Bonhoeffer on Stupidity(southsidemessenger.com)
southsidemessenger.com
Bonhoeffer on Stupidity
http://southsidemessenger.com/bonhoeffer-on-stupidity-entire-quote/
137 comments
> "The responsible life before God" -- I don't think any modern person is capable of understanding what that meant in the 1940s. We just don't think that way anymore.
I would suggest that perhaps you are limiting your scope of possible "we" (21st century human) thought states. The passage seems to me perfectly clear. For reference, the full quote is:
> "The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity."
He's discussing one way out of the trap of conforming to group/tribal beliefs. If you put your fear of God (in other words, some power higher than, and distinctly external to, any social group) you begin to liberate yourself from caring too much about what other people think.
If you believe that God demands that you act as morally (for some definition/code) and as responsibly as possible, and you place that demand/requirement higher than any other motivating feeling, you will ask about any belief or course of action "Is this Right?" (ie. Does this align with God's command), and consider that question more deeply than the creeds or slogans of your fellow mortals.
Note that he's not saying that the above state of mind is easy, it's merely something just strive for. Many devout religious people still try to the best of their ability to work towards that exact state.
I would suggest that perhaps you are limiting your scope of possible "we" (21st century human) thought states. The passage seems to me perfectly clear. For reference, the full quote is:
> "The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity."
He's discussing one way out of the trap of conforming to group/tribal beliefs. If you put your fear of God (in other words, some power higher than, and distinctly external to, any social group) you begin to liberate yourself from caring too much about what other people think.
If you believe that God demands that you act as morally (for some definition/code) and as responsibly as possible, and you place that demand/requirement higher than any other motivating feeling, you will ask about any belief or course of action "Is this Right?" (ie. Does this align with God's command), and consider that question more deeply than the creeds or slogans of your fellow mortals.
Note that he's not saying that the above state of mind is easy, it's merely something just strive for. Many devout religious people still try to the best of their ability to work towards that exact state.
> He's discussing one way out of the trap of conforming to group/tribal beliefs. If you put your fear of God (in other words, some power higher than, and distinctly external to, any social group) you begin to liberate yourself from caring too much about what other people think.
This is well said. I believe it was the theologian Stanley Hauerwas who said in the 70s that the decline of religion in America would inevitably lead to the rise of political tribalism - seems prescient.
"There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship [...] is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It's the truth. Worship your own body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly, and when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally plant you. On one level, we all know this stuff already - it's been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, bromides, epigrams, parables: the skeleton of every great story. The trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness." David Foster Wallace
This is well said. I believe it was the theologian Stanley Hauerwas who said in the 70s that the decline of religion in America would inevitably lead to the rise of political tribalism - seems prescient.
"There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship [...] is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It's the truth. Worship your own body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly, and when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally plant you. On one level, we all know this stuff already - it's been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, bromides, epigrams, parables: the skeleton of every great story. The trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness." David Foster Wallace
I am pretty sure I don’t warship anything. Not even logical thinking or reasoning. Nothing is perfect. Everything is flawed or limited in applicability. No human is either 100% good or evil. Everything depends on context. So what is there to worship?
> Nothing is perfect
If logical thinking is, as you say, imperfect, is it possible that your own conclusion that no perfect things exist is itself an imperfect conclusion? If you use this word perfect, you at least have the Idea of Perfect, even if no perfect things exist. This kind of funny talk I'm using about Ideas of perfect things goes back 2400 years to Plato and his Theory of Forms[1]. According to the philosopher-logician A. N. Whitehead:
If logical thinking is, as you say, imperfect, is it possible that your own conclusion that no perfect things exist is itself an imperfect conclusion? If you use this word perfect, you at least have the Idea of Perfect, even if no perfect things exist. This kind of funny talk I'm using about Ideas of perfect things goes back 2400 years to Plato and his Theory of Forms[1]. According to the philosopher-logician A. N. Whitehead:
The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition
is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.
Yep it is fun to think about. Especially when you realise that information is not abstract but physics. I recommend reading the “Constructor Theory of Information” if you haven’t already. It is free online.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer (as I understand him) would undoubtedly say that Jesus Christ is both perfect God and perfect Man, and therefore Jesus Christ is what there is to worship.
Based upon my understanding of him, his allegiance to Jesus Christ is what motivated his actions that resulted in his death at the hands of the Nazis.
edit: typo
Based upon my understanding of him, his allegiance to Jesus Christ is what motivated his actions that resulted in his death at the hands of the Nazis.
edit: typo
My argument was that I (for one) doesn’t worship Jesus Christ, the Buddha, Ra the sun god, humans, myself or anything else. So the argument that we all worship something is false. Dietrich might have been worshipping a god or humans but that is besides the point.
The term "worship" isn't limited to the worship of any deity alone - as the quote itself indicates. It includes worship of things such as beauty, youthfulness, fame, wealth... or whatever that consumes your thinking
Agree. And I don’t worship any of those. Which was my original point.
Fair enough.
I could not find that particular statement by Hauerwas, but it seems to be a (valid, IMO) narrow interpretation of his perspective in this paper[1]. Do you have an exact citation?
Prescient indeed, and to me, disturbing.
[1]: https://stanleyhauerwas.org/the-importance-of-being-catholic...
edit: typo
Prescient indeed, and to me, disturbing.
[1]: https://stanleyhauerwas.org/the-importance-of-being-catholic...
edit: typo
Sorry, not Hauerwas, Lesslie Newbign, probably in his Foolishness of the Greeks from '86, but I suspect he wrote earlier on the topic as well. See: https://www.pastortheologians.com/articles/2020/10/28/politi...
Thanks, never heard of Stanley Hauerwas.
Of course, I wouldn't take David Foster Wallace (or anyone who killed himself, actually) as an authority on anything.
Of course, I wouldn't take David Foster Wallace (or anyone who killed himself, actually) as an authority on anything.
