Strength Superior To Intelligence

[elcapitan]

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.

.

I think he was talking about mental/spiritual strength.

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.

Exactly! That is, more or less, what I've been arguing.

 

[Verv]

One small thing to point out without restarting it without being more clear about my views...

I think that the issue of what is so good about this strength is that if you combine a good mine without drive and dedication it becomes useless; in the grand scheme of things, strength alone is more respectable than intelligence.

Intelligence and strength by themselves are fundamentally amoral.

 

[quatona]

One small thing to point out without restarting it without being more clear about my views...

I think that the issue of what is so good about this strength is that if you combine a good mine without drive and dedication it becomes useless; in the grand scheme of things, strength alone is more respectable than intelligence.

In order for this statement to have any nutritional value you would have to tell us what you think this grand scheme of things is and what - in regards to this great scheme of things - is defined as useful or useless.
If you combine a bad mind with strength and dedication the result will be much worse than if you combine a good mind with lack of drive and dedication. In the latter case the good mind will be ineffective (basically: no result), whilst in the first the negative goal will be reached due to the dedication and drive of the person.

While I tend to agree that without drive and dedication you don´t get anything done, the last part of your sentence does not at all follow from the first.

Intelligence and strength by themselves are fundamentally amoral.

Sure.

 

[Verv]

The grand scheme of things here I guess is a mere weighing of what is more valuable to a person and what should be emphasized when trying to mold one's character.

 

[quatona]

The grand scheme of things here I guess is a mere weighing of what is more valuable to a person and what should be emphasized when trying to mold one's character.

Well, this appears to be circular. If combining your last two posts I get: "Strength is more valuable in the grand theme of things because in the grand scheme of thing strength is more valuable."

So, if you happen to have a bad character (whatever that may be), how does drive/dedication/strength (which, as you say, are amoral) help you with molding your character to the better? I think that what you use your drive/dedication/strength for is determined by intelligent analysis, and therefore in lack of intelligence your drive/dedication/strength is likely to cause much damage.

 

[Museveni]

Brain beats brawn as the old saying goes. Not even all the physical strength in the world is gonna same Mr.Muscle when Mr.Brain makes an Assault Rifle and shoots Mr.Muscle in the head from 200yards away.


When it comes to so-called "Spiritual Strength" that its usualy tied in heavily with intelligence. People who lack intelligence("stupid" people) usualy also lack strength of charachter(Missguided tenacity and stubborness is not to be mistaken for strength).

When it comes to real-life then one needs abit of both. Strength to be able to do things but also the intelligence to make sure that what you do is productive and effective. In modern society Intelligence usualy outlasts brute strength though.

Are ofcourse examples for both cases in History. Going back to something as common as WW2 you got cases like Schindler and Wallenberg. Both outsmarted the brute force and tenacity of the nazis but w/o the force of the Allies no one knows how long they could have keepen it up. But then again what if the Allied commanders had lacked intelligence and made poor strategic choices? Or of the Nazi commanders had put Tactics(Intelligence) ahead of brute force and fear tactics?

 

[Museveni]

.

 

[elcapitan]

I think that the issue of what is so good about this strength is that if you combine a good mine without drive and dedication it becomes useless; in the grand scheme of things, strength alone is more respectable than intelligence.

I'm not buying this. Useless intelligence is still better than strength put in the wrong direction.

Once again, fascists, Stalinists, Maoists, inquisitors, witch burners, racists and jihadists all had great strength, but not the intelligence to direct it correctly.

If strength alone is more respectable than intelligence, does this mean that racists, jihadists, etc, are more respectable than someone who has the intelligence to determine what is right but doesn't have the strength to do anything about it?

 

[nadroj1985]

Do I envy the idiot who thinks that all of life's decisions are simple? -- Yes, on some levels I suppose I do.

Would I (could I?) trade places with him? -- Never.

Besides, this viewpoint rests on something silly and incoherent to me -- namely, that there is always a "sensible conclusion we know is right" (to quote the OP). The intelligent man often realizes that that knowledge is rare. Is that a torment? Yes. But I don't think that means that we get scared and run away from it, and hide behind a facade of feigned moral certainty.

Also, the intelligence/strength dichotomy you've got going is false. Ideas can have great power, too, and sometimes one must be very intelligent to be strong. All of life is not a fistfight, and even in a fistfight you need to know a few things.

 

[Tenka]

A strong man will fall to weak men in superior numbers but an intelligent man can out-think countless others. A strong man has only 1 recourse but an intelligent man has as many as he can think of.

 

[dlamberth]

I think he was talking about mental/spiritual strength.

It works the same way.
.

 

[MorkandMindy]

... In my book: The fact that physical strength beats intelligent arguments is one of the most regrettable things...

Interesting point quatona

Lying can get more support from followers than telling the truth. Support from many followers is strength. Strength beats honesty.

A bit of exaggeration at the very least is needed to galvanise support, but what I see around me is more than this, people pretending to like you while they trick you.

I see people out to get me smiling at me and telling me how much they appreciate what I do, for no other reason than to get information to blast me with. The amount of deceit is amazing.

