Intellectuality in Brazil

Intellectual. Is this a positive or a negative attribute? Asked in such a direct manner, I thought it would be difficult to ever get a negative answer. But surprisingly, most people I talked to didn’t answer it was positive without hesitating first or at least mentioning that it can be both positive and negative. Even among educated people.

We all know that the topics that dominate Brazilian conversations are football, other sports (like UFC recently), soap operas, personal life of celebrities, Big Brother, etc. And this doesn't go only for the uneducated masses. It's a national phenomenon that spans beyond social classes with less change than one would expect. Whoever dares escape these talks is instantly called a “pseudo-intellectual”, “cult” or something along these lines (as this post illustrates). All of them are negative labels which ridicule the preferences of those who deviate from the pattern. But what is the difference between a “pseudo-intellectual” and a person with genuine intellectual interests? I understand that calling yourself an intellectual can be seen a pretentious attitude, just as calling yourself “handsome” or “smart”, and I agree that showing disdain for everything that is popular is radical and arrogant. But I also have to admit that there are clichés which almost call for ridicule: for example, a group of “slacktivists” which post left-wing propaganda on Facebook and show up wearing Guy Fawkes masks in vague “anti-corruption/ anti-capitalism” marches which don’t have any concrete objective and end up as little more than a social event that gathers people who share the same style under a political pretext. The result is that some people will see them as yet another category: there are “metalheads”, “jocks”, and “bearded, Che Guevara style hippies”.

"Outraged" population protests against corporate greed and social inequality.

But is this enough of a reason to treat any demonstration of intellectual interest with such skepticism? Does it make sense to allow people who reduce intellectuality to a style, a subculture, to “stain” the word and give it a negative meaning? Let’s consider the definition of the word, as given by The Free Dictionary online:

in·tel·lec·tu·al (adj.): 1. a. Of or relating to the intellect;  b. Rational rather than emotional; 2. Appealing to or engaging the intellect; 3. a. Having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree; b. Given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect.

Seriously? Is there any way in which this can be generally seen as something bad? It doesn’t make sense. A society that thinks like this doesn’t seem healthy.

But OK, even though the word has acquired negative associations it is still clear that it’s not completely bad. In the end, people who call themselves intellectuals are accused of being pretentious, so up to a certain point it is still seen as a quality. But up to what point? To call yourself an intellectual is conceited. To simply use the word “intellectual” is pompous. To post in social networks and demonstrate any interest for intellectual topics is ostentatious. To discuss intellectual subjects with friends is showy. Summing up, to show any hint of any intellectual interest whatsoever is pretentious, arrogant and therefore reprehensible. In the end, we all know that being intellectual is something positive but we feel we have to keep it a secret at all costs. How can this make any sense? How can the manifestation of something by definition good be so discouraged?

For some reason, it seems that considerable cynicism and paranoia has developed in Brazil related to this topic. When someone merely mentions the word “intellectual” everybody immediately thinks of “pseudo-intellectual”, “hippy leftist intellectuals”, etc. The word didn’t use to be part of my vocabulary until recently. I’ve always been interested in philosophical debates, I’ve always liked questioning and discussing polemical and ideological topics, and have always hated remarks such as “you can’t talk about x”. But this interest of mine has been regarded with a lot of cynicism by most people I interacted with. And I hardly even think of myself as a great example of an “intellectual”. I have little discipline, haven’t read as many books as I would have liked to, and I consume quite a lot of popular entertainment. Despite all this, it has happened fairly often for somebody to interrupt my conversation with people who shared my interest with remarks such as “Why are you talking about this?? It’s so boring! You’re crazy”. Although I admit I sometimes lack the social intelligence or sensitivity to determine whether the topic is appropriate for the moment, I am convinced that this is not the main reason behind this negative reaction. The constant rejection of these topics seems general and it has made me repress this side of me and avoid such conversations. And I don’t think I’m the only one.

But is it like this everywhere? My girlfriend, who is Romanian, is surprised with the reactions here. In Romania, she says, at least in the educated middle-class, intellectuals are mostly associated to progressive, democratic movements. They are the ones who freed the country from the communist dictatorship which devastated the nation and left it in a state from which it hasn’t completely recovered. But there the intellectuals “won” and when the Western World talks about the victorious story of liberal democracy, they appear as heroes. It's not like everyone is deep and ideological, but at least those who are tend to be praised and not shunned. In Brazil, on the other hand, there seems to be a tendency to associate intellectuals with anti-capitalist reactionaries who still hold a grudge against any sign of non-socialist ideologies after being traumatized by the military dictatorship they fought against. Rebels who, if it weren’t for the Army, could have established a communist dictatorship and who today are seen as “defenders of a bankrupt system which failed wherever it was implemented”. Before anyone thinks that I endorse this view, I’d like to point out that it’s not necessarily my opinion. I’m only describing a hypothesis of what may be the popular stance, based on what I observe.

