There is always someone who is driving too slowly or too quickly – There is always someone who is pushing in the queue, shouts in a museum, walks in the middle of the grocery store aisle, and we could go on here for a while. Perhaps some have reasons, but for the most part that’s just who they are.
If we are to go the philosophical route, we could refer to Hegel. Who claims that reality comprises of one single consciousness with various projects deployed to try and understand itself. In other words, we are all experiments, being used by the one conscious, to gain self-certainty.
Through Hegelian philosophy
We need to think about Hegel’s idea of dialectics, the process of development through contradictions, and how individual consciousness fits into the larger whole of society and history.
At the heart of Hegel’s philosophy is the notion that reality and human history progress through a dialectical process. This means that things develop and evolve through a series of contradictions and resolutions. The classic Hegelian formula is: “thesis” (an idea or state of affairs), “antithesis” (the opposition or contradiction to that idea), and “synthesis” (a resolution that transcends the conflict between thesis and antithesis). This ongoing process drives history, consciousness, and social structures forward.
Now, let’s break it down in the context of the question “Why is there always an idiot?”
1. The Role of the “Idiot” in Society
The “idiot” can be thought of as someone who doesn’t fit into the traditional structures of rational social life, or someone who embodies a contradiction within that structure. Hegel would argue that the presence of such figures is essential for the development of self-consciousness and society itself. They are not simply “wrong” or “misguided”; they serve as an important part of the dialectical process.
2. Contradiction and the Progress of Consciousness
Hegel believed that self-consciousness only develops in relation to others. This is where the concept of “otherness” becomes crucial. For us to understand ourselves and our place in the world, we need the “other”—the person or thing that stands in opposition to us or challenges our beliefs. The “idiot” could be seen as embodying this “otherness”, a figure who defies the norms of society, who operates outside of the accepted rational order.
4. The Necessity of the “Idiot” in History
If we take this into the realm of history, there is always an “idiot” because history itself is never fully rational or complete. Every historical period, every social structure, contains contradictions, and the “idiot” might represent the embodiment of those contradictions. The idea is that these contradictions are necessary for moving beyond the limits of the current historical moment. Just as in Hegel’s famous formula, history moves forward because of its internal conflicts (wars, revolutions, tensions). The “idiot” might be seen as a kind of necessary disturbance—one that, through its defiance or irrationality, forces the development of higher forms of social or individual consciousness.
5. The “Idiot” as a Figure of Liberation
In a more positive sense, Hegel might also suggest that the “idiot” has the potential to embody a new form of freedom—freedom from the constraints of social norms, from the pressure of conformity. In a dialectical sense, the “idiot” might represent the freedom that breaks down the old order, only to be synthesized into something new. This is a kind of freedom that comes from breaking out of old paradigms.
So, to summarize in Hegelian terms: The reason there is “always an idiot” is because contradictions, irrationalities, and disruptions are necessary for the development of society and consciousness. The “idiot” represents a deviation from the norm, but this deviation is part of the larger dialectical movement that pushes society to evolve. Without these disruptions, there would be no progress. The idiot is thus a necessary figure for the resolution of contradictions and the ultimate advancement of history and thought. It’s a bit like saying: the “idiot” is the chaos that is necessary for order to come into being—just as every thesis needs its antithesis
Through the Mind of other Philosophers
Friedrich Nietzsche
Nietzsche would be very much in line with Hegel’s idea, but with a twist. Nietzsche’s philosophy centers on the idea of the “Übermensch” (Overman or Superman) and the “will to power”. Nietzsche rejected the conventional morality of his time (which he saw as rooted in Christian values) and proposed that true human flourishing involves the breaking of conventional limits and the embrace of chaos and individual will.
In Nietzsche’s view, society’s “idiots” or those who break free from norms (the outcasts, the rebels) might actually be the ones who embody the potential for new values to emerge. Nietzsche was deeply critical of conformity and saw the “idiosyncratic” as a necessary force to break the herd mentality. While Hegel’s “idiot” might be part of a larger dialectical process, Nietzsche’s would be a figure who defies and creates—those who *become* in the face of societal restrictions.
The Key Idea would be that the “idiot” is a free spirit who challenges norms and in doing so, creates new possibilities for human existence and ethics.
Jean-Paul Sartre
Sartre’s existentialism, with its focus on individual freedom, responsibility, and absurdity, offers another way of thinking about the role of the “idiot” or the outsider. For Sartre, human beings are condemned to freedom, which means we are always making choices, even in situations where those choices seem illogical or outside of societal expectations.
Sartre also argued that people often create *bad faith*, meaning they lie to themselves about their freedom and responsibility, trying to fit into social roles. The “idiot” could be understood as someone who refuses to play along with these social scripts, highlighting the absurdity and contingency of human existence. In this way, the “idiot” is an extreme form of authenticity—acting without care for social norms, thereby exposing the limits and artificiality of those norms.