I don't know how much some god is going to help. Isn't your belief of what your god wants you to do, or at the very least lets you get away with, shaped by your group? If you're already caught in group dynamics, then your god's authority will probably act through the group. People seem to use their gods to reinforce what they already want to think or do.
Well said.
Personally I imperfectly strive to think this way, and I imagine at least hundreds of millions of others do as well.
Personally I imperfectly strive to think this way, and I imagine at least hundreds of millions of others do as well.
Well said.
Of course, he was a minister, so he'd spent his life thinking about that.
Of course, he was a minister, so he'd spent his life thinking about that.
And as a theologian whose work included a book on Christian ethics, and The Cost of Discipleship.
It's really too bad he didn't survive the war and help us with the understanding of it all. There's never enough of that.
First thing I thought when reading your comment was Men in Black
Kay : A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.
Kay : A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.
"Most of them are just trying to make a living..."
https://youtu.be/w2ppyMUlXfM
https://youtu.be/w2ppyMUlXfM
What you write is perfectly true, but both tribes read that and think “Yes, that’s how it is for people in the other tribe. We in this tribe, of course, are much better than that.”.
"We note further that people who have isolated themselves from others or who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability"
Is there a pattern of thought that makes one immune to this? Like, if I reject every tribe, I become part of the 'everyone is dumb tribe', if I accept the views of every authority, I become part of the 'sheep' tribe, but maybe if one were to employ some pattern of acceptance and contrarianism in the face of other's arguments, then, on average, one's own tribalism would dissolve.
The partial solution to this is what _used_ to be called "open-mindedness". But it's not a pattern for "immunity" but in analogue, practices to keep you "fit" and prepared.
I think CGP grey summarized the pattern nicely, and I quote: (timestamped)[0]
"The trick is to keep your identity separate from your opinions - they are objects in a box you carry with you and should be easily replaceable if it turns out they're no good.
If you think that the opinions in the box are who you are then you'll cling to them despite any evidence to the contrary.
Bottom line: If you want to always be right, you need to always be prepared to change your mind"
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlsU_YT9n_g&t=72s
I would also add my personal take that you should also presuppose that the person you're talking/listening to will have that attitude. Most people don't, but by merely starting from that point, conversation can have a positive turn when you get a glimpse of why they decided to put that opinion in to their mind-box.
I think CGP grey summarized the pattern nicely, and I quote: (timestamped)[0]
"The trick is to keep your identity separate from your opinions - they are objects in a box you carry with you and should be easily replaceable if it turns out they're no good.
If you think that the opinions in the box are who you are then you'll cling to them despite any evidence to the contrary.
Bottom line: If you want to always be right, you need to always be prepared to change your mind"
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlsU_YT9n_g&t=72s
I would also add my personal take that you should also presuppose that the person you're talking/listening to will have that attitude. Most people don't, but by merely starting from that point, conversation can have a positive turn when you get a glimpse of why they decided to put that opinion in to their mind-box.
Brecht had a whimsical take on this. There's a German saying that goes "wer A sagt, muss auch B sagen": he who says A, has to say B, meaning of course you should always try and follow through.
Brecht wrote "Wer a sagt, der muß nicht b sagen. Er kann auch erkennen, daß a falsch war": he who says A, doesn't have to say B. He can also realize that A was wrong.
https://beruhmte-zitate.de/zitate/126572-bertolt-brecht-wer-...
Brecht wrote "Wer a sagt, der muß nicht b sagen. Er kann auch erkennen, daß a falsch war": he who says A, doesn't have to say B. He can also realize that A was wrong.
https://beruhmte-zitate.de/zitate/126572-bertolt-brecht-wer-...
I would say that this binding of identity with opinions is the outstanding feature of the "stupidest" and most destructive people I know.
Yep. You nailed it. People will literally kill and torture to preserve their identity.
Check out The Scout Mindset. It's the best book I've found on how to think clearly (on these kinds of potentially tribal thoughts), and how to productively interact with people who may not be trying to improve in this area (the "stupid" people).
We're actually making it required reading at my workplace.
We're actually making it required reading at my workplace.
Seconding this. The Scout Mindset is the best book I've read this year. Life changing. Note that it's more aimed at helping you recognized (and defeat) your own biases than help you with other people's biases. I think it will help with extending empathy to them, though, recognizing the mechanisms through which they appear "stupid".
I had this in my "eventually" pile (worthwhile but not immediately compelling), until I read this review by Scott Alexander: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-scout-...
I had this in my "eventually" pile (worthwhile but not immediately compelling), until I read this review by Scott Alexander: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-scout-...
You view yourself as the other tribe, and therefore criticize yourself as if you were your worst enemy. From that perspective most stupid ideas you have are easy to see through. You know how stupid the other side is, yeah you probably look around that stupid yourself unless you go through this process regularly and fixes the issues you find in yourself.
Although I don't think it is possible to do it perfectly, but you can fix some things this way.
Although I don't think it is possible to do it perfectly, but you can fix some things this way.
> You know how stupid the other side is, yeah you probably look around that stupid yourself
Any other techniques for dealing with this?
To get a better measurement of my own intelligence I think about my “dumb friend”, and then try to realize that that’s probably actually about how smart I am.
Any other techniques for dealing with this?
To get a better measurement of my own intelligence I think about my “dumb friend”, and then try to realize that that’s probably actually about how smart I am.
Always attack your own ideas as hard as you can. Ask yourself what evidence you have for what you believe is true. Figure out possible facts that will prove your idea false. Seek out evidence for those contrarian facts. Be ready to drop precious ideas that turn out to be brittle against facts.
Any test for determining whether I’m doing a “good job” at dropping ideas that contradict evidence?
How often have you dropped an idea you think is true after attacking it with everything you have? If it never happens then it is likely that you are not doing a “good job”. If few ideas you like/agree with survive then you are more likely to be doing a “good job”. It is humbling for me to realise how quickly I can emotionally believe something to be true and then realise that I have no real evidence to support it. And remembering all the things I used to think was true and I now realise might not be (not enough conclusive evidence). The key insight is that ideas are just models of the world. All flawed and with the potential to be improved/more accurate. Don’t become your ideas. Stand apart from your ideas/truths and be critical of them. Assume you are wrong and try to prove it.
