If you consider the value (count) of each individual human as a component of the human race, as a proportion of the omnibus or whole of humanity from its beginning, and more to whatever unseen end may await.
Well you might do well not to arrive at a value so close to zero as to be equivalent to purposelessness, both as a numerical factor and as an individual unitary fraction
A single human, in all the complexity of total reality, in all the totality of all humanity, and all human history, in all the complication of random coherence that allows that unique consciousness - is nonetheless a very small thing and that is what to one definition we both are so it turns out
Still, nature as a forming part of the complex totality even within the sphere of our world creates many such small parts, and generally evidences each forming a tiny step along a path.
Sometimes to a person’s rudimentary awareness this may seem like chaos, on other occasions due to great luck, or study, or even as the result of some epiphany a person might spy some tiny advance along a road to coherence.
Such it seems are the doctrines and dogma that bind human history and so that herd the flock hence, but rarely can nature be demonstrated to have created anything without an overarching plan
Soren Kierkegaard the Danish author and philosopher suggested eschewing dogma and doctrine, somewhat in contradiction to both his upbringing and to his avowed intention to live a Christian life in the Christendom that then surrounded him
But the writer famously undermined the suggestion that belief, the following of any single doctrine or dogma, was the path. That the external imposition, even by the most welcoming choice, of a viewpoint as to ‘which way to step’ espoused as a result of another being or groups unique journey was of itself undeniably flawed, and so tended toward failure.
Kierkegaard saw each individual as uniquely requiring of a unique path, and as you drill deeper in to his writing you discover how he struggled over and over with those he encountered and their normative value systems for ‘fitting in’ with reality
Dostoevsky writing during the same era albeit elsewhere in Europe observed the human predilection towards the expression of free will, not by any means a given as a means of survival given that 99.9 % of everything nature has ever created has since been wiped out then why would humanity with their spiteful little way of seeking to oppose reality discover any different path .Such as the human will according to Fyodor Dostoevsky shall not be set aside even, and indeed inevitably, when oppressed by patterns (even patterns that were determinedly to the greater good of one or many).
And so Dostoevsky predicted nihilism and decades before their advent the catastrophes that abounded in the last century and bore humanity onward with the death of hundreds of millions, as a result of becoming lost in the free will sea
To have ridden with either Kierkegaard or Dostoevsky would seemingly have been quite tough, seemingly neither would easily ally themselves with popular doctrines, though the former was heavily influenced by Socrates (and inevitably therefore Plato) and the latter was in part congruent at least with some Jung and Nietzsche, neither were as negative as subsequently portrayed, both were if read objectively simply unwilling to pretend other than what their ‘big brains’ suggested
There seems to the writer some nugget embedded here
IQ as a predictor of intelligence is certainly not a universal quotient, however popular it is with the social sciences, it is though what we have. It seems therefore of some value in confirming who can multiply twice two and reach four, and who may do the same and justify reaching five (Dostoevsky). Science tells us that IQ falls away in a pattern similar to physical prowess, climbing to a peak then gently and increasingly falling away as the years bind us. Simply enough young people past a certain mean point in age are smarter, like they are quicker and stronger. But it takes a journey to add experience to smartness, and so older people perhaps as smartness gives way discover wisdom in its stead, a younger man sprints an older man runs marathons.
Perhaps that is what Kierkegaard alludes to with his Knight of Faith.
Beyond doctrine and dogma, complete faith in oneself and in God (the omniverse) and in the tools that one has in the moment one is.
Perhaps he simply had not the time in his brief life (42 years) to cede IQ for wisdom
Similarly Fyodor Dostoevsky (59 years)
Perhaps both these brightest shining sparks of intellect were not given to humanity for long enough to develop their world view and so conjure with wisdom the results that intelligence had created a conundrum of
Nature has given these tiny specs that we each are a rational mind, and a tap so it seems into something far deeper and greater than each singular one of us. But it is the journey we each undertake that allows us to cede intelligence for wisdom, to forget what we think we know in order to let in what we may learn. First may we be taught, then may we experience, and at the end of days may we each reflect on the merger of both as they regard the world that then surrounds them
On the one hand then Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard might have enjoyed Groucho Marx (87 years) famous quotes
‘Please accept my resignation, I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as a member.’
Or perhaps even more astutely
‘Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them . Well I do have others.’
But seemingly Jalal ad-Din Rumi (67 years) had it closest 8 centuries ago
‘Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment.
cleverness is mere opinion, bewilderment is intuition.’