The Key Idea would be that the “idiot” might embody a refusal to conform to societal expectations, and in doing so, points to the absurdity and freedom inherent in human existence.
Emmanuel Levinas
Levinas, in his ethical philosophy, emphasized the importance of the *Other* in shaping ethical behavior. He argued that true ethical responsibility arises when we encounter the Other in their absolute difference. The “idiot,” as a figure who does not conform to societal expectations, might represent an extreme form of this ethical encounter. Their presence calls us to confront our assumptions about normality and social order.
Levinas would likely see the “idiot” as someone who disrupts the social structure in a way that forces others to engage with the ethical responsibility that arises in encountering difference. In this sense, the “idiot” might force others to recognize their moral obligations, not just to those who are like them, but to those who seem radically different or irrational.
The Key Idea would be that the “idiot” represents an encounter with the radically different Other, challenging societal norms and prompting ethical reflection and responsibility.
Michel Foucault
Foucault’s work focuses on how power and knowledge shape society, and how institutions categorize and define behaviors. He often explored how societal norms and institutions (like the prison system, the medical profession, etc.) create categories such as “normal” and “abnormal” or “rational” and “irrational.” The “idiot” might be seen as someone who falls outside these categories, representing the ways in which society creates and maintains its own definitions of rationality and order.
For Foucault, the “idiot” is a social construct that exists because society needs a category for those who deviate from norms. But more importantly, Foucault would see the “idiot” as someone who disrupts these norms—someone who exposes how arbitrary these categories are. Their existence challenges the structures of power that define what is “rational” or “acceptable.”
The Key Idea would be that the “idiot” is a figure that challenges the social construction of norms and exposes the power dynamics inherent in defining what is considered rational or acceptable.
Karl Marx
Marx’s philosophy, which focuses on class struggle, economic systems, and historical materialism, doesn’t explicitly talk about “idiots,” but his concept of social contradictions and historical progress can be applied here. Marx argued that society is driven by contradictions between different economic classes—most notably the proletariat (working class) and the bourgeoisie (capitalist class).
In a sense, “idiots” in the Marxist framework might represent the alienated individuals or groups who exist outside the mainstream capitalist order, people who do not conform to the economic or social norms of the time. Marx believed that these contradictions would eventually lead to revolutionary change, as the oppressed classes break free from the constraints placed upon them. The “idiot” could be seen as a symptom of this alienation—someone who doesn’t fit into the established system, but who, in their struggle, could catalyze change.
The Key Idea would be that the “idiot” could symbolize alienation or resistance within the capitalist system, with the potential to provoke social transformation.
Alfred Adler
Adler’s theory focuses on the role of *inferiority* and *compensation* in personal development. He argued that feelings of inferiority, often socially constructed, motivate individuals to strive for superiority and social belonging. The “idiot,” in Adlerian terms, might be someone who has not successfully navigated these feelings of inferiority and societal pressures. However, Adler would argue that even such figures are part of a larger process of self-improvement and societal evolution, as each individual struggles with their unique inferiority complex and seeks to overcome it.
The Key Idea would be that the “idiot” might represent an individual who has failed to adjust to societal pressures but is still part of the developmental process that drives personal and social growth.
Each of these philosophers offers a different angle on how deviations from the norm (like the “idiot”) can be seen as integral to human development, ethical responsibility, and social change. From Nietzsche’s idea of the free spirit to Sartre’s existential refusal of social roles, these thinkers provide diverse lenses through which we can understand why “there is always an idiot” and what role such figures play in the unfolding of human history and consciousness.
A Few More Reasons to Think about
There are definitely more philosophical, psychological, and even sociological ideas that can help explain why “there is always an idiot.” Let’s dive into a few alternative theories to finish off this publishing.
1. Psychological Perspective: Cognitive Bias and Human Nature
- Cognitive Dissonance: People have a natural tendency to seek consistency between their beliefs, actions, and experiences. When someone behaves in a way that seems “idiotic” (e.g., driving recklessly or stubbornly sticking to poor choices), it could be a form of cognitive dissonance, where their actions contradict common sense or societal expectations. Instead of admitting their mistake or altering their behavior, they double down to avoid the discomfort of changing their beliefs.
- Confirmation Bias: People often gravitate toward information and behaviors that confirm their existing views. So, an “idiot” might be someone who is overly confident in their own perspective, ignoring or dismissing the perspectives of others that might challenge their actions or beliefs.
In simple terms: Some people act in ways that seem “idiotic” because they’re locked into their own mental biases, refusing to see or accept other perspectives.
2. Social Psychology: Group Dynamics and the “Fool” Archetype
- The Role of Social Roles: In groups, there is often a tendency to assign roles to people. The “idiot” might play an unconscious role in group dynamics, helping to solidify the group’s identity by acting as a foil to others. The group can rally around the idea of “normal” behavior by highlighting the “idiot” as the outlier. This also links to social conformity—those who deviate too far from group norms might be labeled as “idiots” to reinforce the group’s shared values.