Best I've found is the first + humility.
"Everyone is dumb...myself included" at least gives me room to change my mind, and an impetus to try and find things to change my mind.
"Everyone is dumb...myself included" at least gives me room to change my mind, and an impetus to try and find things to change my mind.
Being a member of multiple tribes and through that seeing that each has its own goals, beliefs, and communication protocols.
The moment you are aware that you are part of a tribe and can see the tribe for what it is, including its flaws and ugliness, that’s the moment you start thinking for yourself.
Self-awareness in the context of one's adherence to "influencers" in culture. If you read the article as I did, and constantly thought: "Could this apply to me in some way?", then you are appropriately testing yourself.
This is compounded by neither tribe admitting the other tribe's good ideas. We focus on all or nothing rejection of the opposing team.
Very true. And of course, no member can admit that their tribe is that way, too, without risking expulsion.
Yes I was taken by his idea that the idiot has an armour made of a potentially massive social network. It gives you perspective of what you’re really dealing with and the difficulty of the job ahead
Do you have a source for what Bonhoeffer would have meant by that?
I have my own guess to its meaning, but I hesitate to say it does/doesn't match his definition without seeing some exposition on it.
I have my own guess to its meaning, but I hesitate to say it does/doesn't match his definition without seeing some exposition on it.
Given this layout, I can't tell whom you're addressing this to: the guy who said "folly" was the better translation?
In any case, I did study German in college, but I'm far from being able to judge what word is accurate. If the word was "Dummheit" that translates literally as "dumb head" but that doesn't mean a German would understand it that way.
In any case, I did study German in college, but I'm far from being able to judge what word is accurate. If the word was "Dummheit" that translates literally as "dumb head" but that doesn't mean a German would understand it that way.
Funny how your mind works. I just realized Dummheit doesn't mean "dumb head" like I said; it's "state of being dumb" or, as Google Translate puts it, "stupidity."
I think aside from interpreting that prescription, he didn't live long enough to see what actually happened, which is that the power associated with the stupidity was overcome by sheer and overwhelming force.
It depends on where you were raised. Maybe not in Blue Urban cities but it's trivial in the rest of the USA (where FEW Blue Urban denizen has likely ever traveled).
Bonheoffer was a Lutheran pastor. Nietzsche, the son of a Lutheran pastor: 'In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.'
Also cf. Cipolla:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
Also cf. Cipolla:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
I'm not completely sure the point you are intending to make, but yes - there is a reason why so many great German thinkers were Lutheran or had Lutheran ties. It is exemplified by Luther's Table Talks at the pfarrhaus. Basically, it was a regular activity to gather at the pastor's house and debate / discuss / philosophize. Thus this became part of the culture.
Interesting, thanks. I want to know more about Lutherism, if you have any suggestions? As for my point, I'm not 100% sure there was one, except that it's nice to observe a theologian having common ground with the antichrist himself.
bookofconcord.org
"Stupidity" is a mistranslation. "Folly" is the term that Boenhoeffer used in his letter from the concentration camp in which he would be martyred: don’t confuse intelligence and wisdom.
https://bpa.st/5DJQ is the version of the excerpt of the letter i'm familiar with.
https://bpa.st/5DJQ is the version of the excerpt of the letter i'm familiar with.
The term Bonhoeffer used is "Dummheit". As a German "stupidity" seems to be a more accurate translation to me.
It is, but I would say that on an axis of:
Stupidity <——> Silliness
…Dummheit leans slightly more towards silliness than pure stupidity does in English. I think Dummheit can be both an adjective and a noun, right? The latter, “eine Dummheit”, sounds more like a silly mistake to me (like “I did a stupid” in internet-speak).
A word like “nonsense” might be a good parallel? In English that word can cover serious, trivial, and silly cases.
Stupidity <——> Silliness
…Dummheit leans slightly more towards silliness than pure stupidity does in English. I think Dummheit can be both an adjective and a noun, right? The latter, “eine Dummheit”, sounds more like a silly mistake to me (like “I did a stupid” in internet-speak).
A word like “nonsense” might be a good parallel? In English that word can cover serious, trivial, and silly cases.
As a German: It depends on the context.
If you use it as a noun, referring to an individual act, it is used to refer to a mistake. But even then, not a silly one. It refers to a lapse in judgment, to a lack of proper reasoning.
If it doesn't refer to an individual act, but to a trait, it's meant as an incapability to reason properly, often painfully so. It's used as a derogative, not to mark a silly mistake.
The most famous quote about Dummheit makes fairly clear it's not just meant as silliness. Schiller's "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens" (Even the gods struggle in vain against stupidity) clearly marks it as something both detrimental and incorrigible.
That's really the core distinction - Dummheit as referring to an individual act vs. as a trait. This goes for both the adjective ("dumm") and the trait.
It is an implicit acknowledgment of the fact that individual mistakes happen and are excusable, but constant failure is a negative mark.
Bonhoeffer very clearly refers to the latter, but moves it from an individual failing to a societal one.
If you use it as a noun, referring to an individual act, it is used to refer to a mistake. But even then, not a silly one. It refers to a lapse in judgment, to a lack of proper reasoning.
If it doesn't refer to an individual act, but to a trait, it's meant as an incapability to reason properly, often painfully so. It's used as a derogative, not to mark a silly mistake.
The most famous quote about Dummheit makes fairly clear it's not just meant as silliness. Schiller's "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens" (Even the gods struggle in vain against stupidity) clearly marks it as something both detrimental and incorrigible.
That's really the core distinction - Dummheit as referring to an individual act vs. as a trait. This goes for both the adjective ("dumm") and the trait.
It is an implicit acknowledgment of the fact that individual mistakes happen and are excusable, but constant failure is a negative mark.
Bonhoeffer very clearly refers to the latter, but moves it from an individual failing to a societal one.
