FOLLY IS WORSE THAN TYRANNY
We might get a chance to test out this ancient adage if Trump gets back into office.
Fools
Scouring the internet on items on fools yielded the below. Excerpts from three sources. Dietrich Bonhoeffer quotes the quote from Allah nearly word for word. Note the five primary components of foolishness, which are unrealistic optimism, egocentrism, omniscience, omnipotence, and invulnerability. Do these five words remind you of someone?
‘Of Folly’ by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-45)
Posted on March 2, 2014 by creativeconflictwisdom
Thanks to my friend John F for this excellent piece from Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
Folly is a more dangerous enemy to the good than evil. You can protest against evil, you can unmask it or prevent it by force. Evil always contains the seeds of its own destruction, for it always makes men uncomfortable, if nothing worse. There is no defense against folly. Neither protests nor force are of any avail against it, and it is never amenable to reason. If facts contradict personal prejudices, there is no need to believe them, and if they are undeniable, they can simply be pushed aside as exceptions. Thus the fool, as compared with the scoundrel, is invariably self-complacent. And he can easily become dangerous, for it does not take much to make him aggressive. Hence folly requires much more cautious handling than evil. We shall never again try to reason with the fool, for it is both useless and dangerous.
To deal adequately with folly it is essential to recognize it for what it is. This much is certain, it is a moral rather than an intellectual defect. There are men of great intellect who are fools, and men of low intellect who are anything but fools, a discovery we make to our surprise as a result of particular circumstances. The impression we derive is that folly is acquired rather than congenital; it is acquired in certain circumstances where men make fools of themselves or allow others to make fools of them. We observe further that folly is less common in the unsociable or the solitary than in individuals or groups who are inclined or condemned to sociability. From this it would appear that folly is a sociological problem rather than one of psychology. It is a special form of the operation of historical circumstances upon men, a psychological by-product of definite external factors.
On closer inspection it would seem that any violent revolution, whether political or religious, produces an outburst of folly in a large part of mankind. Indeed, it would seem to be almost a law of psychology and sociology. The power of one needs the folly of the other. It is not that certain aptitudes of men, intellectual aptitudes for instance, become stunted or destroyed. Rather, the upsurge of power is so terrific that it deprives men of an independent judgement, and they give up trying–more or less unconsciously–to assess the new state of affairs for themselves. The fool can often be stubborn, but this must not mislead us into thinking he is independent. One feels somehow, especially in conversation with him, that it is impossible to talk to the man himself, to talk to him personally. Instead, one is confronted with a series of slogans, watchwords, and the like, which have acquired power over him. He is under a curse, he is blinded, his very humanity is being prostituted and exploited. Once he has surrendered his will and become a mere tool, there are no lengths of evil to which the fool will not go, yet all the time he is unable to see that it is evil. Here lies the danger of a diabolical exploitation of humanity, which can do irreparable damage to the human character.
But it is just at this point that we realize that the fool cannot be saved by education. What he needs is redemption. There is nothing else for it. Until then it is no earthly good trying to convince him by rational argument. In this state of affairs we can well understand why it is no use trying to find out what ‘the people’ really think, and why this question is also so superfluous for the man who thinks and acts responsibly. As the Bible says, ‘the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’. In other words, the only cure for folly is spiritual redemption, for that alone can enable a man to live as a responsible person in the sight of God. But there is a grain of consolation in these reflections on human folly. There is no reason for us to think that the majority of men are fools under all circumstances. What matters in the long run is whether our rulers hope to gain more from the folly of men, or from their independence of judgement and their shrewdness of mind.
Clearly the Nazis didn’t like his thought as he was one of the last people they murdered just before their collapse.
Foolishness: Psychological Perspective Essay
Foolishness is often defined as a notion opposing to wisdom. For instance, Sternberg states that it is “extreme failure of wisdom” (as cited in Izak, 2013). The author defines five primary components of foolishness, which are unrealistic optimism, egocentrism, omniscience, omnipotence, and invulnerability, which are similar to the characteristics identified by Aczel et al. (2015) and discussed above.
Therefore, according to this author’s perspective a foolish person typically believes in his or her capabilities in regards to their knowledge and skills, they focus primarily on themselves and their needs, and they think they can accomplish anything without viewing events realistically. Additionally, Solansky (2013) argues that, for many people, the fear of being perceived as foolish serves as a motivator to become better at something. However, egocentrism, which is discussed in this paper, can impair one’s ability to understand personal qualities, thus, not letting one to improve cognitive skills.
Foolishness, Egocentrism, and Wisdom
Many researchers define foolishness as something connected to wisdom, which is referred to as the imbalance theory. Sternberg (2018) states that, in this regard, it is crucial to distinguish between intelligence and sense, because, in most cases, people refer to foolish actions as such when comparing them to acts of wise individuals. This implies a need to possess tacit knowledge that was obtained by a person without additional help from educational facilities or other people.