- The “Fool” Archetype: In many societies, the fool or jester is a recognized figure who behaves outside of societal norms. They provide a mirror to society, highlighting its contradictions and absurdities. Even though they may seem “foolish” or “idiotic,” their role is to reveal truths that others might overlook. Think of Shakespeare’s plays, where the fool often speaks wisdom while appearing absurd.
In simple terms: The “idiot” can be a product of group dynamics, someone who plays a necessary role in defining what’s “normal” by acting outside those norms.
3. Buddhist Philosophy: The Illusion of the Self
- Ego and Attachment: Buddhism teaches that much of human suffering arises from attachment to the self and ego. The “idiot” could be seen as someone who is too attached to their own sense of self or identity, clinging to ideas and behaviors that create suffering for themselves and others. In this view, the “idiot” represents someone who hasn’t transcended their ego, acting in ways that seem foolish because they are driven by selfish desires, pride, or ignorance.
- The Role of Ignorance (Avidya): In Buddhism, ignorance is considered one of the main causes of suffering. The “idiot” might be someone who is unaware of the true nature of reality and acts out of ignorance, creating harm or confusion.
In simple terms: The “idiot” is someone trapped in their own ego and ignorance, unable to see the broader picture of interconnection and impermanence.
4. Evolutionary Psychology: The Role of Cognitive Errors
- Survival Mechanisms: Evolutionary psychology suggests that human behavior is shaped by instincts that helped our ancestors survive. Some actions that seem “idiotic” today might stem from cognitive biases or instinctual behaviors that were once useful in different contexts. For example, a person who acts impulsively or takes unnecessary risks might be engaging in a behavior that evolved to be adaptive in high-risk environments but now seems out of place in modern society.
- Overconfidence Bias: Overconfidence in one’s abilities can lead to decisions that seem “idiotic” from an outside perspective. Evolutionarily, humans might have been wired to be overly confident to survive, even if it led to risky or reckless behavior.
In simple terms: The “idiot” might be someone acting on outdated instincts or overestimating their own abilities due to evolutionary traits.
5. Social Constructivism: Cultural Norms and Expectations
- Socially Constructed Idiocy: Social constructivists believe that much of what we consider “normal” or “idiotic” is shaped by cultural norms and social expectations. What one society views as idiotic behavior might be seen as perfectly acceptable or even wise in another culture. The “idiot” is a social label—someone who deviates from the cultural script, but that deviation might not inherently be “bad” or “wrong” outside of a particular context.
- Cultural Relativism: The concept that what is considered “idiotic” in one culture may be normal or even virtuous in another. This can also tie into the idea of how each society defines “rationality” and “irrationality,” depending on its values and collective beliefs.
In simple terms: The “idiot” is someone who challenges the social norms, and whether they are truly an “idiot” depends on the cultural context in which they act.
6. Behaviorism: Reinforcement and Conditioning
- Learned Behaviors: From a behaviorist perspective, people might engage in what others label as “idiotic” behavior because they’ve been conditioned to do so. If, for example, someone grows up in an environment where reckless behavior (driving too fast, speaking out of turn, etc.) is rewarded or goes unpunished, they may continue that behavior into adulthood. The “idiot” could be someone whose behavior was reinforced in such a way that they are blind to its negative consequences.
- Positive Reinforcement of “Idiotic” Actions: Sometimes, people repeat what others call “idiotic” behavior because they are getting some form of immediate reward, even if it’s not beneficial in the long run (e.g., attention, validation, or avoiding discomfort).
In simple terms: The “idiot” may be repeating behavior that was reinforced in the past, even if it leads to negative outcomes.
7. The Absurdist View: Albert Camus
- Absurdity of Life: Camus’ philosophy suggests that life is inherently absurd—there’s no inherent meaning or purpose, and humans often try to impose meaning where there is none. The “idiot” could be seen as someone who embodies this absurdity, behaving in ways that appear nonsensical because they are not bound by the search for meaning or rationality that guides most people’s actions. In a way, they remind us of the absurdity of trying to impose order on an inherently chaotic world.
- Revolt Against the Absurd: Camus also talks about the idea of “revolt” against the absurd. The “idiot” could be someone revolting against societal expectations, embracing the chaos of life rather than conforming to its expectations of rational behavior.
In simple terms: The “idiot” is someone who embodies the absurdity of life, acting in ways that challenge the search for meaning in a chaotic world.
Each of these theories brings a different lens to the idea of the “idiot,” suggesting that they may be a result of cognitive biases, societal expectations, evolutionary instincts, or deeper philosophical questions about existence. They all point to the fact that what we call “idiotic” behavior is often shaped by complex, interconnected factors that go beyond just simple foolishness—it’s a reflection of deeper psychological, social, and existential dynamics.
Quite complex and baffling indeed and probably doesn’t explain anything, but it’s a start.
