The more verbally—or "linguistically"—intelligent a human individual is, the more politically engaged they tend to be; this also means they are more inclined to embrace political fanaticism, especially of the so-called "left-wing" variety. Yet, language is our only means of organizing our thoughts and understanding the world in which we exist. It is a contradiction that those who have mastered language—at least in its aesthetic dimensions—should be the very ones most vulnerable to the madness of equating subjective feelings and impressions with (or even elevating them above) facts and reasoned deliberation. This may stem from a failure to recognize these feelings and impressions for what they truly are, or from mistaking them for absolute truths. Furthermore, when pressed, many such individuals will admit that it all comes down to themselves—to their own vanities and personal interests—rather than to what ought to be the focus: not merely how they feel (which has its own inherent value), but how they perceive and evaluate the world objectively and impartially. Given that there is a clear link to greater political engagement—and that human society is, in fact, organized through politics—it is entirely illogical that someone who has mastered language (at least in terms of speech and writing) should exhibit such a high risk of a fundamental deficit in rational capacity. My explanation for this apparent paradox is that human language is not limited to its aesthetic aspects; it also encompasses more directly functional dimensions—namely, communication and comprehension. It is here that "true" linguistic intelligence—its very essence—is expressed, rather than merely through the mastery of a formal standard, which is often determined arbitrarily based on social or pragmatic considerations. This suggests that writing "beautifully" does not necessarily equate to "thinking beautifully"—at least not in the sense of "thinking correctly," which implies alignment with facts and reason.
The major issue with the concept of "verbal intelligence" is that it has been poorly or insufficiently defined. This has steered us away from a legitimate theoretical and practical understanding of the term, leading instead to a distorted view of how it manifests and what it ought to signify in the real world. It is not just about the technical command of formal language in speech or writing; it is, first and foremost, about effective communication and factual comprehension—its most vital functions. Consequently, we place excessive importance on the least significant aspect of language—its aesthetics—while treating its most crucial function—the capacity to use language to understand the world we inhabit—as secondary. If this misconception were to be resolved, we could reorient our understanding and perception of this form of intelligence, finally linking it to rationality. After all, language is the most essential tool we have developed—and the one most necessary—for comprehending the world. While the aesthetic dimension certainly holds value, it should never take precedence over an expanded capacity for perception—a capacity that fundamentally precedes the ability to adapt, which is the most essential hallmark of any form of intelligence.
We must move beyond the tendency to associate specific traits—such as "blue hair" or "left-wing" political leanings—with a particular type of intelligence. Instead, we should strive for greater precision, ensuring that our associations reflect reality more accurately. ...placing greater importance on those who master language rather than those who allow themselves to be mastered by it—given that a recurring trait among many of these ostensibly "politically engaged" and "linguistically intelligent" individuals is precisely what I call "semanticalism": the tendency to regard the word as more significant than the element or phenomenon it symbolizes...
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário