit is better than fleeting benefit. Not to mention that they simply cannot understand complex concepts.
- If you’re talking about aggression as something fleeting, I agree. If you’re talking about aggression as a method, I disagree. Sometimes it is a very effective thing that you cannot do without.
This is a little vague, but I’ll try to convey it more precisely. Fleeting aggression is, roughly speaking, when you want to hit someone because they are telling an inconvenient truth. Or something like that. But aggression as a means of achieving results can sometimes be good, because it allows you to go all the way.
The final thought:
So, if you’re talking about intelligence rather than reason, you’re absolutely right. Smart beings will get things done, pure surgery without emotion.
But if you’re talking about reason and aggression as evil, then I disagree.
And yes, Socrates, like the other ancient philosophers, became outdated long ago. They were rational; I never denied that. Perhaps you didn’t understand me, but I explicitly wrote that reason is awareness, practically any kind of awareness. A crow is rational, and a person who could calmly reflect and write was clearly not an idiot.
But life changes. And yes, I wrote about the difference between intelligence and reason in my very first comment. Problem-solving is exclusively a matter of intelligence. And, incidentally, intelligence can sometimes be much greater than awareness of life.
You literally described intelligence and intelligence.
Well, that’s the truth; read the second comment.
