Strength Superior To Intelligence

[Verv]

A few years ago I watched the classic French film Le Petit Soldat by the legendary, none-other-than Godard. It was simply brilliant... One line has always stuck out to me, and will stick out to me eternally:

It is better to be strong than intelligent because you cannot argue with strength.
​

It makes complete sense in the context of the film -- a very smart, intelligent man now at the mercy of his adversaries and entirely incapable of doing anything to stop the torture he is enduring. The words are spoken with true conviction.


Intelligence is a very subjective experience. As is wisdom.
Without getting too far into semantics, I will simply assert that intelligence and wisdom will always be debatable; and more than that, by virtue of its debatable nature it is fundamentally pointless when it comes to virtue.


Strength, both moral and physical, can never be argued with; all you can do is try to avoid it but once you confront it, if the strength you confront is greater than yourself, there is no debating it. It destroys you.


In the age of the pistol and the stealth bomber it is hard to glean that much value from the sense of physical strength, but what of moral and spiritual strength?
That, also, cannot be argued with.



In the 11th Chapter of the Hagakure Yamamoto uses a large series of quotations from various Samurai that dismiss military tactics and regard thinking about battles, thinking about paths as entirely counterproductive. In fact, they argue that it even brings cowardice!


It is said that to completely think out the enemy, to completely think out the ways of the world as well, to completely think out anything for that matter, only raises more questions and more doubts in a persons mind. It can have no positive impact on the battle, on the fight at hand. It is a distraction.



Thought produces excuses on a lot of issues and people become, as they say, too smart for their own good.


In that very real matter I think people ought to be encouraged to never over analyze something but to come to the sensible conclusion they know is right.


When you reach a conclusion, stand by it strongly.


Consider other points of view, think about it if we are talking about debates, but what is right is right.



There is a time for thought but once a decision is made nothing else matters than harboring the strength to uphold that decision and proceed down your charted path.


Many intelligent men commit suicide -- but how many strong men?
Many intelligent men have given up and turned to decadence -- but how many strong men?


Many intelligent men have taken many courses in life, from Saint to Serial Killer; intelligence speaks extremely little of the character of a person whereas strength is the very cement that makes the character of a man be able to stand against the World.

 

[quatona]

Maybe you are right, but who cares? I am stronger than you.

 

[TheBlindMan]

Physical strength is categorically different from spiritual or moral Strength. It is actual strength which is manifest in observable reality. I agree that strength is not about argument.

But then, physical strength isn't about argument, it's about force. It doesn't try to prove that the wielder of the strength is right, it is an expression of power.

Is having moral stength an expression of power rather than a glimpse into the truth, or is having moral strength not like having Strength at all?

Personally I think that the position you are holding leads to cowardice. An ability to admit defeat when you are in the wrong, an inability to consider other point of view. The arrogance to suggest that you are indisputably right, and beyond debate, despite several thousand years of human struggle against the unknown is outrageous.

As if Christians could be humble and at the same time believe that they are privy to a special world that no-one else is strong enough to see.

Faith is not a good thing! It is a placeholder not a permanent replacement.

 

[The Nihilist]

This is stupid. Conviction is the virtue of servants and footsoldiers. A strong leader, though, must be thoughtful on matters of both war and governance. If you disagree, then tell me, why, for all his bluster and strong words, has Bush so far failed in Iraq? I think there is no question that our strategy relied more on conviction than on calculation.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Of all of the problems caused by knowledge, ignorance will not solve them

Thats some quote I believe, though I don't think I worded it correctly...

 

[Verv]

This is stupid. Conviction is the virtue of servants and footsoldiers. A strong leader, though, must be thoughtful on matters of both war and governance. If you disagree, then tell me, why, for all his bluster and strong words, has Bush so far failed in Iraq? I think there is no question that our strategy relied more on conviction than on calculation.

That is stupid -- conviction is the virtue of countless people, just as intelligence is the virtue of many more representing many different facets of society.

Let me ask you, philosopher, what is the worth of intelligence without drive behind it? Without strength behind it?

