Bonhoeffer’s Theory of Stupidity

Bonhoeffer argued that stupidity cannot be overcome by instruction or reason. Instead, it requires internal liberation and moral responsibility

In case anyone was wondering why certain seemingly obvious topics are never resolved, no matter how much explanation or evidence is presented.

In other words...I'm talking to a brick wall.

Got it

stupid people are free entertainment ...

depends on my mood

In other words...I'm talking to a brick wall.

It's possibly mortar than that, asz i've got concrete evidence it is some ass'sphault , and also some earthquaking faults of many whom i due deem, over and over, a wear the emperor has know clothes while staying on an even EZ wider closed narroe vs water Wade in coarse lined with a fine closed mind line d with speed bumps to slow the E Z pass of factual information that takes a toll that is in opposition to their preferred lied to and about taken position buy one who has lost his mental composition asz it in all weighs was and had sunken to a disposition below that did blow(probably Bubba too) asz dissed position has compromized our entire countries position inn the whirled order spun buy propaganda brought and bought inn two, the country we once knew,asz where we will remain until more stewpid peep holes sea how deeply they have been fooled and divided sew many times by a deranged sick 'man' who LIES as much asz he can, and his peeps want to believe this wussy, and he grabs many buy that pussy, asz it makes they uncomfortable to have to admit, they'd rather be grabbed and back stabbed than to face the stupidity of this bullshit asswhole portions of our once United States choose stupidity over ignorance, which is my preferred rule, so if they can't admit to igknorantzruling, i'm gonna have to agree, it's STUPIDITY and too many drooling with skillz that allow they to only be critically thinking of peoples who are actually able to be critical thinkers, leaving US All all in a critical condition, if only more thought see, they'd know that is where we currently be, and it be quite frustrating to see daily, so many who either refuse, or truly can't,

see

N this worries me, as it should all, but at the moment, i have tree to fall    later all....

Bonhoeffer observed that stupidity often arises when individuals surrender their inner independence to groupthink or authority. 

In other words, placing trust over critical thinking.

In other words, placing trust over critical thinking.

But when they're told that educators are really trying to indoctrinate them and that the deep state controls the public school system and all the levels of higher education where gleefully cackling villains aka Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, the lgbtq glitterati, the Hollywood Jewish mafia and George Soros control everything, it's hard for them to trust a textbook. It's easier for them to just accept the 'truth' as presented by their parents, peers and pastor. And let's face it, when they're already getting failing grades in school because their parents not only don't demand better grades, but they're actually proud of their children's stupidity, it's easier for them to blame the school system than the fucking useless parents teaching them to distrust education and indoctrinating them with Qanon conspiracy theories and biblical bullshit.

So basically, we'd have to teach the parents basic truths from scratch and show them there's no scary bogeyman Soros waiting for them behind the periodic table before we can start teaching their kids not to be so stupid.

Progressives have controlled education for 50 years, students get dumber. 

progressives,  proving Bonhoeffer right, blame conservatives.   

So what do we do with the stupid parents? Obviously, they're beyond redemption and hope.

Obviously, they're beyond redemption and hope.

They're so deep in denial they're incapable of admitting the problem isn't with progressives or liberals trying to teach facts and reality, it's with the indoctrinated parents, peers and pastors who infect the next generation with their sick religious ideology. The same thing happens in Muslim controlled regions which is why we still have millions in Iran believing America is the 'great Satan' while all those conservative Christian Americans believe liberals and Muslims are the 'great Satan'. Basically, being indoctrinated in any organized religion almost guarantees that person will grow up as a religious bigot refusing to accept any truth other than that dispensed by their dear religious Leaders.

People are not made stupid

What evil said. Maybe we can de-program the stupid

People are not made stupid

they can be made to be, and if i have too, i'll prove it, cause it's easier than proving them not, by a lot

If they have stupid parents chances are they will be made stupid. But one can have smart parents and still end up with stupid kids

What evil said. Maybe we can de-program the stupid

Sadly, it would require a program that would resemble what whites did to native American children and aboriginal children in Australia so it's a non-starter. All we can really do is provide better adult education programs for those who come out of these education deserts at 18 and want to learn about the real world instead of the laughable fiction they were taught by their poorly educated ultra-religious conservative parents. And I'm not making fun of those education deserts; I came from one myself being raised in an evangelical Christian home. I didn't really get educated about the world till I was in my thirties and had finally left the rightwing conservative Christian orthodoxy. It was the most freeing and best experience in my life, and I can't recommend it enough to those still stuck, like Sisyphus, pushing their massive boulder of stupid religious beliefs up logic mountain only to be slapped back down to the foot by reality.

that's what my possibly off spring say, for the on fall of stupidity was  a parental inflict, so unless one does have an interdict to shun, they'll probably wind up a stupid ignorant one without a pun 

N i'll sure asz hell not give or loan them one, as i'm greedy without interest, and besides

i'm not FDIC insured, and not by accident 

Progressives have controlled education for 50 years, students get dumber. 

People are not made stupid. Bonhoeffer confuses cultural brainwashing with moral failure and was writing under great stress from a Nazi prison. He was a fatalist and that biased his work. We are not defenseless against stupid and people can recalibrate their thinking. We've seen it in cult victims over many years. We also have data on cognitive phycology that prove a lot of what he calls moral failing, things like like confirmation bias, are phycological defense mechanisms.