Thank you for the full explanation! I could tell that there was a difference between the noun and adjective usage, and I now have a much better understanding of what it is.
I think it's folly to try and grasp the nuances of "Dummheit" as Bonhoeffer used it 80 years ago from our modern usage of the word. It depends on how the word was used at the time. Even today it depends on context, although generally you are right that it leans a little bit towards silly.
This reminds me of a visualisation tool [0] for the distance between the meaning of words in french, based on databases of texts. I wonder if that would help to grasp the nuances in older times.
[0]: https://www.cnrtl.fr/proxemie/sottise
[0]: https://www.cnrtl.fr/proxemie/sottise
He wrote it in German, did he not? So it wasn't "folly" or "stupidity."
Malicious people's lies can be debunked, but the stupid people who believe the lies can't be corrected through debunking.
We see this a lot today. Although it's nothing new, social media and the internet has made it easier for people to find those lies, and find others to help reinforce the lies in each other's minds.
We see this a lot today. Although it's nothing new, social media and the internet has made it easier for people to find those lies, and find others to help reinforce the lies in each other's minds.
People who belive malicious lies aren't necessarily stupid. Tens of millions of people today will turn on their TV in America. They're not all stupid.
Yes they are. By the definition of "stupid" in this article, they are. Like Bonhoeffer says, "there are people of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid".
Can't argue with that
I've heard it observed that there are a class of people too thick to be stupid and I now have a point of anecdata in support: my girlfriend's beloved Uncle Geri, who had Down's Syndrome and was also the only of her maternal uncles not to be a blatant racist. It seems the folly of racism required mental faculties he just couldn't bring to bear. I think a lot of stupidity is like that, it requires a certain threshold of intelligence to look at a set of options or perspectives and choose the wrong one for a dumb reason.
>Yet at this very point it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it.
>It really will depend on whether those in power expect more from people’s stupidity than from their inner independence and wisdom.
Pretty radical. I'm still digesting. On the one hand, I do think that people, free in the external and internal sense tend to make better decisions than otherwise. But on the other hand I feel there is a missing necessary condition here. But I'm not sure what it is
>It really will depend on whether those in power expect more from people’s stupidity than from their inner independence and wisdom.
Pretty radical. I'm still digesting. On the one hand, I do think that people, free in the external and internal sense tend to make better decisions than otherwise. But on the other hand I feel there is a missing necessary condition here. But I'm not sure what it is
Similar thoughts from Orwell from around the same time: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
It's curious how these both name a phenomenon with words that seem off-target, "stupidity" or "nationalism"; they seem to mean something like reducing yourself to a soldier for an egregore. Anyone have a better word for the general pattern?
It's curious how these both name a phenomenon with words that seem off-target, "stupidity" or "nationalism"; they seem to mean something like reducing yourself to a soldier for an egregore. Anyone have a better word for the general pattern?
Erich Fromm's "Escape From Freedom", written around the same time, also touches on similar ideas centered around why and in what situations people can be steered toward totalitarianism.
> nationalism
Tribal is my best guess at his meaning, but ingroup is related, or perhaps partisanship when applied to American politics. Nationalism feels incorrect, especially when he chooses examples of beliefs that are against their own nation (skip to the heading “negative nationalism”), or examples that are not much to do with nationality (political Catholicism, Antisemitism, Pacifism).
Another theme is blind loyalty (authority figures) versus freethinking. As a geek I try to avoid succumbing to geek groupthink, although HN doesn’t always help that goal.
Tribal is my best guess at his meaning, but ingroup is related, or perhaps partisanship when applied to American politics. Nationalism feels incorrect, especially when he chooses examples of beliefs that are against their own nation (skip to the heading “negative nationalism”), or examples that are not much to do with nationality (political Catholicism, Antisemitism, Pacifism).
Another theme is blind loyalty (authority figures) versus freethinking. As a geek I try to avoid succumbing to geek groupthink, although HN doesn’t always help that goal.
In The Scout Mindset, Julia Galef calls a very related state "the soldier mindset" - this is similar enough to the term you proposed but I think you would enjoy reading the book.
It's very good. I'd say she focuses more on people in a more reachable state; I can imagine the eaten-by-egregores reading the book going "Yeah! This is what's wrong with the outgroup!" or just angrily rejecting it all, but it's mainly about how/why to improve in this regard on the margin. She sees the soldier mindset as having its place.
Orwell acknowledges we all have these tendencies but focuses on the people he sees as too far gone (I have no idea about all those 1940s folks).
Orwell acknowledges we all have these tendencies but focuses on the people he sees as too far gone (I have no idea about all those 1940s folks).
[deleted]
There is individual stupidity but there is also species stupidity. I’ve always felt that humans, living according to culture instead of nature (to oversimplify), are intelligent as individuals but moronic as a society. Ants and bees, etc, just the opposite
@pugio (Interpreting Bonhoeffer) "If you put your fear of God (in other words, some power higher than, and distinctly external to, any social group) you begin to liberate yourself from caring too much about what other people think."
And as such he is making exactly the same mistake, because he is assuming that his God is a higher power, when in fact his God is defined by his community.
Where did he learn what it means to live "The responsible life before God"? From the community he grew up in of course. (My assumption is that God did not appear and teach him in person.)
When stripped of the appeal to the authority of God, his argument becomes "My community values independent thought over group conformity."
I totally agree with him. I just don't find it a solid argument.
And as such he is making exactly the same mistake, because he is assuming that his God is a higher power, when in fact his God is defined by his community.
Where did he learn what it means to live "The responsible life before God"? From the community he grew up in of course. (My assumption is that God did not appear and teach him in person.)
When stripped of the appeal to the authority of God, his argument becomes "My community values independent thought over group conformity."
I totally agree with him. I just don't find it a solid argument.
I'm not sure if the meaning of "stupid" has drifted over time, but it feels like this essay plays too much with language. It sounds like he's trying to redefine stupidity rather than clarify it.
