![The Beginning and End of Philosophy - [The Existential Comics]](https://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/TheBeginningandEndofPhilosophy.png){kind=link}
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/27000971
Source: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/593
Alt-Text:
The problem with believing society always progresses is that you must also believe that reason always wins the power struggle, which I’m too sure is true these days.
Nah… not really. I’m sure there were plenty of ancient leaders / policies just as stupid (if not more) than many current ones.
Also, a leader being stupid might actually be better than a smart one that is a sadist and has all the power that leaders used to have in ancient times (Roman emperor Caligula, for example, is famous for being crazy cruel… or people like Ivan the Terrible).
Also some were outright mentally sick, probably helped by the inbreeding that usually took place amongst royals.
Yes but that’s just it. The concept of accumulated knowledge transforming humanity is full of myths and fallacies.
Language fails. Why, and by whom, would this leader be considered stupid or smart at all? What is the difference? Why refer to intelligence?
It is only deployed to support the reasoning that stupidity is not (essentially) meaningfully accumulated. But yet, imperial positions are the result of accumulated wealth and power, which are very stupid things to do even according to ancient epistemologies. The teleogy of accumulated knowledge is a fallacy and with observation it is clear that what is considered wise or foolish is determined by the same processes that accumulate wealth and power. With that foundation, the philosopher may only reason from their prison cell, forced to imagine futures for accumulated power and to wage a spiritual war against the ancients that successfully prevented such accumulation and were not compelled to rationize accumulation of knowledge as our salvation.