Is there any writing by philosophers specifically about the nature of intelligence/intellect and the way it relates to epistemology? For example, is someone who's 'smarter' more likely to have true beliefs? Or perhaps methods for determining or recognizing intellect through the lens of philosophy?
-
1Check Hobbes, which essentially suggests that intelligence is the ability to survive. My preferred definition of intelligence. Solving math equations is not precisely intelligence, however, having mathematical abilities implies personal abilities to solve problems, essentially problems that impact survival (e.g. applying mathematical methods to earn money in the stock market, or finding north in the woods).– RodolfoAPCommented Jul 1 at 15:36
-
I will definitely check Hobbes, but would you argue that intelligence is simply synonymous with resourcefulness? If so, what about a person who is resourceful and could survive, but is also simple minded?– AibaahlCommented Jul 1 at 16:05
-
@Ahibaahl Resourcefulness is not ability. Anyway, yes, caveman apply to your example, and yes, that's intelligence. Put Richard Feynman in a prehistoric cave, and if he can't survive a bear attack, and the caveman does, the caveman is more intelligent (in your terms, in such context, Richard Feynman has not enough resources to survive). This is similar to the notion that it is the same taking a decision and not acting than not taking a decision. An intelligent person that can't survive is not intelligent.– RodolfoAPCommented Jul 2 at 8:18
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
Welcome!
Arguing a theory of intelligence is philosophically controversial in the same way arguing a theory of mind. The question of what intelligence is is a very contentious issue with both monolithic theories e.g. g-factor and pluralistic theories, e.g. MI theory. Spearman, Gardner, and others have a highly technical volume of literature that involves a fair amount of psychological theory.
Taking a theory of intelligence and intersecting it with a theory of epistemology would be highly technical. The work of Robert Audi, which informs my notions of rationality and epistemology, is also rather technical. To find philosophers who look at both fields of literature, I'd suggest that you look to PhilPapers. Here's a paper, for instance, THE PROBLEMATIC SEARCH FOR THE NATURE OF INTELLIGENCE: PHILOSOPHICAL REACTIONS AND PROJECTIONS (philpapers.org) Warning, I haven't read it, don't know the journal's reputation. For a more general search you can search using keywords intelligence epistemology at the the site.
I wouldn't bother with historical philosophers before the advent of modern psychology and would actually suggest you confine yourself to the most recent times, especially after the advent of cognitive psychology. Rene Descartes was a brilliant thinker, for instance, but his knowledge of modern science or mathematics or logic is self-evident. I'm not sure why anyone would entertain epistemological theory in ignorance of contemporary science, that is, with a naturalized epistemology. Doubly for building a theory of intelligence given the modern tools of psychology like operational definitions, psychometrics, and the procedures of cognitive science. But I guess not everyone likes or is comfortable with the modern sciences.
Of particular interest might be thinkers engaged in avant-garde philosophical theories like the physical computation (SEP), embodied cognition (SEP), or the neuroscience of consciousness (SEP). These theories tend to embrace an interdisciplinary approach to theories of intelligence, computation, and knowledge that someone from the 16th century simply wouldn't be able to fathom. Checkout the bibliographies from these sorts of SEP articles.
Good luck!
-
"I wouldn't bother with historical philosophers before the advent of modern psychology ..." Wow, so Aquinas theory of knowing by agent intellect + passive intellect + phantasm (from sensory data), which in turn is based on Aristotelian mind knowing the "truth-in-thing" in nature, by possessing the truth in the mind, where the truthfulness is based on correspondence theory, is considered obsolete in 21st century way of doing epistemology? If so, wow, I feel like a dinosaur. Commented Jul 1 at 18:31
-
@GratefulDisciple :D Yes and no. A good theory of mind will capitalize on good philosophical theories from past philosophers because they have been taken and extended into modernity. You yourself are forced to do so when you explain 'phantasm' as 'sensory data' which might be better updated as 'neural computations'. And 'agent intellect' and 'passive intellect' might be some form of 'fluid and crystalized intelligence'. And the correspondent and coherent theories of truth might be seen as 'accurate perception' and 'lack of cognitive dissonance'... It's not to say that...– J DCommented Jul 1 at 19:43
-
there is no merit to more traditional vocabularies used by Aristotelians or Thomists or Cartesians, but that intelligence is beter described and expressed by Wundtians, Chomskyians, Fodorians, and Kripkeans. Let me put it this way. If one is trying to understand contemporary aerospace technology, one doesn't start with the Wright brothers and move fowards, one starts with contemporary texts and move back to the Wright brothers for understanding. The Kantian idea of transcendental idealism is disputed by modern scholars precisely because they project it into the modern idiom in different ways.– J DCommented Jul 1 at 19:47
-
@GratefulDisciple By contemporary terms, Aristotle wouldn't be able to graduate high school with its demands of the language of the scientific method, calculus, and evolutionary theory. That doesn't make him an idiot; it makes him a man ahead of his time, but far behind ours. And there is much value to any defense and understanding of the historiography of a concept.– J DCommented Jul 1 at 19:49
-
I see. At least now I feel like a Rip van Winkle instead of a dinosaur. Just need to read up on what has been going since my long sleep in my local neighborhood philosophy (c. 1300) which is my comfort zone, my local metro philosophy (up to Kant) which is familiar, and start reading those foreign newspapers, which to me is quite an adventure. "historiography of a concept" definitely valuable, now that I'm also venturing doing the same for concepts in Christian theology. Commented Jul 1 at 19:51