Bonhoeffer confuses cultural brainwashing with moral failure

I disagree. It is the stupidity that allows cultural brainwashing to begin with. Being unable or unwilling to examine what you believe or why you believe it is the moral failure of stupidity. 

There are plenty of Trump supporters who believe in him based on their 'research'.   Problem is, their 'research' is fundamentally flawed (trusting the wrong source, confirmation bias, etc.).

These people believe they know why they support Trump.   Just as traditional cult members know why they support their cult leader.

Crucially, people must know how to distinguish bad sources from good; how to distinguish fiction from fact.   Is the inability to do that effectively —in a particular context/situation— 'stupidity'?

I know of a number of demonstrably smart people who still support Trump.   People who have demonstrated critical thinking in other aspects of their lives but somehow have succumbed to whatever superpower Trump possesses to ensnare minds.

After a lifetime of observation, study and seeking I am 100% convinced the brainwashing people suffer most is believing that magic is real. That there are supernatural explanations for life. That ancient parables are historical fact instead of fantastical fictions with religious brainwashing imbedded within them... 

I disagree.

Can you elaborate? I'm not quite sure what you are actually saying. Are you agreeing with Bonhoeffer that people are stuck on 'stupid' and can't grow past their programming?

I know of a number of Trump supporters who apparently believe Trump has magical powers ... or at least superhuman powers ... and can accomplish things because of some kind of super intellect or awesome power of negotiation.   

I think you are right

As a child we believed as children do. Then we became men.

They said the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and Santa were real.

It never made sense there once was magic, then no magic...

MAGA must believe a lot of things that just are not true...

I know it. You know it. On some level even they suspect it.

Yes, snake handling jibber jabberers flimflaming the gullible...

I'm off work now... While I agree that willful ignorance is 'stupid', it wasn't my point. 

Bonhoeffer says that stupidity is sociological. I'm saying we have evidence it's phycological. People can change how they think. They may have learned what Bonhoeffer refers to as 'moral failings' from cultural group think... catchphrases, slogans, dogma, what have you.

Imprisoned under Nazi rule gave Bonhoeffer a bleak outlook on life, which I can empathize with. He saw no way to reason with those who swallowed the Nazi propaganda. In this modern age of alternative facts and information bubbles his writings seem almost precent. I see a brighter world. People frequently cast off these learnings. It begins with showing people how they were manipulated and then how thinking (logically) critically holds up outside their old group.

Can you elaborate? I'm not quite sure what you are actually saying.

If I understand Bonhoffer correctly, he's essentially saying that stupidity is a surrender to one's social environment. In a sense, a slave of it. What brought this observation about for him was the observation of his own society's succumbing to Nazism. The conclusion was not the result of depression from being persecuted or imprisoned. It was his answer as to why his society so willingly embraced the injustices propagated by Nazism. Rather than remaining individuals with a moral compass, people willingly gave over control of that compass to another, in this case the Nazis. They succumbed to social pressure, mass movements, intense social pressure, tribal identity, fear and the like. 

Marx was right about one thing, at least. Man is a social creature. People want to fit in. They want to get belong and to get along. They want to be right and seen as right. Unfortunately, most people think that means aligning themselves with what emotionally feels true to them or what they want to be true. Hitler knew this on some level. Through propaganda and true oratorial talent, he told people what they wanted to hear. They were special. They were being treated unfairly. They had a destiny. They knew who to blame. And so on. And the more people who believed it created more pressure for others to do so as well. 

That is what I meant when I said "It is the stupidity that allows cultural brainwashing to begin with. Being unable or unwilling to examine what you believe or why you believe it is the moral failure of stupidity." They gave up their own self-determination concerning what was right, just and moral to someone, something else. Most likely, for most it wasn't even a conscious decision, as they probably had been living their whole lives that way already. Most people do. In fact, I think it likely that even the most careful of us has stupidity concerning certain things in our lives. 

Are you agreeing with Bonhoeffer that people are stuck on 'stupid' and can't grow past their programming?

I do not think this question reflects what Bonhoffer was saying. That is, he didn't say people cannot escape stupidity. Rather, he thought that education was not the solution. You could not persuade a stupid person, in other words. Instead, it had to begin internally and could not be induced externally, as the stupidity would resist anything else. He spoke about the stupid person needing liberation, which I understand to be the realization that, while they may be a part of society, they are first and foremost an individual and therefore morally obligated concerning belief and action. In other words, self-examination as to why they believe what they do and do what they do. 

Put another way, while they are obligated toward society, that obligation doesn't absolve them from moral thought and behavior. The individual is obligated to decide for themselves, not societal pressure or whatever group holds power, what is right, moral and just. From Bonhoffer's perspective, in order to determine what is right, moral and just, one must have a standard. He believed that God was that standard. This would be necessarily so. The alternative is people who are not stupid but have wildly different values as to what is right, moral and just. That might be a category of stupid that Bonhoffer did not address. 

So, to sum it up, what I meant when I said...

It is the stupidity that allows cultural brainwashing to begin with. Being unable or unwilling to examine what you believe or why you believe it is the moral failure of stupidity. 

is that moral stupidity makes us one of the cows that follows the one with the bell simply because it has the bell, so to speak. Hitler's bell was manipulation of perceived injustice, tribalism, fear, propaganda and the rest and the people followed without thinking. Stupidity had to be there first for Hitler's bell to work. Without stupidity, there can be no brainwashing. In other words, personal accountability for one's own beliefs and actions is paramount. "Why am I doing this? Is it moral? Why do I think so?" as opposed to letting external pressure determine those things for oneself. 