And why? He has some interesting points about unreasonableness as a social (rather than intellectual) phenomenon.
And why? He has some interesting points about unreasonableness as a social (rather than intellectual) phenomenon.
It's energetic stupidity that leads to serious problems. Passive stupidity just leads to inaction.
[deleted]
He is just describing mass psychosis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09maaUaRT4M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09maaUaRT4M
Any argument why that is not the case? I am honestly interested in hearing any arguments against.
I wonder if we would "foolishness" would be a better translation than "stupidity"? Foolishness as in a lack of wisdom.
Thanks for posting this, it rings very true.
What do you do when you have close to 50/50 power dynamic and both sides think the other is stupid?
Both are likely infected, each full with slogans and jargon.
Yes, but what do you do?
You tell both sides to at least leave you in peace, and you watch out since they will likely not agree with you.
As an Epicurean, nothing. Avoid all of this like the plague, interact only with close friends and do not engage in politics and "power play." Spent your time on what matters to you.
Can we identify if both sides are actually stupid or is that just the perception of both sides?
It isn't difficult to identify some "stupidity" in most any ideology, but managing to get a member of an ideology to acknowledge that it is true/relevant/etc is extremely difficult. I suspect some much better approach is out there, but we seem to not have found it (perhaps because we aren't really trying to find it).
Both are probably right. There's probably enough stupidity to go around, so that neither side suffers a shortage.
Bonhoeffer's day shows the answer. The fascists and the communists were at war in Germany. The communists tried to take over the government in the 1910s, and early 1920s. The Nazis succeeded in the 1930s. Given the history of soviet communist regimes - I suspect the communists would have done what the fascists did - put people opposed to them to death.
I hope the asutute reader is recognizing the classical Western European thinker mentality of "in going through this particular contextual situation where a variety of forces have conspired to create a situation. From my limited view and biasing heavily on observations from a limited sample pool, I derive conclusions broadly applicable to all of humanity across all time."
This is not to say Bonhoeffer was a fool nor to completely disregard his words, but to derive essentially that" all humans are stupid in groups " because you're living through the rise of Nazism is one frame, and is not necessarily self-evidently valid. Until culture became the cesspool of the mid-10s, we had a lot of good analytical evidence for Wisdom of the Crowds, I. E. Wikipedia, PageRank, etc.
This is not to say Bonhoeffer was a fool nor to completely disregard his words, but to derive essentially that" all humans are stupid in groups " because you're living through the rise of Nazism is one frame, and is not necessarily self-evidently valid. Until culture became the cesspool of the mid-10s, we had a lot of good analytical evidence for Wisdom of the Crowds, I. E. Wikipedia, PageRank, etc.
[deleted]
> The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.
Do you agree?
Do you agree?
Tolkein said that it didn't pay to leave a dragon out of your calculations, if you happened to live near one. In the same way, it's a good idea to think very carefully about how God affects you, if you happen to live in a universe where He exists.
So the first question is, do you live in such a universe? Is He there, or not? Not "would you prefer Him to exist, or not?" Not "Does your culture say He exists?" But does He actually exist? Is He really there?
If He exists, this is a very different universe than if He doesn't. And it would be wisdom to live in a manner that fits the universe you are in...
So the first question is, do you live in such a universe? Is He there, or not? Not "would you prefer Him to exist, or not?" Not "Does your culture say He exists?" But does He actually exist? Is He really there?
If He exists, this is a very different universe than if He doesn't. And it would be wisdom to live in a manner that fits the universe you are in...
> So the first question is, do you live in such a universe? Is He there, or not?
If one cannot falsify a god's existence then can it be proven to exist?
If one cannot falsify a god's existence then can it be proven to exist?
I think understanding/explaining what "fear of God" means is kind of hard to explain in the postmodern world. It's partly recognizing that to know God is to fear God, but that also is not that great of an explanation. There's another verse about walking humbly with thy God. That may be a better more modern verse to pick I'd say.
Micah 6:8? He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
I have a secular hypothesis about stupidity that echoes this: that it’s root is narcissism. A person becomes stupid when they come to believe that they could not be wrong.
This could be why profoundly accomplished people sometimes become stupid. Their accomplishment convinces them that they are intellectually superior, at which point they proceed to stop thinking critically.
This could be why profoundly accomplished people sometimes become stupid. Their accomplishment convinces them that they are intellectually superior, at which point they proceed to stop thinking critically.
your secular hypothesis and theistic views on this are in agreement.
self-worship.
self-worship.
To me that just seems like a theistic wording of "be humble because you are not perfect, and there's always a potential that you're wrong"
An atheistic wording could come from a moral perspective or appealing to virtuous characteristic.
A more scientific/ modern observation based re-wording of that is just the dunning kruger effect. (specifically the middle plateau of it)
An atheistic wording could come from a moral perspective or appealing to virtuous characteristic.
A more scientific/ modern observation based re-wording of that is just the dunning kruger effect. (specifically the middle plateau of it)
What is virtuous and what is moral for the atheist? Is it more than the bits of the religious morality his ancestors believed that doesn't contradict his present desires?
That question seriously troubled me for some time. Ethics cannot be deduced from logic and aesthetics. To give an example, why exactly is rape wrong? Logically, evolutionary science lets us conclude that it increases individual fitness by increasing mating opportunities and group fitness by spreading alleles that are good at reproducing themselves. Judging by the popularity of the subject in fine art, aesthetics can't condemn it either. So what makes it wrong? Is it anything more than a bald assertion? On what basis and by whose authority? Is ethics merely the science of discerning whatever it is that the strongest secular power one is subject to will permit? I find that proposition philosophically unsatisfying.
Meanwhile, while there is plenty of room for elaboration, a theist can rest on the moral foundation that Mankind was created with inherent dignity in the image of the Creator and thus rape, murder, theft, and various other offenses against that dignity are objectively immoral, regardless of what whoever holds the local monopoly on violence thinks. Additionally, to aid those who may not be capable of drawing those inferences, the sacred scriptures literally spell out the most obvious dos and don'ts.