Maybe you are right, but who cares? I am stronger than you.

That was rather witty in a sense.

However, the idea is not that intelligence should be entirely neglected but rather that our inner strength becomes more important in the long run to intelligent analysis.

Intelligence often makes people weak by creating doubts. Do you deny that?

 

[quatona]

However, the idea is not that intelligence should be entirely neglected but rather that our inner strength becomes more important in the long run to intelligent analysis.

1. "More important" in regards to which goal/purpose/end?
2. How are the two competing, anyway? What is more important in the long run - eating or procreating?
3. How long is the "long run"?
4. In your OP you had included physical strength. Maybe that was misleading or I misunderstood?

Intelligence often makes people weak by creating doubts. Do you deny that?

Yes, I do. I suspect that you (just like me) have a very particular understanding what makes "inner strength/weakness", and that our ideas are different. For me, the ability and willingness to allow and acknowledge one´s own doubts is essential to "inner strength".

 

[Verv]

1. "More important" in regards to which goal/purpose/end?
2. How are the two competing, anyway? What is more important in the long run - eating or procreating?
3. How long is the "long run"?
4. In your OP you had included physical strength. Maybe that was misleading or I misunderstood?

Yes, I do. I suspect that you (just like me) have a very particular understanding what makes "inner strength/weakness", and that our ideas are different. For me, the ability and willingness to allow and acknowledge one´s own doubts is essential to "inner strength".

(1) Strength is more important in the accomplishment of goals; intelligence has often created people to overthink what they are doing and grow doubts as well as grow weak plans for achievement.

(2) The two compete after you have come to a decision -- a decision to achieve something or a decision to stand by something -- the decision becomes doubted and abandoned. There are a lot of people who become determined but give up after thought which should be unacceptable.

Many hearts grow timid after over thinking.

(3) The long run is pretty long, I guess (haha); whatever the amount of time necessary to achieve a goal is.

(4)
I think that my own ideas were developing while writing and thus I included physical strength.I used it sort of to illustrate that one cannot argue with strength though one can argue with intelligence.

(5) Doubt can breed excuses for failure.

 

[quatona]

(1) Strength is more important in the accomplishment of goals; intelligence has often created people to overthink what they are doing and grow doubts as well as grow weak plans for achievement.

And that´s a good thing, especially if their goals and plans are not based on intelligent consideration, in the first place.

(2) The two compete after you have come to a decision -- a decision to achieve something or a decision to stand by something -- the decision becomes doubted and abandoned. There are a lot of people who become determined but give up after thought which should be unacceptable.

"After you have come to a decision" (emphasis added). So the first thing is the decision, and this decision needs to be intelligent.
If, in the following, your intelligence gets in the way of pursuing your goal, this is a strong indication that there is something questionable about your goal.

Many hearts grow timid after over thinking.

Timid? Maybe, but that´s not the necessary consequence of doubts. You have changed the category.
However, I think it´s more like many brains grow timid over emotions.

(3) The long run is pretty long, I guess (haha); whatever the amount of time necessary to achieve a goal is.

I guess we would have to be more concrete. If e.g. your goal in this thread is to convince me of your theory all that counts is the intelligence of your theory and your defenses. Your inner strength won´t help you with that.

(4)
I think that my own ideas were developing while writing and thus I included physical strength.I used it sort of to illustrate that one cannot argue with strength though one can argue with intelligence.

You mean "might makes right" - physically as well as mentally?
In my book: The fact that physical strength beats intelligent arguments is one of the most regrettable things. It is the very reason why for the most horrible things. To the same amount that mental strength is analogous to physical strength - as you seem to argue -, the same goes for mental strength.

(5) Doubt can breed excuses for failure.

No. While you original assertion (that doubt about the validity of your goal may weaken the intensity with which you pursue it) is accurate and our disagreement lies merely in the valuation of this fact, this is a completely different - and wrong - argument. If you have severe doubts about the validity of your goals not reaching them isn´t failure, in the first place.