If I understand Bonhoffer correctly, he's essentially saying that stupidity is a surrender to one's social environment. In a sense, a slave of it.

That's pretty much correct.

I do not think this question reflects what Bonhoffer was saying. That is, he didn't say people cannot escape stupidity.

Bonhoeffer says you can't reason with stupid, it's only through an "act of liberation" that will change a person's thinking. Acts of liberation... such as after supporting the Nazis they turn on them too do happen. The man was not a phycologist, or a neurobiologist and had based his writing on what he experienced, not peer reviewed research. 

I agree that the man was onto something, it's just his definitions and conclusions have been shown to be short sighted. Peer reviewed research says 'stupid' as Bonhoeffer defines it is phycological and we can change people's thinking by talking. There is a whole industry built on it.

 ...we can change people's thinking by talking.

Talk therapy only works if the patient is willing to actually discuss the things that are in question, able to discern that the things they are doing and saying are not in line with what is real and observable. Those who embody stupidity according to Bonhoeffer's definition are incapable of this. To them, others are the ones who are not right. It is much the same as a  person with psychoses: "I'm alright. The world is all wrong! You are trying to mess with my brain!"

The largest obstacle to changing anyone's opinion is a lack of trust. As long as people think you are fucking with them, then there is almost no chance of establishing a trust relationship with them. This is why we need to show people, to demonstrate that the way to go is more successful than the path that they are currently following. In this way we can change peoples minds, not by coercion but by example. 

I would contend that someone is "stupid/not-stupid" in a non-binary fashion, and in different areas of thinking display different levels of stupidity.  

Stupidity had to be there first for Hitler's bell to work.

Meh. Some nascent form of Stupidity is present in most-all of us. We are predominantly social creatures and as such tend to want to get along with our group. This is something that we cannot easily avoid because it has been the way we were raised, maybe even the way we are wired. So we are usually trying to more-or-less get along. This would be where the nascent Stupidity, or total lack thereof, would be first observable. In other words, Stupidity (the surrendering of agency) is a behavior to ease our social interactions.

The question then arises: How much and what type of stupidity is too much?

This may be why Bonhoeffer defined Stupidity in terms of morality. 

I'm not saying 100% of people can be converted 100% of the time. I'm only applying new data to an old paradigm, and saying the world isn't as bleak as that one person saw it.

I would contend that someone is "stupid/not-stupid" in a non-binary fashion, and in different areas of thinking display different levels of stupidity.

I was thinking the same thing. 

Meh. Some nascent form of Stupidity is present in most-all of us.

I agree. 

The question then arises: How much and what type of stupidity is too much?

Ultimately, any at all, but I think that's unachievable. As Evilone points out, Bonhoffer was not a psychologist, in the usual sense, anyway. In spite of that, I think he was generally correct concerning stupidity. I think the main take away from this should be recognition of this type of stupidity exists and to examine how much of it exists in ourself, personally. 

This may be why Bonhoeffer defined Stupidity in terms of morality.

Maybe. Personally, I think he found it ultimately to be about personal moral accountability more than anything else. At least, that is what he saw as the solution and why it either can't come from outside or is very difficult. 

This is why we need to show people, to demonstrate that the way to go is more successful than the path that they are currently following. In this way we can change peoples minds, not by coercion but by example. 

Precisely my thoughts on this matter and the matter of productive conversation and dialog in venues like this.

In the article the author states, "Bonhoeffer distinguished stupidity from ignorance. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge that can be remedied through education or experience, whereas stupidity is a willful refusal to engage critically with reality.  

My question upon reading that is; How does he suppose that willful refusal to engage critically with reality came about in the first place?  As many have indicated here it was most certainly learned by immersion in environments/experiences that discouraged independent and critical thinking in lieu of group-think, peer pressure, and mis-guided allegiance to political ideology.  Certainly one can be persuaded to think for themselves again if our approach is one of careful and calm discussion/examination of the facts and being a good example of rational, reasonable, and independent thinking. Coercion, insults, and derision are not going to be successful if one is truly interested in helping others to regain their ability to think independently and critically.

Critical thinking requires effort and focus.   It is much easier to rely upon trusted sources.   At its core, I believe this is the underlying problem.

When someone desires something, especially if they are desperate, they are more inclined to believe a promising authority.   They are more inclined to trust and not verify.    And once they get to the point where they have put sufficient faith in an authority, it becomes difficult (for some reason) to wake up and depart from the fantasy.   Confirmation bias and all that.

My question upon reading that is; How does he suppose that willful refusal to engage critically with reality came about in the first place?  As many have indicated here it was most certainly learned by immersion in environments/experiences that discouraged independent and critical thinking in lieu of group-think, peer pressure, and mis-guided allegiance to political ideology. 

Critical thinking requires effort and focus.   It is much easier to rely upon trusted sources.   At its core, I believe this is the underlying problem.

I do not. I think that the core of the problem lies in the hardwired feelings of "belonging to the group". Most everyone is capable of thinking critically in some capacity. That they do not is not of necessity a failing on their part. To a large extent, American children have been taught not to rock the boat. They have been taught that the way to get ahead, the way to succeed, is to develop community affinity for ones actions. This is not of necessity a detrimental attitude.

