• CountryBreakfast@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Yes but that’s just it. The concept of accumulated knowledge transforming humanity is full of myths and fallacies.

    a leader being stupid might actually be better than a smart one that is a sadist

    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.