“But there are many leftist intellectuals who make a living out of defending scum. And the worst part is that they influence the opinion of a lot of people.” – Capitão Nascimento

During my exchange in Sweden I used to hang out a lot with people from France, Germany, Iceland, etc. It's not like we were always having deep intellectual conversations, but I never noticed any of them display any negative reaction when the conversation turned to philosophical/ political/ ideological topics. In the US, however, the situation seems more similar to that of Brazil, at least judging by popular series such as “How I Met Your Mother” or movies like “God Bless America” and "Idiocracy". But of course, personal experience is not enough to make any conclusive argument, so enough speculation for now.

In this How I Met Your Mother episode, Ted's friends make a fart noise every time he makes an intellectual comment.

God Bless America scene, in which Frank makes a speech responding to a cynical workmate.

The fact is that, for whatever reason, Brazilian society as a whole is cynical and generally views any intellectual attitude as snobbish and pedantic. A good citizen is “humble” and “friends of the people”, whereas sophistication is elitist and undesirable. Some might think this hypothesis goes against the previous one, since anti-elitism is usually associated to left-wing politics. But this is not necessarily a contradiction. It would be naïve to expect a popular opinion to always be coherent. And in any case, this is exactly my point: no matter what the position in the political spectrum, everybody has their own reasons to regard intellectual attitudes with cynicism. Yes, it is true that modesty is a virtue. But when this mentality becomes radical it ends up being detrimental to progress. People always talk about how important it is to “invest in education”, but they often forget that education is not limited to school.

ed·u·ca·tion (noun): 1. the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge and of developing the powers of reasoning and judgment; 2. the act or process of imparting or acquiring particular knowledge or skills, as for a profession; 3. a degree, level, or kind of schooling: a college education; 4. the result produced by instruction, training, or study; 5. the science or art of teaching; pedagogics.
– The Free Dictionary Online

Education is an ongoing process which accompanies every individual from birth until the end of their consciousness. School is only an instrument and it’s responsible for merely one phase of education. An educated population is not only a population who has attended school. An educated population consists of people who develop skills for self-development and who make good use of them throughout their lives, even years after their school graduation.

In the movie “Idiocracy” (which I recommend to all), in a dystopian future, the smartest man on earth is constantly ridiculed and accused of “talking like a faggot”.

If at times you get home tired after a hard day at work and you want to relax by watching a soap opera, Big Brother or football, ok, no reason to be ashamed. Understand if somebody criticizes these forms of entertainment without taking it personally. If somebody suggests that any of these activities are per se enough reason to define you as an inferior being, judge the person as an arrogant and simplistic person and not as the ultimate representative of the intellectuality. But if you have trouble remembering the last time you saw an interesting documentary, a smart movie, read a significant book or had a deeper conversation, then ask yourself: do you really value education? If your answer is no, this is also your right. But at least let those of us who do express ourselves peacefully.

Moralism and Religious Intolerance

Atheists are often accused of arrogance and prejudice against religions. Sentences like “Each to their own”, “What is the problem with believing in God?”, “Religion is personal” are always used to defend religion. In this text I explain the cause to my opposing religion and how, in some cases, the mere existence of religious persons is detrimental to the construction of a just and equalitarian society.

The belief alone in gods and immortality is a personal issue which in principle doesn’t affect the life of other people. In most cases, however, this belief goes hand in hand with other more complex standpoints which might involve ethical questions and generate conflicts between people who don’t share the same beliefs. 

"I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."
– Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects

In Brazil million of people are subject to a sole set of laws. Brazil calls itself a secular state with religious freedom, but many of these laws are influenced by Christianity or, in other words, all other religions are forced to follow Christian ethics. This is the “religious freedom” of the Brazilian “secular state”.

And it happens all over the world: If abortion is wrong according to Christian belief, don’t abort. If suicide and euthanasia are wrong according to Christian belief, don’t kill yourselves. If contraceptives are wrong, don’t use them. If certain sexual practices, homosexuality, gambling, drugs, prostitution or any other behavior is wrong according to Christian dogma, don’t practice them. It's not that I defend or encourage all these practices, and I do understand that the restriction of certain liberties isn't always enforced for religious reasons, but too often they are. Religious people have the freedom to follow their ethics and traditions (guaranteed by the state). Non-Religious don’t enjoy the same freedom. 

A healthy modern society should base their laws on reasonable and solid foundations like the human rights, not on millennia old peasant traditions. The laws of the state should protect victims of criminal acts, not tell somebody what they should or shouldn’t do with their own life if this doesn’t harm anybody. This attitude of the state is moralist and often follows religious values, with which not everybody is obliged to agree. 