I'm left wondering if truth is actually a relic of the past. When people lived their lives in one small community their lies would soon be found out.

But in our modern asset stripping businesses lying to trick others can gain a promotion to another department in 6 months, about the time others in the department work out what is going on, then promotion right out of the company and into another.

 

[Norseman]

You know, I think I can sum up this argument in three words: Ignorance is strength.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

You know, I think I can sum up this argument in three words: Ignorance is strength.

yeah, and I can say that your summary can go to hell.

no offense

 

[Norseman]

yeah, and I can say that your summary can go to hell.

no offense

I'm assuming you haven't read 1984?

 

[ArchaicTruth]

your assumption is correct, though whatever the advantages of ignorance, ignorant people still annoy my guts to mush

 

[Norseman]

your assumption is correct, though whatever the advantages of ignorance, ignorant people still annoy my guts to mush

Ok, here's the text if you want to read it online. I recommend you do read it, because you're missing out on a lot of cultural references without having done so. Thought Police, thoughtcrime, doublethink, Big Brother, Ignorance is strength, and Victory gin, all came from the dystopia described in 1984. It draws heavily on Orwell's observations of Stalinism.

In Spain, 1936, the Spanish fascist Francisco Franco, aided by Spanish monarchists and the Catholic church, attempted to overthrow the Spanish Republic. The coup didn't go as planned, and the government retained control in some areas. In other places, Spanish anarchists and Marxists formed into militias to fight off the fascists and collectivize. Catalonia was one of the territories held by anarchists and Marxists, and Orwell went there to join them in the fight against fascism.

During this time, a Popular Front was created; Stalinists, Marxists, anarchists, and the Republic all joined together against Francisco Franco. There were problems though, because the Stalinists were being sent weapons from the USSR, on the condition that they prevented the anarchist revolution until the war was over. When Orwell returned to Barcelona from his first tour of duty, he found that the Stalinists had managed to get rid of nearly all the collectivization of the anarchists. There was a riot when the Civil Guard, controlled by the Stalinists, attempted to take a telephone company controlled by the anarchists. The situation was getting pretty bad by then. The news was slandering the Marxists left and right, blaming them for the riot, and Orwell provides a strong criticism of this in Homage to Catalonia.

Orwell went for a second tour of duty, with the Marxist POUM faction again, but it was cut short when a sniper shot him through the neck. After he left the hospital, he found the Civil Guard was rounding up anarchists and POUM members, imprisoning them without charging with crimes or giving them trials. Some of them were certainly getting executed. Many of his close friends were captured by the Civil Guard. He managed to evade the Civil Guard and escape to England.

1984 was based heavily upon what he had experienced in Spain, what was going on the USSR, and Germany. Orwell published 1984 in 1949, and the things he observed then are still alive today. The "Ignorance is strength" bit is particularly relevant to our discussion here, where lack of thinking is being described as a virtue. It was the same with the Stalinists. You know, "Don't overthink things, just do what you're told, fight the hated 'enemy'" (and, of course, the state decides who the enemy is and when you should hate them). This was the same thing in fascism. It's why I brought up the examples I did in my first reply to this thread. People are told that it's good to believe in a certain ideology, you know, it's good to be a Christian, or it's good to be a capitalist or whatever else. That is the essence of "ignorance is strength". It should be good to accept reality, whatever it may be, whatever ideologies it may conflict with. When you need to control people, you need them to accept your ideology and imagine themselves better off for having done so (for having rejected reality). That was the danger of Stalinism, and despite 1984, the "ignorance is strength" mindset is still alive and kicking.

 

[NavyGuy7]

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.

Well, it seems you've hit upon a truth and a lie in this statement. Physical strength does not necessarily destroy one who confronts it. If I'm smart enough to bring a pistol, or let's say I can use a sling and a rock, I can destroy that which is stronger than me assuming my accuracy is dead on. Also, we can say that one does not need to be stronger physically to destroy an opponent. Intelligence of the joints can be used along with ninjitsu to destroy the joints and tendons and render an opponent helpless and/or disabled. Plus, with the right martial art, anyone can defeat someone who has no style, if they're smart about it.

As far as moral strength goes.... if it is a true moral, and the person has a strong sense to endure against criticism of his belief in this moral, then he can overcome that which might try to destroy him morally. That is a truth, I believe.

It's all in the circumstances, if you think about it.

Also, sure, if I'm actually getting beaten up and losing cuz someone is stronger than me, that doesn't mean i can't argue. it may mean I can't win, but it doesn't mean I can't argue. I'll keep fighting until I'm rendered dead or unconscious. Or even victorious; I might get that lucky knockout punch in there, giving me the chance to get away! You never know if you don't try

 

[variant]

Strength has nothing on intelligence.

 

[NavyGuy7]

And yet, because we're so smart, we can sometimes be stupid. Thus that picture you have there.

We tend to take new discoveries and make them into weapons, even if that weapon now become a problem. N. Korea, anyone? Or even Iran, for that matter?

But strength can sometimes beat intelligence. You can't say one is better than the other for EVERY circumstance. Rather, I believe strength to be the balance to intelligence. If you have both, then wow, you're pretty strong, and not just physically. But morally and intelligently too.