[HN Gopher] Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity
        
       Author : NalNezumi
       Score  : 97 points
       Date   : 2021-10-16 13:38 UTC (9 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (southsidemessenger.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (southsidemessenger.com)
        
       | bitwize wrote:
       | 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.
        
       | AlbertCory wrote:
       | "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.
       | 
       | 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.
        
         | pugio wrote:
         | > "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.
        
           | Mitzz wrote:
           | Well said.
           | 
           | Personally I imperfectly strive to think this way, and I
           | imagine at least hundreds of millions of others do as well.
        
           | UncleOxidant wrote:
           | > 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, cliches,
           | bromides, epigrams, parables: the skeleton of every great
           | story. The trick is keeping the truth up front in daily
           | consciousness." David Foster Wallace
        
           | AlbertCory wrote:
           | Well said.
           | 
           | Of course, he was a minister, so he'd spent his life thinking
           | about that.
        
             | bmj wrote:
             | And as a theologian whose work included a book on Christian
             | ethics, and _The Cost of Discipleship_.
        
         | analog31 wrote:
         | 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.
        
         | richardatlarge wrote:
         | 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
        
         | CoastalCoder wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | AlbertCory wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | AlbertCory wrote:
             | 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."
        
         | oblak wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | belter wrote:
           | "Most of them are just trying to make a living..."
           | 
           | https://youtu.be/w2ppyMUlXfM
        
         | teddyh wrote:
         | 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.".
        
           | TrispusAttucks wrote:
           | This is compounded by neither tribe admitting the other
           | tribe's good ideas. We focus on all or nothing rejection of
           | the opposing team.
        
           | AlbertCory wrote:
           | Very true. And of course, no member can admit that _their_
           | tribe is that way, too, without risking expulsion.
        
           | BobbyJo wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | achenet wrote:
             | Being a member of multiple tribes and through that seeing
             | that each has its own goals, beliefs, and communication
             | protocols.
        
             | Jensson wrote:
             | 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.
        
               | burrows wrote:
               | > 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.
        
             | NalNezumi wrote:
             | 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.
        
               | julian37 wrote:
               | 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-...
        
               | discreteevent wrote:
               | I would say that this binding of identity with opinions
               | is the outstanding feature of the "stupidest" and most
               | destructive people I know.
        
             | pugio wrote:
             | 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.
        
             | DarknessFalls wrote:
             | 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.
        
             | lostcolony wrote:
             | 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.
        
           | breakyerself wrote:
           | "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"
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | DrStormyDaniels wrote:
       | 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...
        
         | poulsbohemian wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | DrStormyDaniels wrote:
           | 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.
        
       | plutonorm wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | bsedlm wrote:
         | > 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).
        
           | plutonorm wrote:
           | 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.
        
         | InTheArena wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | plutonorm wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | InTheArena wrote:
             | He used his ideology to break away from the group and to
             | found a group in opposition to the first.
        
               | CamperBob2 wrote:
               | ... 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.
        
         | groby_b wrote:
         | 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.
        
       | intrepidhero wrote:
       | >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
        
       | abecedarius wrote:
       | 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?
        
         | robocat wrote:
         | > 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.
        
         | pugio wrote:
         | 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.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | avitous wrote:
         | 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.
        
       | preach wrote:
       | > 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?
        
         | baxuz wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | karaterobot wrote:
           | 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.
        
           | AlbertCory wrote:
           | There is no contradiction, except that maybe you don't like
           | the word "God."
        
             | hprotagonist wrote:
             | or conflate god and religion. (which prophetic voices
             | through the ages, bonhoeffer included, have consistently
             | reminded us is wrong)
        
         | api wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | brighton36 wrote:
           | Just replace the word 'God' with 'The community', and
           | religious theories tend to make a lot more sense.
        
           | baremetal wrote:
           | your secular hypothesis and theistic views on this are in
           | agreement.
           | 
           | self-worship.
        
         | throw7 wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | UncleOxidant wrote:
           | 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._
        
         | AnimalMuppet wrote:
         | 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...
        
         | NalNezumi wrote:
         | 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)
        
           | User23 wrote:
           | 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.
        
           | mistermann wrote:
           | I think sometimes religion comes with more reverence or a
           | genuine deep respect for the idea.
        
       | greenail wrote:
       | What do you do when you have close to 50/50 power dynamic and
       | both sides think the other is stupid?
        
         | AnimalMuppet wrote:
         | Both are probably right. There's probably enough stupidity to
         | go around, so that neither side suffers a shortage.
        
         | evolve2k wrote:
         | Both are likely infected, each full with slogans and jargon.
        
           | teddyh wrote:
           | Yes, but what do you _do_?
        
             | 13415 wrote:
             | 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.
        
             | achenet wrote:
             | Try to help them understand each other.
        
               | greenail wrote:
               | But the premise of Bonhoeffer's theory predicts this will
               | fall on deaf ears.
        
             | hirako2000 wrote:
             | You tell both sides to at least leave you in peace, and you
             | watch out since they will likely not agree with you.
        
         | breakyerself wrote:
         | Can we identify if both sides are actually stupid or is that
         | just the perception of both sides?
        
           | mistermann wrote:
           | 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).
        
         | InTheArena wrote:
         | 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.
        
       | justin_oaks wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | iratewizard wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | jbotz wrote:
           | 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".
        
       | richardatlarge wrote:
       | 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
        
       | Ceyarrecks wrote:
       | as is well known currently: "the effects of Incompetence and
       | Malice are indistinguishable." And as further consolation, just
       | look around and see that: "No Child Left Behind & Ebonics are
       | working as intended."
        
       | karaterobot wrote:
       | Thanks for posting this, it rings very true.
        
       | hprotagonist wrote:
       | "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.
        
         | mudita wrote:
         | The term Bonhoeffer used is "Dummheit". As a German "stupidity"
         | seems to be a more accurate translation to me.
        
           | ladon86 wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | groby_b wrote:
             | 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 kampfen Gotter 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.
        
             | _hl_ wrote:
             | 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.
        
               | guyomes wrote:
               | 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
        
         | AlbertCory wrote:
         | He wrote it in German, did he not? So it wasn't "folly" _or_
         | "stupidity."
        
       | Animats wrote:
       | It's energetic stupidity that leads to serious problems. Passive
       | stupidity just leads to inaction.
        
       | UncleOxidant wrote:
       | I wonder if we would "foolishness" would be a better translation
       | than "stupidity"? Foolishness as in a lack of wisdom.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-10-16 23:01 UTC)