The Philistine's Sour Grapes Of Knowledge
http://stevenpaulleivasthisnthat.blogspot.com/2011/09/new-clothes-for-shakespeare-and.html
In this article the author recounts his conversation with someone, whom he describes as anti-intellectual and whom I would also call a philistine. This guy is proudly declaring, that what he does not like, is not worth being bothered about, he feels not in the least embarrassed about his willful ignorance. The author of the article quotes his specimen as calling Shakespeare's plays crap. The author calls it the arrogance of ignorance.
Such philistines devalue and discard other people's cognitive production not by learned judgment, they devalue, what they themselves are either too dumb to understand, or what they are too lazy to invest effort in to first understand, before they judge.
But devaluing, what is out of easy reach, is part of a more general pattern. Aesop's fable illustrates the same pattern:
This is the pattern: Someone wants something, but it is either out of his reach or the efforts to obtain it are subjectively out of proportion of his need, wish or interest to get it. The resulting cognitive dissonance is resolved by devaluing the object to become less or undesirable.
In the case of the grapes, the object is material. In the case of the philistine, cognitive achievements and knowledge as a source of self-esteem and self-worth are emotional and immaterial.
The fox refocuses his attention towards easily available food. The philistine refocuses his attempts to boost his self-esteem towards less intellectually challenging sources like wealth or physical fitness.
There is a special constellation, where the arrogance of ignorance is especially detrimental. It is the behavior and attitude of many men towards intelligent and educated women.
Such a woman expects a man to be a mindmate, a companion sharing with her intellectual intimacy and the reciprocal joy of consent. For any man, the task of understanding the woman, of making himself understood, of sharing his thoughts and listening to her, of communicating can be difficult or beyond his abilities. But if a male animal is in addition driven by an urge to get homeostasis, this task is tiresome and a strain on his patience.
When he experiences giving her, what her brain needs, as out of his reach as are the grapes for the fox, he does not even try. Instead he becomes a commitment philistine.
With the same ignorance as described in the article, the male animal denies, that the woman even has a brain. With the same arrogance, he devalues all women to be nothing more than bodies existing as commodities to be used. They are perceived and hunted as prey. As a predator and stud, he derives the self-esteem, that he does not expect to get by intellectual attempts.
The pattern of devaluing, what cannot be reached, is known since millennia. But I see a trend, that the willingness to earn anything with a lot of effort, is dwindling. Choosing only, what is easy to get and devaluing everything else seems to be a growing general tendency.
The social development away from the goal of monogamous long-term commitment and towards a male promiscuous throwaway mentality towards women is one example.
http://stevenpaulleivasthisnthat.blogspot.com/2011/09/new-clothes-for-shakespeare-and.html
In this article the author recounts his conversation with someone, whom he describes as anti-intellectual and whom I would also call a philistine. This guy is proudly declaring, that what he does not like, is not worth being bothered about, he feels not in the least embarrassed about his willful ignorance. The author of the article quotes his specimen as calling Shakespeare's plays crap. The author calls it the arrogance of ignorance.
Such philistines devalue and discard other people's cognitive production not by learned judgment, they devalue, what they themselves are either too dumb to understand, or what they are too lazy to invest effort in to first understand, before they judge.
But devaluing, what is out of easy reach, is part of a more general pattern. Aesop's fable illustrates the same pattern:
"Driven by hunger, a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to, although he leaped with all his strength. As he went away, the fox remarked, 'Oh, you aren't even ripe yet! I don't need any sour grapes.' People who speak disparagingly of things that they cannot attain would do well to apply this story to themselves."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes
This is the pattern: Someone wants something, but it is either out of his reach or the efforts to obtain it are subjectively out of proportion of his need, wish or interest to get it. The resulting cognitive dissonance is resolved by devaluing the object to become less or undesirable.
In the case of the grapes, the object is material. In the case of the philistine, cognitive achievements and knowledge as a source of self-esteem and self-worth are emotional and immaterial.
The fox refocuses his attention towards easily available food. The philistine refocuses his attempts to boost his self-esteem towards less intellectually challenging sources like wealth or physical fitness.
There is a special constellation, where the arrogance of ignorance is especially detrimental. It is the behavior and attitude of many men towards intelligent and educated women.
Such a woman expects a man to be a mindmate, a companion sharing with her intellectual intimacy and the reciprocal joy of consent. For any man, the task of understanding the woman, of making himself understood, of sharing his thoughts and listening to her, of communicating can be difficult or beyond his abilities. But if a male animal is in addition driven by an urge to get homeostasis, this task is tiresome and a strain on his patience.
When he experiences giving her, what her brain needs, as out of his reach as are the grapes for the fox, he does not even try. Instead he becomes a commitment philistine.
With the same ignorance as described in the article, the male animal denies, that the woman even has a brain. With the same arrogance, he devalues all women to be nothing more than bodies existing as commodities to be used. They are perceived and hunted as prey. As a predator and stud, he derives the self-esteem, that he does not expect to get by intellectual attempts.
The pattern of devaluing, what cannot be reached, is known since millennia. But I see a trend, that the willingness to earn anything with a lot of effort, is dwindling. Choosing only, what is easy to get and devaluing everything else seems to be a growing general tendency.
The social development away from the goal of monogamous long-term commitment and towards a male promiscuous throwaway mentality towards women is one example.