This is why simple concepts such as Bonhoeffer's Stupidity, which makes people say "I can see that,"  languish when it comes to mass implementation: The same instincts that lead one to a more cohesive society can also lead one to a less cohesive society. Instead of getting closer to universal peace, one gets strife and turmoil. Both are lead to by the same basic factor: to belong to a group. 

Both are lead to by the same basic factor: to belong to a group

I prefer to belong to my own group, cause my independence of thought and reason, enables me to confirm my beliefs via so many voices, voices in my head a tempting to tell me what they said, problem being, i never learned sign language, and would look silly replying via fingers in my ears, but that's not what I heard, as stated i'm deaf to the dumb sounds the dumb voices in my head don't say and have never said, but I do appreciate reading correspondence such as the three of you have written, in a respectful, intelligent, courteous debate, as for me, not always a defined trait, for being self uneducated I have no formal education and my disorganized thoughts, tend to leave me thought less of, also known as a more on, and i'll accept that title, though I do have a knack at causing some to need some Midol, for might all isn't always just for Young Joes, cause gee, I don't often have the key to release that 666# Gorrila in the midst of so much division and turmoil, but I don't need a turbin of aluminum foil, cause my non ferrous irony is not for all to catch and see, for reception depends on YAC's, and the Yards After Caught, escape right by many, and often tend to rush by an end around the corner of the circular firing squad aiming at the center of a target peep holes often can't dial in via the scope of the ambiguity in plane site, as it flies over ahead or two, and it beheaded for the 'right' whom seem to have lost their minds, and it is a pleasure to read TiGs', yours', andn Freewill's take on things, cause when I take on things, things aren't always taken correctly, but my Liam Neilson ratings, are often Taken with a grain of assault, as it is always in season, preserves my insanity, and leaves me a pleasing my need to on occassion vent, cause by know accident, is my appeasing to be interpreted as teasing, cause if I wish to tease, I approach a mirror and stick my fingers in my ears and go, 'nah, nah, na, nah nah!" in a vein attempt to communicate with the voices in my head, and by teasing my hair, maybe they will understand what I intended there, and hopefully they can explain it to me, and again, a thank you to you and they, that total three, cause i and most will never be able to see, yet, critical thinking is something most can agree, with so many critical of my thinking skills, including myself, so on this, most can say true it be, and that is fine and dandy for one like me, unless they don't, and perhaps won't, and on this ive not a great desire to set the world on fire, as of late, cause of a date, that fate did set in motion, and though el loco, MOTION was a potion i was slipped like a disc, but no longer stabbed in the back, as all the existing knives protect me from another attack, so now i gotta go run and track my bread crumbs, for feeding the fowl, sometimes flies in the faces of their reasons, leaving assault, never out of season... 

My question upon reading that is; How does he suppose that willful refusal to engage critically with reality came about in the first place?

I asked ChatGPT the same question in a slightly different way earlier. To be more precise, I first asked "How did Bonhoffer define stupidity?" It returned: 

A stupid person is someone who has surrendered their ability to think independently and instead adopts the opinions and slogans of a group or authority.

I then asked "Does he identify what, in people, causes them to do so?"

Here are the main causes he identifies:

1. The influence of power

   This is his primary explanation. He observed that when a powerful movement, ideology, or leader gains influence, many people stop exercising their own judgment. They begin borrowing their opinions from the group rather than arriving at them independently.

   His point is not simply that dictators make people obey out of fear. Rather, power can reshape how people think, until they no longer see themselves as responsible for evaluating what is true or good.

2. Loss of personal responsibility

   Bonhoeffer believed people naturally want relief from the burden of making difficult moral decisions. In a powerful collective, responsibility can feel transferred to:

   • the leader,
   • the party,
   • the nation,
   • or "what everyone knows."

   This allows people to act without fully confronting their own accountability.

3. Social conformity

   He observed that humans are deeply social creatures. Once a consensus forms, many people accept it because it is the consensus. Over time, they may genuinely come to believe ideas they initially accepted only because others did.

4. Moral rather than intellectual failure

   This is why he insists stupidity is not low intelligence. An intelligent engineer, professor, or lawyer can become "stupid" if they stop exercising independent moral judgment.

   Conversely, someone with little formal education may resist manipulation if they retain integrity and the willingness to think for themselves.

I find it curious that 1 is considered his primary explanation, as it is only possible by a failure in 4. In fact, 1 through 3 are only possible by first failing 4, or so it seems to me. 

I also wonder if 1 through 3 actually happen in that order in progressing to stupidity. Leaders or "experts" in some field gain a following, people are relieved someone else is responsible for figuring things out and then you simply conform in the sense of it being the path of least resistance/maximum acceptance. 

I'm not much for going along with the group, either. It gets me into trouble

I never have, and, I never will ...

If they see no reason to change, they will not.

Indeed.  They see their position as solid, as do many of us.  Whether that position has come about due to group-think, peer pressure, or independent thinking, it seems rock solid to the holder.  So how do we go about showing them a reason to change, a reason to think critically, for themselves, and more closely examine their position?  How do we best foster open-mindedness?