That question seriously troubled me for some time. Ethics cannot be deduced from logic and aesthetics. To give an example, why exactly is rape wrong? Logically, evolutionary science lets us conclude that it increases individual fitness by increasing mating opportunities and group fitness by spreading alleles that are good at reproducing themselves. Judging by the popularity of the subject in fine art, aesthetics can't condemn it either. So what makes it wrong? Is it anything more than a bald assertion? On what basis and by whose authority? Is ethics merely the science of discerning whatever it is that the strongest secular power one is subject to will permit? I find that proposition philosophically unsatisfying.
Meanwhile, while there is plenty of room for elaboration, a theist can rest on the moral foundation that Mankind was created with inherent dignity in the image of the Creator and thus rape, murder, theft, and various other offenses against that dignity are objectively immoral, regardless of what whoever holds the local monopoly on violence thinks. Additionally, to aid those who may not be capable of drawing those inferences, the sacred scriptures literally spell out the most obvious dos and don'ts.
> Ethics cannot be deduced from logic and aesthetics. To give an example, why exactly is rape wrong?
Rape is wrong, because it induces bodily and emotional harm. You can deduce your whole ethics and morals from the 'reduce the suffering you cause' view. You don't need religion for that.
Rape is wrong, because it induces bodily and emotional harm. You can deduce your whole ethics and morals from the 'reduce the suffering you cause' view. You don't need religion for that.
That’s begging the question. Why is harming another human being wrong? It could be the benefit to yourself and others is greater than the harm caused. The children born of that rape may well think that their being alive is a net good. In fact, it’s statistically certain that all of us have at least one rape victim somewhere in our ancestry and thus wouldn't otherwise be alive.
Just because you personally think harming other persons is bad isn’t sufficient. What gives you the authority to impose that value on others?
Just because you personally think harming other persons is bad isn’t sufficient. What gives you the authority to impose that value on others?
> Just because you personally think harming other persons is bad isn’t sufficient.
What is insufficient about it?
That involuntary harm to one may occasionally benefit the many? Even if so can the aggressor and wider society know that ahead of time? And what about individual's right to freedom from harm?
> What gives you the authority to impose that value on others?
Society has to negotiate values together. The rule to avoid harming others is the least imposing value of all.
After 30y of "living by faith" I'm no longer a fan of trusting in authorities just because their rules are old or their existence is unfalsifiable.
What is insufficient about it?
That involuntary harm to one may occasionally benefit the many? Even if so can the aggressor and wider society know that ahead of time? And what about individual's right to freedom from harm?
> What gives you the authority to impose that value on others?
Society has to negotiate values together. The rule to avoid harming others is the least imposing value of all.
After 30y of "living by faith" I'm no longer a fan of trusting in authorities just because their rules are old or their existence is unfalsifiable.
> What is insufficient about it?
Your opinion isn’t a valid ethical premise. It has no basis beyond your whims. Someone else might believe that it’s good and how would you refute them without claiming that your opinion is somehow more authoritative?
> Even if so can the aggressor and wider society know that ahead of time?
Obviously, in general, no. You can’t know that shooting a random person in cold blood wouldn’t prevent some greater evil. You can’t know that the child of that rape won’t cure cancer. The limitations of human reasoning are one of the reasons I’m convinced a correct ethics must have a superhuman author.
> The rule to avoid harming others is the least imposing value of all.
Once again this is begging the question. You’re trying to slip in the premise that minimal imposition is moral without any basis.
> After 30y of "living by faith" I'm no longer a fan of trusting in authorities just because their rules are old or their existence is unfalsifiable.
This betrays philosophical immaturity, which is of course fine. Most religious organizations do a very poor job with that aspect of formation, likely because those teaching are themselves philosophically immature. But this discussion isn’t about religion, faith, or your subjective experiences, it’s about whether the normative science of ethics can have any nontrivial conclusions without an objective foundation. If your anti-theism clouds your reasoning, feel free to instead pretend that we live in an advanced simulation and its authors defined human life as having inherent dignity. In that scenario ethics has a firm foundation. Now imagine the same scenario but without such a definition.
Your opinion isn’t a valid ethical premise. It has no basis beyond your whims. Someone else might believe that it’s good and how would you refute them without claiming that your opinion is somehow more authoritative?
> Even if so can the aggressor and wider society know that ahead of time?
Obviously, in general, no. You can’t know that shooting a random person in cold blood wouldn’t prevent some greater evil. You can’t know that the child of that rape won’t cure cancer. The limitations of human reasoning are one of the reasons I’m convinced a correct ethics must have a superhuman author.
> The rule to avoid harming others is the least imposing value of all.
Once again this is begging the question. You’re trying to slip in the premise that minimal imposition is moral without any basis.
> After 30y of "living by faith" I'm no longer a fan of trusting in authorities just because their rules are old or their existence is unfalsifiable.
This betrays philosophical immaturity, which is of course fine. Most religious organizations do a very poor job with that aspect of formation, likely because those teaching are themselves philosophically immature. But this discussion isn’t about religion, faith, or your subjective experiences, it’s about whether the normative science of ethics can have any nontrivial conclusions without an objective foundation. If your anti-theism clouds your reasoning, feel free to instead pretend that we live in an advanced simulation and its authors defined human life as having inherent dignity. In that scenario ethics has a firm foundation. Now imagine the same scenario but without such a definition.
> But this discussion ... it’s about whether the normative science of ethics can have any nontrivial conclusions without an objective foundation
What is a more objective foundation than independently verified, experimental evidence?
> The limitations of human reasoning are one of the reasons I’m convinced a correct ethics must have a superhuman author.
So the apparent presence of this limitation is evidence of a higher power? How can you be sure that what you consider 'correct' ethics is objectively good?
What is a more objective foundation than independently verified, experimental evidence?
> The limitations of human reasoning are one of the reasons I’m convinced a correct ethics must have a superhuman author.