Moral values based on tradition and religious dogmas are a universal problem. In the USA, seven doctors who legally performed abortions were assassinated by radical pro-life religious groups, who also vandalized, bombed and set fire to abortion clinics. Disabled people don’t have the right to end their own lives. Scientific progress is delayed because of polemics caused by religious issues, such as in the case of research on stem cells. Homosexuals don’t have the right to a legal marriage and in some places are even executed. Pre-marital sex in Iran is punished with 100 lashes and adultery with stoning.  

The higher the number of religious and intolerant people in the world, the bigger the influence of religious moralism and principles in the state and the more unjust the world for those who don’t practice this religion. A world with secular moral values and laws based on freedom and equality, where each citizen has the right to do whatever they want with their life as long as it doesn’t hinder other to exercise the same rights would be just for religious and non-religious people alike. 

Religious people could go on with their lives and their religious practices without being bothered by this, while the non-religious wouldn’t be punished for their supposedly “immoral” acts even though there were no victims. Apart from this, other factors, such as the religious view on life, could lead to distorted moral values, based on dogmas and superstitions, without any scientific basis, and any law based on these values would favor one belief system over the other, which is unjust and contradicts the principles of a secular state. 

This problem could be solved by diminishing this selfish and dictatorial line of thought on the side of many religious people, who are not satisfied simply by living with their traditions but want to impose their lifestyle on the whole of society. However, this tyrannical view is an intrinsic part of many religions, mainly the Abrahamic ones (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), just as the blind conviction that their unfounded beliefs are the true ones (most religions). Of course, religion has evolved and some of the most brutal traditions and intolerant teachings are largely ignored or "reinterpreted". But still the moral progress is slower in the religion community, as I have defended, so why stay tied to this weight? And what rational arguments could I possibly have to convince them that OK, Jesus died for our sins, but no, gay marriage isn't wrong and that this is a bad interpretation? There is no rational argument. So I either stay out of the debate or stick to the argument that neither is the case. If religious people learn to evolve faster, great. Until then, I'll support every movement that promotes education based on reason over faith, skepticism and critical thought.

Many people who critique religion talk about tithe, money-hungry Evangelical churches, and how religion in some cases can be damaging to the believers themselves. I won’t touch upon this subject. I think everybody has the right to do whatever they want with their life. I don’t have anything against people’s beliefs per se, only against the negative consequences usually brought for all the others who don’t share their convictions.   

Title

I will start by explaining the choice of name for my blog.

I took the terms “ghost” and “machine” from a metaphor that Descartes used to symbolize the dualism (body/ “soul”) which he defended. He believed that the body worked like a machine, “had the material properties of extension and movement”, and followed the laws of physics. The mind (“soul”/ “spirit”), however, was described as a non-material entity which didn’t conform to natural laws.  

(An interesting fact I came across in my short research is that Descartes thought that the soul resided in the pineal gland which he mistakenly believed only humans possessed and, thus, that animals didn’t have a mind. This made Descartes conclude that animals didn’t feel pain, so he started dissecting live animals.)

Later on, Gilbert Ryle (British philosopher) in his book The Concept of Mind attacked the Cartesian approach saying that it should be dismissed a redundant literalism from an era prior to the establishment of biological sciences. He claims that human beings are not equivalent to a machine and that philosophers do not need an obscure principle to explain their super-mechanical abilities.

Afterward, Arthur Koestler writes a book, The Ghost in the Machine, which is a reference to this metaphor, and also takes distance from it by stating that the brain developed starting from simpler structures and that it is the only “ghost in the machine”. 

Finally, Masamune Shirow creates the manga Ghost in the Shell (which is adapted into 3 movies and 2 series, which brought me to my current research) which deals with topics related to dualism, in a not so distant future in which people substitute parts of their body with other more efficient ones, to the point that, in some cases, the only thing that is left of the original being is the organic brain, the “ghost” (understood here more as “consciousness” than as “soul”).

Some of the most philosophical scenes from the movie

The name of the blog is a reference to all this. From my perspective, I am such a complex machine that I “think”. But this doesn’t imply any “soul” or anything of the kind. I believe everything can be reduced to biophysics, biochemistry, electrochemistry. Interaction between matter.

This is the only hypothesis which makes sense for me. The only one based on evidence. The other ones seem to me utopian creations of the human mind, full of supernatural appeals, and shaped in such a way as to suit this perspective best. It can be said that my philosophical ponderings started from such questions, so the name is suitable (I also have to admit it was one of the few available ones heheh).

I think the blog will be useful for me to organize my thoughts and to avoid writing the same thing every time I decide to discuss one of my questions with somebody.