Do we insult them?  Call them a moron or braindead?  Group them together for mass derision? Assert that they are unrecoverably stupid and merely a source of entertainment or fodder for insulting memes?  I think we have seen by historical example that this simply entrenches them further in their doctrine and "us against them" attitude and pushes them further from independent and critical thinking. Not to mention that we have set that example, that "us against them" attitude, that tribal mentality by treating those with whom we disagree in that manner.

Open-mindedness is not a one way street.  Introspection is not only something we should expect of others, but from ourselves as well.  We need to make that clear in our dealings with other people, that critical and independent thinking requires us to be open to other ideas or views, to look inward and truly examine why we take the positions that we do and try to understand why others might take the positions they do.  We should be examples of a calm, independent, rational and reasonable mind willing to help others come to realize their capacity for the same, even if that proves to be quite difficult.  Fostering critical thinking and independent minds by positive example IMHO is the only way to safeguard against the coercion of powerful leaders, tribalism, and the human desire to fit in with their "group" often at the expense of their own independence and agency.

I find it curious that 1 is considered his primary explanation, as it is only possible by a failure in 4. In fact, 1 through 3 are only possible by first failing 4, or so it seems to me. 

I think that is a fair observation.  Notice in 4. the language "...if they stop exercising independent moral judgment", and "...if they retain integrity and the willingness to think for themselves".

Hence the acknowledgement that the ability for independent, critical, and moral thinking is already there regardless of one's position in society.  The goal then I think is to help people resist the pressures in 1 thru 3 from breaking down those innate individual qualities, or succumbing to manipulation. 

So, shouldn't our education system, from the earliest level, focus on tools to foster self-worth, self-reliance, and enduring independent and critical thinking skills?   They say that Western Civilization is built upon the concepts of individualism, personal autonomy, liberty, intellectual inquiry, and moral accountability.  Seems to me that we are slowly eroding our adherence to those foundational concepts.  Perhaps we should refocus our education systems and make an effort to regrow our social interactions and political discourse on those root concepts?  Just kinda thinking out loud here...

Critical thinking requires effort and focus.   It is much easier to rely upon trusted sources.   At its core, I believe this is the underlying problem.

Yeah you could be right.  So the strategy/goal then should be two-fold in support of critical thinking.  First, teach from a young age that effort and focus are important for self-reliance and independence.  And second, never rely on sources you cannot corroborate no matter how trustworthy they might seem. Trust but verify on steroids! 

The other problem with "trusted sources" is not so much what they tell you but the parts of the story that they don't tell you.  For example, if a politician or two claim they have balanced the budget or eliminated the deficit and a media source reports only that they have done it, and not the detailed explanation of how they claim to have done it, that source is probably untrustworthy, IMHO.

Is this yet another article about Graham Platner?  The Bonhoeffer defense could become a universal excuse.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a theologian making moral arguments.  Perhaps religion should have a role in government, after all.

Perhaps religion should have a role in government, after all.

FUCK NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FUCK NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then why turn Bonhoeffer into a hero?  He was definitely not a secular dissident.  

That is truly a stupid question.

That is truly a stupid question.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran pastor deeply rooted in Protestant ideals of the Right of Conscience, Personal Redemption, and the Priesthood of All Believers.  In more orthodox Protestant belief, submission to a cult leader is the work of the Devil.  And only God can defeat the Devil.

Bonhoeffer viewed stupidity as a moral defect.  Bonhoeffer advocated that "the fear of God" was the beginning of wisdom and would overcome stupidity.  His remedy was to return people to liberty and independence that God intended. 

Bonhoeffer argued that good governance depended upon a moral society.  Attempting to separate government from a moral society would be stupid, as Bonhoeffer defined stupidity.  So, the role of religion in government is to establish a moral society.  According to Bonhoeffer that was the remedy for stupidity.

Anything to justify the non separation of church and state. Am I right?

Anything to justify the non separation of church and state. Am I right?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a staunch defender of the separation of church and state.  Government would be a corrupting influence on religion.  The Protestant belief is that religion is necessary to establish a moral society.  And government should not be allowed to corrupt moral society.  

Another way to look at Bonhoeffer's theory of stupidity is that government is allowed to corrupt society, creating a stupid society.  The advocated remedy was to revive a moral society based on Protestant ideals which would require resistance to the state.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a staunch defender of the separation of church and state

Then why go all jerk on my FUCK NO!

Make up your goddamned mind, Nerm! And just stop talking to me

Then why go all jerk on my FUCK NO!

Because your "FUCK NO!" fit Bonhoeffer's theory of stupidity.  Why make Bonhoeffer a hero if you oppose his advocacy for a religious role in government?

Our government was intended to be by consent of the governed -- consent of society.  Bonhoeffer's advocacy was for religion to play a key role in establishing a moral society -- so that government would derive from moral consent.  

Didn't Hitler obtain power by using government to hollow out moral society?  Didn't the NAZI government corrupt moral society?  Without "fear of God" the German society could not withstand the corrupting influence of the NAZI government.

I'm looking forward to soon witnessing maga thumpers getting defanged, permanently ...

I'm gonna go buy a brand new pair of pliers

we'll be using ball peen hammers ...

Because your "FUCK NO!" fit Bonhoeffer's theory of stupidity.  Why make Bonhoeffer a hero if you oppose his advocacy for a religious role in government?

Our government was intended to be by consent of the governed -- consent of society.  Bonhoeffer's advocacy was for religion to play a key role in establishing a moral society -- so that government would derive from moral consent.  