In order to understand foolishness and its meaning from a psychological perspective, it is necessary to define wisdom because it serves as a guideline for scientists researching the question. As was previously mentioned, many researchers focus on intelligence and define foolishness as a notion opposed to it. Additionally, foolishness as a concept is the opposite of self-awareness because, in most cases, people who display such behavior are unable to analyze their actions and evaluate them properly and critically. Thus, in general, learning practices aimed at minimizing egocentrism should focus on developing wisdom and the ability to reflect on one’s life and analyze events.
In this regard, self-centered people fail to recognize the point of view that a different individual may have. Ardelt et al. (2013) argue that the reduction of egocentrism would increase the wisdom of an individual. Humility exists as a contrast to this, which is usually acquired through the suffering and exploration of human emotions. The authors argue that their research suggests that the acquisition of wisdom is only possible if a person can distance him- or herself from the personal ego.
However, people who are not egocentric can judge the above assertion more clearly. Therefore, they can make better decisions based on facts. This enables their success when compared to egocentric people. When studying the perception of others in regards to foolish and wise individuals, Ardelt et al. (2013) found that people tend to think that those who focus on others and do not merely pursue personal interests are wiser.
Therefore, evidence suggests that egocentrism limits individuals and results in an adverse attitude from peers. Additionally, egocentrism impedes one from seeing barriers, thus, eliminating the possibility to find strategies for overcoming them. Ardelt et al. (2013) argue that wise individuals face “social, physical, and mental losses, with equanimity and acceptance rather than despair” (p. 276). These events help them mitigate the adverse effects of egocentrism.
However, some studies highlight a need to properly examine self-centeredness, implying that it does not always lead to negative outcomes. According to Dambrun (2017), egocentrism may affect other components of an individual’s life, such as happiness. In his study, the author tested the hypothesis that self-centeredness can have positive effects on a person’s mental well-being because it has an impact on fluctuating happiness.
Therefore, from Dambrun’s (2017) perspective, egocentrism is not a notion opposite to selflessness, but rather a distinct phenomenon. This implies that the characteristics of this notion discussed above and its connection to foolishness is not always correct, as in some cases egocentrism may have positive outcomes. In general, Dambrun’s (2017) research provides an understanding that both self-centeredness and altruism are necessary for the proper functioning of an individual and egocentrism does not always lead to foolishness.
Another perspective on egocentrism is offered by Hall (2010), who states that contrary to general beliefs, egocentric people are not good leaders. The author examines the issue from the viewpoint of a business organization, indicating that humility helps an individual’s prioritize the success of an organization over their achievements. In addition, such people are able to accept their failures and share gratitude to those who work hard. This corresponds with the definition of wisdom discussed earlier in this paper, according to which a wise person should be both self-aware and have an understanding of other people’s feelings.
Conclusion
Overall, egocentrism is a distinct dimension of foolishness that hinders individuals from making proper judgments about occurrences and other people. This concept impairs an individual’s ability to make explicit judgments about events and reality, which enables foolishness and obstructs wisdom. In addition, it affects the perception of others because self-centered individuals are more likely to be considered foolish. While some researchers suggest that egocentrism can have a positive effect on one’s happiness, in general, it significantly affects a person’s life and does not help in cases where leadership is required.
The fool is one of the most relatable, intriguing and recurring figures in the world. There have been fools who have caused surprise and laughter since time immemorial. We worship folly by seeing it in people and in the world and by willingly displaying it in ourselves. It is one of the timeless archetypes, which we all inherit at birth.
The derivation of the word “fool” is the Latin “follis”, meaning a pair of bellows expelling empty air; extended to people, it implies an empty-headed person, with insubstantial thoughts. At the same time, bellows furnish the oxygen needed for combustion in much the same way that the fool “fires us up”.
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. When there’s an uncomfortable truth that needs to be spoken, and those in power are afraid to speak about it, it is usually the fool who steps in. There is something heroic about this. It is the fool who speaks a truth nobody else dares to utter, and this brings instant relief, because people know it has to be said.
Generally speaking, we can distinguish between two types of fools: the natural fool, who lacks social awareness and occasionally utters the truth being unaware of social conventions, and the professional fool, whose job it is to make harsh truths more palatable by disguising them with humour and wit. One follows his heart, the other his mind. The greatest fools are often times cleverer than the people who laugh at them.
According to the references above foolishness is often paired with self-centeredness. Now in the case of a narcissistic personality order, one could perhaps predict a large amount of foolishness in proportion to self-absorbtion. It goes without saying that those who lack self-awareness certainly might be prone toward foolish acts as the self-correction of altering behavior from feedback from others might not be in play. It seems inevitable that we witness fools now in many of our leaders. Some of their foolishness may indeed pass as entertainment by a proportion of the population and may be rewarded in a word of social media for such acts. If indeed fools are more dangerous than tyrants seems an open question now in my mind. What do you say? Do you hope we will never find out like I do?
160th Posting, February 1, 2024.