FERNANDEZ
Lacking intelligence or common sense” is how the dictionary defines it. “Stupid” is a funny word. And funniest when used in the act of name-calling; such as in a recent column by Rigoberto Tiglao for a national daily. Stupid is a funny accusation to make of anyone. It is an accusation that is bound to bounce right back at the accuser.
It bounces right back when used against Justice Marvic Leonen, esteemed lawyer, once dean of the University of Philippines College of Law, and now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, among other achievements. The immediate impact of calling him “stupid” can only lead one to ask who Justice Marvic Leonen is and what he has done with his life. And once having done that, what else can one do but ask, how can this man be “lacking intelligence and common sense?” One is tempted to compare Leonen’s achievements against those of his accuser. But one need not even go there.
A particular political base is, of course, being addressed here by the accusation. One that is easily swayed by such claims as that Leonen is the “only one who gave a dissenting opinion.” He must therefore be stupid for being the only Justice to do this and for disagreeing with the majority. Which claim reminds me immediately of Plato.
Plato wrote “Apologia,” his account of Socrates’ defense after Socrates was condemned by a vote of the citizens of Athens — as was the tradition in ancient Greece — for the crimes of believing in only one God and corrupting the minds of the young.
It is a good discourse on the conundrum of democracy and how the popular decision can oftentimes be entirely wrong. Here, Socrates suggests a thesis that majority decisions are not essentially rooted on truth. Oftentimes, it has nothing to do with it at all, given the inherent limitations of what people can know.
Even so, Socrates did choose to defer to the majority decision by voluntarily drinking hemlock, a strong poison. He chose this punishment over exile or a prison term. Yet his last words are often interpreted by scholars to be prophetic, suggesting how Socrates knew his trial would exact its own historic vengeance: “Crito, we owe a rooster to Asclepius. Please don’t forget to pay the debt.”
It is worthwhile to know that before his trial, Socrates was pointed to by the oracle of Delphi for being the wisest man in of all Athens. This disturbed him and moved him on a quest to talk to other men known to be wise.
His quest led him finally to conclude that there were many who thought themselves wise for thinking they knew everything or more than anyone else; whereas Socrates “knew that he knew nothing.” And this might have been the only reason why the oracle thought him to be the wisest man of all Athens.
Which is why “stupid” is essentially a self-defeating accusation even if it is bandied about with complete abandon nowadays especially on social media. The accusation is especially annoying when thrown at someone with hardly an explanation for why the accused is supposed to be stupid. One’s immediate response is always to ask why.
Why is he stupid? And when that explanation is not forthcoming, how can we help but wonder if it is the accuser who is, himself, over even herself, stupid?
And yet, Socrates might have simply replied to this accusation of stupidity by accepting it immediately. And he might have said, “Yes, I am stupid for not knowing anything. But at least, I know that I know nothing.”
And for this, the Delphic oracle may still have called him the “wisest man of all Athens.”
Not so, his accusers, or people of contemporary times who make a claim to wisdom by calling those they do not agree with by that most woeful name, Stupid! See, it bounces right back. You can almost hear it. Boink!