Didn't Hitler obtain power by using government to hollow out moral society?  Didn't the NAZI government corrupt moral society?  Without "fear of God" the German society could not withstand the corrupting influence of the NAZI government.

Absolutely brilliant. 

Also, I don't think most understand what you're saying here. 

[deleted][✘]

Didn't Hitler obtain power by using government to hollow out moral society?  Didn't the NAZI government corrupt moral society

No, he did not. Opportunism in time of crisis, nationalism and propaganda gained him electoral support. He hollowed out moral society before he was in control of the government. Then, once von Hindenburg appointed him Chancellor (because the conservative elites thought they could control him) he was then able to hollow out the government with the use of "Emergency Powers": i.e. the Reichstag Fire Decree to suspend constitutional rights and due process, followed by the Enabling Act, which allowed his government to make laws without the Reichstag.

Sound familiar? It should. The use of crisis to justify concentrating executive power is not unique. It happened in the Roman Republic and other places, too. It is happening right here, right now. 

People like Hitler and Trump do not wait for institutions to grant them moral permission. They act and then force those institutions to decide whether they are willing and able to stop them. Their confidence and certainty persuade millions of people to accept their lies as strength.

Some of these people were and are in the church. In Hitlers case, many Catholics and Protestants accommodated the regime, also, and Bonhoeffer specifically warned that rising religious power could produce stupidity just as political power could.

I think that this view because any organized group possesses some degree of power. As the group gains numbers, cohesion, or institutional authority, its ability to replace deliberation with conformity increases. The more powerful the group becomes, the more deliberately its members must preserve their individual agency.

Especially the national Angst over the Treaty of Versailles.

Revenge.

No, he did not. Opportunism in time of crisis, nationalism and propaganda gained him electoral support. He hollowed out moral society before he was in control of the government. Then, once von Hindenburg appointed him Chancellor (because the conservative elites thought they could control him) he was then able to hollow out the government with the use of "Emergency Powers": i.e. the Reichstag Fire Decree to suspend constitutional rights and due process, followed by the Enabling Act, which allowed his government to make laws without the Reichstag.

Sound familiar? It should. The use of crisis to justify concentrating executive power is not unique. It happened in the Roman Republic and other places, too. It is happening right here, right now. 

People like Hitler and Trump do not wait for institutions to grant them moral permission. They act and then force those institutions to decide whether they are willing and able to stop them. Their confidence and certainty persuade millions of people to accept their lies as strength.

Some of these people were and are in the church. In Hitlers case, many Catholics and Protestants accommodated the regime, also, and Bonhoeffer specifically warned that rising religious power could produce stupidity just as political power could.

I think that this view because any organized group possesses some degree of power. As the group gains numbers, cohesion, or institutional authority, its ability to replace deliberation with conformity increases. The more powerful the group becomes, the more deliberately its members must preserve their individual agency.

That flips what Dietrich Bonhoeffer was talking about and moves the goalpost. According to Bonhoeffer, the state has no business granting or denying moral permission; that is the function of a moral society. What you've outlined is merely how Adolf Hitler obtained political power in Germany and then used the law to silence dissent and displace morality.

The NAZIs did systematically subvert the courts, the universities, and the churches by imposing strict legal requirements and meting out harsh consequences for non-compliance.  Moral dissent was treated as a crime.  When legality replaces morality, and when a state is permitted to define what is 'good,' it destroys the independent conscience of society by forcing a choice between morality and survival.  Neighbor denounces neighbor as a means of protection.  Society becomes hollowed out to comply with expectations of a corrupt government.  The weakness in Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity lies in discounting the power of coercion to hollow out moral society.  

that is the function of a moral society

people that vote for a person with a lack of morals are demonstrating their own morals ...

I think that this view because any organized group possesses some degree of power. As the group gains numbers, cohesion, or institutional authority, its ability to replace deliberation with conformity increases. The more powerful the group becomes, the more deliberately its members must preserve their individual agency.

Indeed!

Excuse me, but did you not say:

Didn't Hitler obtain power by using government to hollow out moral society?  Didn't the NAZI government corrupt moral society

I was replying to your take, not Bonhoeffer's. 

 The weakness in Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity lies in discounting the power of coercion to hollow out moral society. 

I think not. I think that it does just exactly what you say it des not

huh?

I was bagging on thumper hypocrites praising their savior's power and glory, while sucking trump's dick ...

Right church, wrong pew...

I think that should have been posted to Nerm

I thought as much, and I forgive you. unlike those potential church collapse victims with shit-stuffed skulls that fake their way thru an alleged pious life as 2nd class xtians, with an asterisk on most of their savior's teachings that means *except for democrats ...

Here is a link to and a transcription of what Bonhoeffer wrote from his prison cell (emphasis mine):

‘Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed- in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.

‘If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, that it is in essence not an intellectual defect but a human one. There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid. We discover this to our surprise in particular situations. The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect, but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or that they allow this to happen to them. We note further that people who have isolated themselves from others or who lives in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem. It is a particular form of the impact of historical circumstances on human beings, a psychological concomitant of certain external conditions. 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. It would even seem that this is virtually a sociological-psychological law. The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other.The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence, and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.

‘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 must cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person. This state of affairs explains why in such circumstances our attempts to know what ‘the people’ really think are in vain and why, under these circumstances, this question is so irrelevant for the person who is thinking and acting responsibly. 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.

