Ideas Are In Degrees

one man, in all his brilliance, often reaches the limits of what he can make out by intellect.

As for me, I never have time to spend on these things, and there’s a good reason for this, my friend: I am still incapable of obeying the Delphic inscription and knowing myself.  It strikes me as absurd to look into matters that have nothing to do with me as long as I’m still ignorant in this respect, so I ignore all these matters and go along with the traditional views about them. As I said just now, I investigate myself rather than these things, to see whether I am in fact a creature of more complexity and savagery than Typhon, or something tamer and more simple, with a naturally divine and non-Typhonic nature.

Socrates, in Phaedrus

The human intellect, at work in each man, is not infinite. It has limits. This limitation manifests–when reached—as a type of exhaustion. So, let’s stop acting like it is infinite. 

Maybe as a collective, we can pool our minds together and do wonders as we have done so far. But one man, in all his brilliance, often reaches the limits of what he can make out by intellect. That is why the attempt to intellectualize the world as separate from experiencing it is a dangerous affair. It also explains why the outward shining of intellectual light without doing an in-house inspection (self-reflection) is dangerous to the person doing the shining.

It is a profound thing in Phaedrus that Socrates of all men acknowledged his dogmas and limitations – those matters that have nothing to do with him – just so that he could do the right thing about matters that matter to him; namely the study of his own thought and character. Or as we call it now, introspection.

It is wise to categorise matters, or ideas more sharply than you will categorise people. By carving up ideas into what matters and what matters less, Socrates knew when to advance on his dogmas; that is “go along with the traditional views about them,” and when to look at himself with fiery intent.

What is lacking in the world is that many of us have collapsed categories so easily into each other that we do not know when to adhere to dogma and when reflection is important. A big mistake; and for corollary, this makes demarcations like Popper’s falsification theory a potent tool.

This will always remain true: we will invite many sorrows to ourselves by abandoning reflection and character development in favour of changing the world. Especially if you view this direction–of placing emphasis on macro changes rather than micro changes–to be more potent. By abandoning character development as a means of changing the world for more grandiose methods, we complicate existence. The more potent means to change the world will always come from the drive of every infinitesimal man rather than transformational razors.

To be clear, I don’t hold that society does not influence outcomes in our lives; my argument, however, is that we do not (1) sufficiently account to what degree ‘society’ influences our lives’ outcomes; (2) that everyone who points a finger at ‘society’ does not think themself as part of it but outside, different, and sometimes above it; (3) that does who see themselves as victims of society see no need to watch nor change themselves as they are not part of society.

So, what we have is a problem of absolute ideas and a lack of introspection.

When next you want to ask about influences or think about powerful ideas, it pays to measure the degree of that influence and limitations of your ideas rather than give it an absolute value. And as well, it pays to pay attention to the part you play in the entire script – much of which we play unconsciously and ascribe causality to something independent of it.

Until next time, have a great week.