Schopenhauer: Why Society Hates Intelligence | Counsels & Maxims 34 

Hello professor, thank you for your recitation of Section24 of Schopenhauer's councils and maxims. Plesant to the ears! I literally can't get enough of schopenhauer's perspectives and attitudes! 😂😂👌

"Deep-thinking people feel like comedians in their dealings with others, because they always have to feign a surface in order to be understood." -Friedrich Nietzsche

I'm glad the algorithm brings me to this channel

Exactly. From experience, I will only add that the way I see the emotional response is 3 steps that cavalcade within a fraction of a second. Admiration becomes Envy becomes Hatred. Boom! I've seen it over and over. Smart, pretty, and/or thoughtful intuitive people often become scapegoats in a "competitive" family. I grew up in a large one where Maxim 34 was the rule. Too pretty, too smart, and (gasp) both generous and kind. Most of life, I didn't understand the constant abuse, shunning, and shaming. I learned to "fit in" by joining the group in making fun of how weird or "stupid" I was. But I never fit in, of course, and the abuse only grew with age. Happily recovering what is left of my shredded psyche, I will say the only thing we can change is ourselves! Solitude, books, and videos like yours, Christopher, are company enough! Thank you.

Certainly Socrates was very much despised philosopher by the citizenry of Athens. He interrogated random people on the street making them feel stupid.

...and this is why I LOVE philosophy! THANK YOU!🙏

Thanks for your channel! The kind of content I needed, no click bait, no words from sponsors or such. Great job!

Society does dislike intelligence. Take it from me.

Hi proffessor, I am not a philosophy student but your lectures are great.

Oh good, I don't have to worry about this.

I love this!!!! THANK YOU for uploading this. I like literally just bought the book. I cannot wait for it to get here.

Being an intelligent extrovert (not an intellectual) must really be a drag....completely agree with Schopenhauer! An intelligent person would never stoop to the level of these social 'animals,' while the less-intelligent would never rise to the level of the intelligent, due to their subconscious envy and inferiority complex.

The Hive Mind doesn't like disruption!

Thanks

The degree of fairness is the determinant of actual superiority.

People who present themselves as intellectually superior are , of course, snubbed by all,. including those who are intellectually superior. - Mr. Know-it-all

glad to stumble upon your channel for some social analysis. I think it also depends on where along the social hierarchy that intelligence is coming from. anyway, intelligence without wisdom or conscience creates the most dangerous type. this Rawls is making a massive assumption and ignoring the possibility of reincarnation (obviously), that gifts reflect a soul's experience and not any kind of superiority. a middle school child doesn't hate a high school child for being more capable, or taller, they just accept that it is. It's guys like that who would like to lay claim to one's intelligence and wisdom, wisdom gained usually through an uncommonly difficult path, well it seems all intelligence bears it's burden. it's unfortunate this is the state of man, it should be obvious to anyone not completely blind that what they're settling for is, instead of developing their own abilities, doing honest work, they're settling to be more be destroying anyone superior they're able to. see, I believe in reincarnation, that very behavior reveals how much further, how much more suffering is ahead of them. the more enlightened and self aware one is, the less prone they would be to this mindset. forgive them father, they know not what they do.

They wrongly assume that the interlocutor is as unfair as they are. Sometimes it is the more intelligent person that is the one that's unfair.

Because reality and rational thinking sucks

This is pretty visible when you avoid talking about certain subjects with people who are threatened by differences in opinion. It’s easier to conceal big differences in worldview than it is to make light of them. There is little benefit in being completely honest about your views, especially religious views, with people who you want to be on good terms with.

The class of educated people have tended to always be the minority in every society throughout history. There's multiple levels as to why a conflict between the educated and non-educated may occur, and even upon a spectrum of GED and High school diploma to BA to MA to Doctorate levels. There can also be an egotism born out of the hardwork one put's into education. This is the separation between intellect and education. You can have a highly educated individual who's intellect is not as sharp, even if they are well read among the literature. They may be good bringers of knowledge, but not application and adaptation. Therefore, we find this battle of education and intellect having a lot less clarity in terms of who is who. You cannot always assume the intellect of your counterpart, it would be un-intellectual to do so. That may beg the question, how does this type of conscientiousness related to intelligence, and one's ability to relate with others despite a difference in intellect? Does the intellectual in this regard naturally harbor hatred from society? I might beg to differ, based on how we determine the factors of intellect among humans. Superiority based on intellect is not necessarily as apparent today as it may have once been.

Thank you ill continue to hide

While I get where he is coming from, Schopenhauer sounds like a insufferable person to be around from the information in this read. It's perfectly possible for a person to come across amiable and intelligent, he just put so much value in intelligence that he himself judged people by them, and became unlikeable. I went to a selective highschool where a very sizeable portion of the student body went to ivys, and more than half of the student body I would consider to be "smarter" than myself, but plenty of those kids were friendly and socialble. In fact, I've found them to be more likeable since they knew how to appeal to people. It's only the people that were sticks in the mud about their supposed intellectual supiority that were disliked. On the other hand, there were plenty of dumb people I disliked throughout my life, even more so than smart people I've met

Nonsense. In general, people are offended by arrogance and condescension not intelligence, especially when the arrogance and condescension are clothed in aloofness or affected sincerity. People respond to kindness and empathy regardless of intelligence. I think, as an adult, Schopenhauer justified his unwavering fear of commitment and intellectual arrogance by concluding that society just couldn't appreciate his superior intellect.

Clarifying Schopenhauer's understanding of intelligence would refute his opinion, being a Western concept and not tangibly applicable to many other parts of the world. Beautiful women do not necessarily have less friends. In fact, they could attract more because of their reflective qualities

That's exactly why they crucified Jesus.

I love Schopenhauer but he was misogynist. He must not have grown up around many females. Like when I grew up, good looking girls were always popular unless they were stuck up. The stuck up ones had to come from a wealthy family and 'their' kind stuck together for friendship. A lot of his thoughts probably came from the time he was in where women were far less educated. Still, many authors from his time saw more value in women than he did. I like his thoughts on spirituality. I am not fond of Western religions.

Not my experience. On the contrary, stupid people tend to be most insufferable. I’ve crossed paths with plenty of brilliant people and they tend to be quite likable and undemonstrative of their intellect. As well times have changed; the difference in intelligence between people is perhaps less apparent today, with the spread of education. My feeling is that Schopenhauer is just talking about himself. We’re not dealing here with axiomatic truths.