‘But these thoughts about stupidity also offer consolation in that they utterly forbid us to consider the majority of people to be stupid in every circumstance. It really will depend on whether those in power expect more from peoples’ stupidity. than from their inner independence and wisdom.’

-Dietrich Bonhoeffer, from ‘After Ten Years’ in Letters and Papers from Prison (Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works/English, vol. 8) Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010

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. It would even seem that this is virtually a sociological-psychological law.

What do you think Bonhoeffer was talking about in the passage you highlighted?

What do you think Bonhoeffer was talking about in the passage you highlighted?

In short, I think that he was saying that people get sucked into whatever the majority of their "group" is doing and the more sucked in they become, the more they proselytize to others to grow the group, and that this is true no matter the type of group. That is, it can be a political party, a particular religion, any group, really... all have the capability of replacing deliberative actions with rote demonstrations of, hmmmm... fealty. People give up their agency to the group. 

That would seem an obvious interpretation but it is clouded by a modern institutional worldview that blames society for its own stupidity; according to Bonhoeffer's idea of stupidity.  But examining the context of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings, he is actually blaming institutional corruption and hollowing out of moral society.  Bonhoeffer, himself, presents a cautionary example of dissent against institutionally imposed stupidity.

There is a difference between people voluntarily relinquishing their agency and institutional coercion.  Blaming society for stupidity excuses the corrupting influence of institutional thinking by literally killing dissent, as happened with Bonhoeffer.

That would seem an obvious interpretation but it is clouded by a modern institutional worldview that blames society for its own stupidity; according to Bonhoeffer's idea of stupidity.  But examining the context of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings, he is actually blaming institutional corruption and hollowing out of moral society.  Bonhoeffer, himself, presents a cautionary example of dissent against institutionally imposed stupidity.

I'm not sure I agree, here. It seems to me that, from Bonhoffer's perspective, nothing outside the individual can be blamed for stupidity. From what I've read, stupidity begins and ends internally for each individual, not from a corrupted society or institution, which merely take advantage of an already extant condition. For instance, many people simply never developed the idea of personal accountability within themselves. For them, what the group/society/institution/leader determines is what is moral. That is, externally decided. 

For Bonhoffer, the only real defense from stupidity was aligning oneself with God. It provided a moral standard and sense of accountability to something trustworthy. More specifically, it prevented an obvious problem with his ideas about stupidity. Suppose everyone suddenly stopped being stupid. What would that mean? Most likely, a non-stupid population that could not form a cohesive society because there were as many different standards of moral accountability as there were people. 

I'm not sure I agree, here. It seems to me that, from Bonhoffer's perspective, nothing outside the individual can be blamed for stupidity. From what I've read, stupidity begins and ends internally for each individual, not from a corrupted society or institution, which merely take advantage of an already extant condition. For instance, many people simply never developed the idea of personal accountability within themselves. For them, what the group/society/institution/leader determines is what is moral. That is, externally decided. 

That may be, to some extent, since Bonhoeffer was willing to die for his dissent. But my contention is that Bonhoeffer laid the greatest blame for stupidity, or the hollowing out of moral society, on institutional corruption of society. A single individual can accept the moral defect of stupidity, as Bonhoeffer describes it. But extrapolating that individual stupidity to an entire society doesn't seem to fit Bonhoeffer's theory. In my view, Bonhoeffer argues that institutional corruption establishes the means for creating societal stupidity.

For Bonhoffer, the only real defense from stupidity was aligning oneself with God. It provided a moral standard and sense of accountability to something trustworthy. More specifically, it prevented an obvious problem with his ideas about stupidity. Suppose everyone suddenly stopped being stupid. What would that mean? Most likely, a non-stupid population that could not form a cohesive society because there were as many different standards of moral accountability as there were people.

I agree, Bonhoeffer cited a "fear of God" as a source of wisdom that created a firewall against stupidity. But that was derived from Lutheran Protestant belief in the Right of Conscience and the Priesthood of All Believers to establish a society that embraced moral wisdom and resisted the corruption of institutional influence on society. The Protestant ideal of self-government counterbalances the corrupting influence of institutional authority.

But my contention is that Bonhoeffer laid the greatest blame for stupidity, or the hollowing out of moral society, on institutional corruption of society.

That is either true or false depending on what, precisely, we are talking about. If we are speaking of societal stupidity, you're most likely right. I think Bonhoffer would not argue against it. But if we speak of the individual I think he would not blame institutional corruption. I think he would blame the individual for not recognizing their own moral accountability for their own agency. The moral failure of the stupid person is failure to recognize this and abdicating it to something else. That something else doesn't even have to be corrupt, either. Abdicating moral responsibility within a society is simply wrong and leads to stupidity even when what one abdicates their moral responsibility is moral and just. The reason is that even if that thing is good, it can become bad over time, as most things do, and you go right along with it. It is personal moral responsibility that is the greatest bulwark against a good system going bad. 

I agree, Bonhoeffer cited a "fear of God" as a source of wisdom that created a firewall against stupidity. But that was derived from Lutheran Protestant belief in the Right of Conscience and the Priesthood of All Believers to establish a society that embraced moral wisdom and resisted the corruption of institutional influence on society. The Protestant ideal of self-government counterbalances the corrupting influence of institutional authority.