 

[Teufelhund]

I think that moral and spiritual strength will many times trump intelligence, but wihout intelligence I think it will likely be for not.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Why are we arguing which is better? I think both are good and should be nurtured and encouraged. You people confuse me so by contrasting everything when I can see no gain in the process, why can't you spend more time comparing and seeing how well they work together?

 

[The Nihilist]

That is stupid -- conviction is the virtue of countless people, just as intelligence is the virtue of many more representing many different facets of society.

Let me ask you, philosopher, what is the worth of intelligence without drive behind it? Without strength behind it?

Your OP suggested that you held intelligence in low esteem, but I'm inclined to agree and even praise this position. Intelligence without strength is useless, just as strength without intelligence is brutish and ineffective.

 

[elcapitan]

Maybe you are right, but who cares? I am stronger than you.

I thought the above quote was genius. It's the perfect demonstration of what the OP is arguing- that strength is more important than intelligence

If you take the view that "might makes right" you're implicitly espousing relativism.

And, once again, it doesn't matter if you disagree because I say otherwise and I'm stronger than you.

 

[elcapitan]

In that very real matter I think people ought to be encouraged to never over analyze something but to come to the sensible conclusion they know is right.

When you reach a conclusion, stand by it strongly.

There is a time for thought but once a decision is made nothing else matters than harboring the strength to uphold that decision and proceed down your charted path.

Your model has no room for truth, just relative strengths backing up ideas.

I say that intelligence is greater than strength because it is by intelligence and not strength that we arrive at truth.

The intelligent one may originally believe a falsehood, but he/she will doubt it and arrive at the truth. The intelligent one may doubt the truth, but then he/she may re-doubt and arrive back at truth. Strength, however, does not have this ability. If your convictions are false and you 're too "strong" to doubt, you will always believe the falsehood.

 

[peter22]

"In the 11th Chapter of the Hagakure Yamamoto uses a large series of quotations from various Samurai that dismiss military tactics and regard thinking about battles, thinking about paths as entirely counterproductive. In fact, they argue that it even brings cowardice! "

There are plenty of examples of clever and cunning samurai (such as Tokugawa Ieiyasu, the 'old fox') whose skills in deception and subterfuge helped them win the day. Hagakure was written during the Edo period, I think, which means that it was largely a peaceful period, so samurai could afford to be blase about tactics.
Anyone who acted without thinking was regarded as a fool. Don't confuse decisiveness with rashness.

 

[Verv]

I have thought about this and my opening statements were done more to sound too fancy and were not really well thought out as they should be. After these posts I have refined my position a lot more and I would like to come out with a new post sometime in the next few weeks outlining the idea.

I used improper terminology and the right ideas are present, but there are a lot of wrong ideas (and a lot of awkward, incorrect wording) thrown in with it.

I'd like to thank everyone for helping me refine my ideas on the topic -- expect a drastically different post but with the same spirit later.

 

[elcapitan]

I'd like to thank everyone for helping me refine my ideas on the topic -- expect a drastically different post but with the same spirit later.

I'll be looking forward to it.

 

[dlamberth]

I think true strength is born on the back of intelligence. A person can be physically strong, but because he's lacking in intelligence, in character, wisdom and in leadership that person will be week.

.

 

[Norseman]

What good is there in the "what [I think] is right is right." attitude if you're wrong? Then you've just wasted your time and efforts on something which is wrong. Fascists, Stalinists, Maoists, conquistadors, Nazis, crusaders, and jihadists, have/had a lot of your "strength", but it didn't much help them. No amount of "strength" (conviction, whatever you want to call it) can make up for being wrong, because your "strength" is all being used in the wrong direction. Blindingly profuse arrogance and nationalism did nothing to help Nazi Germany, indeed, it made problems much, much worse.

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

but what of moral and spiritual strength?

Spiritual strength, how does that work? Can spiritual strength be measured? How can one individual be spiritually stronger than another?

One cannot be morally strong either, one can be consistent in ones actions, and act the way one believes but that is strong will. Morality is an idea. and how one can be strong in an idea, other than to know it, to blindly believe it I do not know. But that then is not strength in the sense that it is put forward in the OP.