So the apparent presence of this limitation is evidence of a higher power? How can you be sure that what you consider 'correct' ethics is objectively good?
> What is a more objective foundation than independently verified, experimental evidence.
This sounds like the classic is-ought problem. Experiment can, up to epistemological and ontological limits, only tell us about what is. It cannot tell us about what ought to be. If it appears to you that it can then you’re implicitly slipping in an additional ethical premise.
> So the apparent presence of this limitation is evidence of a higher power? How can you be sure that what you consider 'correct' ethics is objectively good?
I can’t. That’s one of the limitations of abductive reasoning. Unlike deduction it cannot reach absolutely certain conclusions. And if I could this entire thread would be moot. As for correct ethics, I accept Peirce’s view that ethics, like logic, is a normative science. Just as logic is defined to be the normative science of what is true or false, ethics is defined to be the normative science of what is good or bad. Hence my question about whether or not that science is trivial and admits whatever conclusions anyone says it does, or not.
This sounds like the classic is-ought problem. Experiment can, up to epistemological and ontological limits, only tell us about what is. It cannot tell us about what ought to be. If it appears to you that it can then you’re implicitly slipping in an additional ethical premise.
> So the apparent presence of this limitation is evidence of a higher power? How can you be sure that what you consider 'correct' ethics is objectively good?
I can’t. That’s one of the limitations of abductive reasoning. Unlike deduction it cannot reach absolutely certain conclusions. And if I could this entire thread would be moot. As for correct ethics, I accept Peirce’s view that ethics, like logic, is a normative science. Just as logic is defined to be the normative science of what is true or false, ethics is defined to be the normative science of what is good or bad. Hence my question about whether or not that science is trivial and admits whatever conclusions anyone says it does, or not.
> Your opinion isn’t a valid ethical premise.
Then there are no valid ethical premises, because all value propositions necessarily either are directly or rest upon subjective preference.
Then there are no valid ethical premises, because all value propositions necessarily either are directly or rest upon subjective preference.
> all value propositions necessarily either are directly or rest upon subjective preference
You haven't shown this, so you're just sneaking in the premise that ethics has no objective foundation, which is the very question under consideration. I could just as easily baldly assert "all value propositions necessarily either are directly or rest upon objective foundations," but I'm not because it would be philosophically uninteresting.
I accept that there are no valid ethical premises is a valid conclusion from the absence of an objective ethical authority. I can only abductively conclude the existence of such an authority because it appears to me that ethics is not in fact a degenerate science that can produce any result whatsoever.
You haven't shown this, so you're just sneaking in the premise that ethics has no objective foundation, which is the very question under consideration. I could just as easily baldly assert "all value propositions necessarily either are directly or rest upon objective foundations," but I'm not because it would be philosophically uninteresting.
I accept that there are no valid ethical premises is a valid conclusion from the absence of an objective ethical authority. I can only abductively conclude the existence of such an authority because it appears to me that ethics is not in fact a degenerate science that can produce any result whatsoever.
[deleted]
So your argument is that imposing the view that harming others isn't good is worse than imposing harm? Sorry I don't follow.
Also are you arguing that the fact that people harmed others has happened that somehow means a world where this happened less often or not at all is a worse one? With that line of argument you are excusing any crime at all that ever happened, because by vrtue of the butterfly effect we have to assume every action ever taken created the world we live in and is somehow sacred that way.
Also are you arguing that the fact that people harmed others has happened that somehow means a world where this happened less often or not at all is a worse one? With that line of argument you are excusing any crime at all that ever happened, because by vrtue of the butterfly effect we have to assume every action ever taken created the world we live in and is somehow sacred that way.
There is clear evidence that morality originated with the evolution of societal thinking and human collaboration. Morality is evolutionary useful because it improves in-group trust and collaboration. In other words, there is clear evidence that morality existed thousands of years before religion. Experiments also show that even 2 year old humans and a number of animal species have clear moral thinking.
> clear evidence [x2]
Don’t just tell us there’s evidence, share it please. This is a site for satisfying intellectual curiosity.
> it improves in-group trust and collaboration
Merely improving in-group trust and collaboration doesn’t meet any kind of acceptable moral bar. Viking raiders had high in-group trust and collaborated extremely well, while raping and pillaging to their hearts’ content. Unless you accept raiding as moral, you’ll have to do better.
> Experiments also show that even 2 year old humans and a number of animal species have clear moral thinking.
This is a risible claim to anyone who has any significant experience with two year olds. It also contradicts your first sentence.
Edit: Three replies to a single comment inside half an hour conclusively indicates emotional rather than rational posting, especially since not a single one of my queries was responded to. One would think after all these years I'd be desensitized, but I never fail to be a little bit disappointed when I encounter someone who is incapable of dialectic, and, to make it worse, covers for it with puerile rhetoric. On the plus side, this does neatly illustrate the point of the submission.
Don’t just tell us there’s evidence, share it please. This is a site for satisfying intellectual curiosity.
> it improves in-group trust and collaboration
Merely improving in-group trust and collaboration doesn’t meet any kind of acceptable moral bar. Viking raiders had high in-group trust and collaborated extremely well, while raping and pillaging to their hearts’ content. Unless you accept raiding as moral, you’ll have to do better.
> Experiments also show that even 2 year old humans and a number of animal species have clear moral thinking.
This is a risible claim to anyone who has any significant experience with two year olds. It also contradicts your first sentence.
Edit: Three replies to a single comment inside half an hour conclusively indicates emotional rather than rational posting, especially since not a single one of my queries was responded to. One would think after all these years I'd be desensitized, but I never fail to be a little bit disappointed when I encounter someone who is incapable of dialectic, and, to make it worse, covers for it with puerile rhetoric. On the plus side, this does neatly illustrate the point of the submission.
I don’t think you understand what morality is. People can believe they are highly moral while killing “evil” outsiders (by their moral code). Religious organisations that declare themselves to be highly moral and follow the moral codes of a bible have historically had zero problems killing, burning and torturing people with different moral believes. Morality is a set of rules that a group of people (or an individual) choose to follow. There is no “universal” or “given by nature” morality. However morality is extremely useful in helping groups of people corporate and fight external groups. That’s why different moral codes from different culture/religions tends to be similar because they all help groups to collaborate and survive threats from external groups.