Yes, it was based on the "fear of God" (which isn't precisely simply being afraid). That is incredibly important to his argument. It is pretty clear through even a casual examination of history that man is terrible at determining what is moral except in the most obvious of cases, and even then, it often doesn't make a difference, as Germany under Nazi rule illustrates. 

No matter what anyone without a clinical psychological problem says, people believe there is a standard that is moral and they believe that it applies to everyone. Moral relativists will say otherwise but behave exactly opposite to their stated beliefs. But we don't know what actual morality is. Instead, it simply becomes whatever satisfies emotionally. And, even when we fail our own moral standard in front of others, the most common response is to deny it or make some excuse as to why circumstances made it necessary. 

Bonhoffer, I think, saw God as the solution to this problem. Humanity cannot be the source of, or establish, what is moral. If that were so, there would be no justification for claiming moral deficiency on Nazi Germany's part. Morality had to be something externally determined outside mankind. In his view, it is the only true defense against stupidity. 

That is either true or false depending on what, precisely, we are talking about. If we are speaking of societal stupidity, you're most likely right. I think Bonhoffer would not argue against it. But if we speak of the individual I think he would not blame institutional corruption. I think he would blame the individual for not recognizing their own moral accountability for their own agency. The moral failure of the stupid person is failure to recognize this and abdicating it to something else. That something else doesn't even have to be corrupt, either. Abdicating moral responsibility within a society is simply wrong and leads to stupidity even when what one abdicates their moral responsibility is moral and just. The reason is that even if that thing is good, it can become bad over time, as most things do, and you go right along with it. It is personal moral responsibility that is the greatest bulwark against a good system going bad. 

That discounts the power of institutional coercion used to enforce compliance. Bonhoeffer was imprisoned and executed precisely for his moral certitude and dissent. His individual moral courage was ultimately limited to his own person—it did not stop the stupidity he described.

Can the power of individual martyrdom truly overcome the corrupting influence of institutional authority? If an entire society must rely on everyone becoming a martyr just to avoid a stupid society, then the institution has already succeeded in destroying wisdom.

Yes, it was based on the "fear of God" (which isn't precisely simply being afraid). That is incredibly important to his argument. It is pretty clear through even a casual examination of history that man is terrible at determining what is moral except in the most obvious of cases, and even then, it often doesn't make a difference, as Germany under Nazi rule illustrates. 

No matter what anyone without a clinical psychological problem says, people believe there is a standard that is moral and they believe that it applies to everyone. Moral relativists will say otherwise but behave exactly opposite to their stated beliefs. But we don't know what actual morality is. Instead, it simply becomes whatever satisfies emotionally. And, even when we fail our own moral standard in front of others, the most common response is to deny it or make some excuse as to why circumstances made it necessary. 

Bonhoffer, I think, saw God as the solution to this problem. Humanity cannot be the source of, or establish, what is moral. If that were so, there would be no justification for claiming moral deficiency on Nazi Germany's part. Morality had to be something externally determined outside mankind. In his view, it is the only true defense against stupidity. 

Well, yes, I agree. Moral relativism essentially precludes Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity, doesn't it? Unchecked institutional dogma, policy, and law is a form of moral relativism.  When legality displaces morality, a society allows itself to become stupid.

It is difficult for an individual to push back against the moral relativism of institutionally imposed law. That's why self-government by a moral society is vital for avoiding Bonhoeffer's stupidity.  The certainty of institutional legality does not require societal wisdom or morality; only societal compliance without dissent is necessary.  This is precisely where the role of religion in society arises—not to run the government, but to cultivate a moral society with the independence of self-government to question the mere expectation of compliance.

That discounts the power of institutional coercion used to enforce compliance. Bonhoeffer was imprisoned and executed precisely for his moral certitude and dissent. His individual moral courage was ultimately limited to his own person—it did not stop the stupidity he described. Can the power of individual martyrdom truly overcome the corrupting influence of institutional authority? If an entire society must rely on everyone becoming a martyr just to avoid a stupid society, then the institution has already succeeded in destroying wisdom.

But I think that is Bonhoffer's point. A lack of an understanding of individual moral accountability is what powers a corrupt institutional authority. If most in a society were liberated in the sense Bonhoffer speaks of, Nazi Germany would not have happened. Bonhoffer died for his convictions not because he was alone in them, but because there were so few of him. The rest were stupid in Bonhoffer's sense and that is precisely why the Nazi regime gained power. Yes, the Nazi institution was the primary mechanism for what their society became, but it did not cause stupidity. They exploited stupidity that already existed. 

That said, it isn't institutions that are the primary problem. It is individual stupidity. 

It is difficult for an individual to push back against the moral relativism of institutionally imposed law. That's why self-government by a moral society is vital for avoiding Bonhoeffer's stupidity.  The certainty of institutional legality does not require societal wisdom or morality; only societal compliance without dissent is necessary.  This is precisely where the role of religion in society arises—not to run the government, but to cultivate a moral society with the independence of self-government to question the mere expectation of compliance.

Agreed, but that is merely a framework. Simply having independence of self-governance is insufficient for a truly moral society, primarily because independence of self-governance must be based on something. Without some true standard of morality the non-stupid self-governed individual adheres to, some other, lesser standard must take its place. The Roman practice of abandoning a defective child in the town dump becomes moral accountability even for the non-stupid person, for instance. Without an authority external to man, then any system can claim morality.