The American novelist Ernest Hemingway once said, “Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.” What a terrifying, yet most insightful, statement to make! Albeit that it sends chills down one’s spine; causes him to shrink in horror before the irremediable despair which emanates from that transcendent quality, i.e. being intelligent; and persists as an inescapable truth: a virtual certainty; it denotes the highest form of altruism.
[Note: the featured image is that of Carl Jung, the founder of analytical psychology, not Ernest Hemingway]
In a previous essay, titled, “Consciousness: Heaven and Hades,” I reflected on Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s (1496) inference as to how man—by exercising his own volition in cultivating whichever inherent seeds found in him—places himself in the existential hierarchy, so to speak, in, “Oration on the Dignity of Man;” “On man when he came into life the Father conferred the seeds of all kinds and the germs of every way of life. Whatever seeds each man cultivates will grow to maturity and bear in him their own fruit. If they be vegetative, he will be like a plant. If sensitive, he will become brutish. If rational, he will grow into a heavenly being. If intellectual he will be an angel and the son of God [my formatting],” (Cassirer, et. 225); where, capitalizing on his distinction of reason from the intellect, I’ve theorized that:
“… Pico had rightly separated reason from intellect, in spite of the fact that both are attributes of the res cogitan, for not every reason is inherently intellectual. Reason precedes intellect, and is a prerequisite of the latter. As such, primitive reason is independent of intellect in essence. On the one hand, reason is a question of right and wrong and founded upon cause. Whilst on the other hand, intellect is a question of effect and founded upon interest—especially, the best plausible one. The rational slave obeyed his master, given that his obedience was the guarantee of his life; as such, his self-preservation constituted a just cause for him to do so. Contrariwise, the rational and intellectual slave engaged himself in an intellectual process of weighing the outcomes of multiple courses of action based on the best plausible interest [emphasis added] he’s conscious of, and decided to rebel and claim his liberty. Thence, mere self-preservation had been deemed as a fallacious cause for existence by the intellect, since to live freely brings far superior plausible rewards; whence reason only took into consideration the immediately apparent [emphasis added] yet erroneous just cause. One cannot fail to notice the influence of the scripture over Pico della Mirandola, “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil…” (Gen. 3:22 (KJV)) Therefore, a rational man grows into a heavenly being for he becomes aware of the notions of right and wrong; ought and ought not; or, in biblical terms good and evil; and, the causality thereof.
Thus, when the human consciousness rationally ponders about the best plausible interest, only then will it become intellectual. “If intellectual he will be an angel and the son of God.” Intellect practically eliminates the erroneous, and fallaciously believed, ‘just cause’ from the rational equation, whilst abiding reason to ‘the right cause’ on the basis of interest. Pico also notes that, “If you see a philosopher determining all things by means of right reason [my formatting, added for emphasis], him you shall reverence: he is a heavenly being and not of this earth,” (Cassirer, et. 226). Heavenly being, indeed! But, does not quite become ‘an angle and the son of God’ until in the firmness of his conscious freewill chooses and, if must needs be, undertakes the actions which should most definitely render outcomes in the best plausible interest of the entire cosmos. …” (Nasif 6, 7)
Simply put, once intellectual, a person frees themself from the yoke of egocentrism whilst making the infinite movement unto cosmo-centrism. Thenceforth, their purposiveness ceases to be intrinsic and becomes extrinsic—towards the actualization of the best plausible universal interest. Insofar that the best plausible universal interest is their telos; just as the man who made it out of the cave and gazed straight at the sun came back for his fellows and sought to enlighten them by revealing the true nature of the shadows (i.e. illusions) that they beheld, in Plato’s (around 380 B.C.) “Allegory of the Cave;” the intelligent person, girded with righteousness and love for Sophie (i.e. wisdom), strives against Imbecile with every ounce of might they can muster—to their last breath.
The intelligent does not seek to save himself, nor secure his tomorrow. To him, his endurance and prosperity are sealed—i.e. predetermined and immutable—eventualities; should he merely pave naturally; by virtue of his intellectual faculties [emphasis added]. Notwithstanding, he remains a stranger to happiness. For his felicity depends on teleological fulfillment.
Sorrow creeps in. Not due to mental feebleness or intellectual helplessness. Quite the contrary! It is particularly because intelligence is the sublimity of consciousness, a hyper state of eternal consciousness, that sorrow and angst are able to infiltrate the intelligent mind—given the decadent and vice-ridden reality of the human condition. Indeed, the only version possible of the happy-intelligent is Dr. Pangloss of Voltaire’s (1759), “Candide.”
But, Dr. Pangloss’ intelligence is a pitiable one; a non-reactive intelligence; a monk’s kind of intelligence. It accepts life as it is, and finds its solace in the premise that this is the best possible world. Accordingly, it never attempts to act upon life lest it disturbs the best natural course of events.
The intelligent, in whom happiness is a rarity, does not negate the fact that this is the best possible world. Notwithstanding, he has had his grandest epiphany: that this world was made and placed in our care. Best possible—eternally true!—and, simultaneously, in direct proportion to the limitations of the factors and actors considered [emphasis added]. To elucidate the matter further in few words, the best possible bench press for the world’s strongest man cannot be the same for an average person.
Having that said, the intelligent is unhappy precisely for this: that, unlike those who “… they seeing they see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand,” (Matthew 13:13, KJV); him (the intelligent), being observant, cognizant, and discerning, meditates on the elevation of that which is best possible by means of ameliorating the actors and factors yielding such an outcome [much emphasis added here!].
Fine-tuning the factors represents no challenge, as his intellect, in itself, suffices for that end. The betterment of the actors is the gigantic boulder in his path towards teleological fulfillment.
In a nutshell, the intelligent all too often falls victim to despair; whilst its intensification proceeds from him bearing witness to the reverence and ferocity with which his brethren cling to the shackles of Imbecile. Their fixation on imbecility, however, is farthest from being consciously-intentional. They are, as Jean Baudrillard impeccably describes, “… an audience that is not simply absent-minded … but absent: lost in its own images, absorbed into its own terminals,” (Freeland 129)—in a word, a crowd; nay! A horde.
Related Publications: “Hordes: the Extermination of the Conscious Individual.”
Reference
BibleGateway.com: A Searchable Online Bible in over 150 Versions and 50 Languages, www.biblegateway.com.
Cassirer, Ernst, et al. The Renaissance Philosophy of Man: Petrarca, Valla, Ficino, Pico, Pomponazzi, Vives. U of Chicago P, 2011.
Freeland, C. Art Theory: A Very Short Introduction, Baudrillard in Disneyland. Oxford University, 2007.
Nasif, Alan. “Consciousness: Heaven and Hades.” Academia.edu – Share Research, Feb. 2020, www.academia.edu/41975418/Consciousness_Heaven_and_Hades?source=swp_share. Accessed 27 Nov. 2021.
Plato. The Republic. Apple Books; translated by Benjamin Jowett, 2008, originally published around 380 B.C.