Your arguments are flawed. I don’t have to accept raiding as moral for my arguments to be true. For example, many Americans followed a strict moral code, inspired by and based on the Bible, while happily owning slaves and hanging non-white people from trees if they dared to object to being slaves. A clear example of in-group morals and non-morals directed at an out-group. I am sure those slave owners had a strong sense of justice and fairness to people in their own group but none towards other groups. Exactly like the Vikings.
> doesn’t meet any kind of acceptable moral bar
Says who? Backed by what empirically true evidence? The Vikings had a strong moral code. That’s why they worked so efficiently as a group. They believe in justice and feared their gods. While raping and pillaging.
Says who? Backed by what empirically true evidence? The Vikings had a strong moral code. That’s why they worked so efficiently as a group. They believe in justice and feared their gods. While raping and pillaging.
I think sometimes religion comes with more reverence or a genuine deep respect for the idea.
The author contradicts himself:
> Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or of a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity.
> The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.
> Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or of a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity.
> The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.
There is no contradiction here. An upsurge of religious power in the public sphere is not equivalent to an upsurge in the fear of God.
There is no contradiction, except that maybe you don't like the word "God."
or conflate god and religion. (which prophetic voices through the ages, bonhoeffer included, have consistently reminded us is wrong)
Peak irony.
He calls out stupid people for being merely vessels for ideologies. Then immediately proceeds to declare - with effortless stupidity - that god is the source of liberation from stupidity.
It's peak irony. And it effortlessly describes the real state of the world; we are all bound by the ideas that flow through us. There is no escape into critical reasoning or any other ideology, precisely because these are all ideologies. They are merely information structures flowing through the network. You are always going to be 'stupid' by his definition unless you personally verify all the information you receive and conduct well designed experiments that you personally see the results of. Otherwise you are choosing a side and trusting one cluster of information structures over another. The world is a hall of mirrors - get used to it and design your world view to accept this state of affairs.
He calls out stupid people for being merely vessels for ideologies. Then immediately proceeds to declare - with effortless stupidity - that god is the source of liberation from stupidity.
It's peak irony. And it effortlessly describes the real state of the world; we are all bound by the ideas that flow through us. There is no escape into critical reasoning or any other ideology, precisely because these are all ideologies. They are merely information structures flowing through the network. You are always going to be 'stupid' by his definition unless you personally verify all the information you receive and conduct well designed experiments that you personally see the results of. Otherwise you are choosing a side and trusting one cluster of information structures over another. The world is a hall of mirrors - get used to it and design your world view to accept this state of affairs.
> He calls out stupid people for being merely vessels for ideologies. Then immediately proceeds to declare - with effortless stupidity - that god is the source of liberation from stupidity.
His understanding of god is very different from yours.
He seems to understand god internally, within himself, not as an external force beyond (which seems closer to your own undesrtanding of this old, complex, topic).
His understanding of god is very different from yours.
He seems to understand god internally, within himself, not as an external force beyond (which seems closer to your own undesrtanding of this old, complex, topic).
it doesn't matter - it's still an ideology that we choose to adopt, we are just as blind to it's evil as those bound up in any other ideology. We are all blind - to attempt to escape your current cave of shadows by moving to the adjacent cave is pretty pointless.
I don't understand who Bohnhoeffer was, what he was fighting on - who he was leading - and what he paid his life for.
Bonhoeffer did, in fact, reject the poplar ideas that "flowed though" his community. His sin was was rejecting the Nazi attempt to co-opt Christianity via the German Christian movement. His "confessing church" was one of the very very few organized responses to Hitler-ism in Germany.
Bonhoeffer did, in fact, reject the poplar ideas that "flowed though" his community. His sin was was rejecting the Nazi attempt to co-opt Christianity via the German Christian movement. His "confessing church" was one of the very very few organized responses to Hitler-ism in Germany.
You entirely missed my point that this idea of good ideology and bad ideology is a hall of mirrors. We are all embedded in the same network of information and we are carried by their tides. In using one ideology to escape another he is merely choosing a different tide.
He used his ideology to break away from the group and to found a group in opposition to the first.
... a group based on a religion responsible for no small amount of evil in itself. As the GP suggests, replacing one brand of stupidity with another isn't the solution. It's the whole problem.
Bonhoeffer's essay is worthwhile, but it's also true that his closing paragraphs provide a flawless example of what the previous ones warned about.
Bonhoeffer's essay is worthwhile, but it's also true that his closing paragraphs provide a flawless example of what the previous ones warned about.
> ... a group based on a religion responsible for no small amount of evil in itself. As the GP suggests, replacing one brand of stupidity with another isn't the solution. It's the whole problem.
Or, maybe, only a powerful belief in something can provide the strength to actively resist the encroaching darkness.
Or, maybe, only a powerful belief in something can provide the strength to actively resist the encroaching darkness.
Valid point there for sure. They say that if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything, and there's plenty of proof of that across the entire political spectrum.
And it works both ways: if you have faith in your own purpose while your adversaries remain disorganized and irresolute, you have a hell of an advantage regardless of whether your cause is just.
And it works both ways: if you have faith in your own purpose while your adversaries remain disorganized and irresolute, you have a hell of an advantage regardless of whether your cause is just.
Of course "the world is a hall of mirrors" is just your ideology. Maybe there were additional peaks of irony left after Bonhoeffer's, and you were meant to explore them.
However, none of the comments so far have really grasped his point, which is that stupidity is a group phenomenon. Maybe a modern equivalent would be "tribe." Of course you can't convince someone of the other tribe to come over and join yours on any one particular issue; that would be betrayal of everything they think they stand for.
So logic is pointless. That representative of the other tribe cannot think and form his or her own opinion because that would mean expulsion from their tribe.