Speaker 1: Have you ever stopped to think about why people seem
Speaker 1: increasingly incapable of thinking deeply, why discussions turn into fights
Speaker 1: and knowledge has become superficial. The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, more
Speaker 1: than one hundred and fifty years ago, was already warning
Speaker 1: about the dangers we see exploding around us today. We
Speaker 1: live in an era where everyone has an opinion about everything,
Speaker 1: but few really know anything, where information is infinite but
Speaker 1: wisdom is lacking. Are we witnessing the collapse of human intelligence?
Speaker 1: The answer may lie in the revolutionary ideas of a
Speaker 1: thinker who saw beyond his time. Arthur Schopenhauer discovered something
Speaker 1: terrifying about human nature. Our reason doesn't command our lives.
Speaker 1: In fact, it's the opposite. We are driven by a
Speaker 1: blind and irrational force that he called will. This force
Speaker 1: constantly pushes us in search of desires, pleasures, and basic needs.
Speaker 1: The German philosopher realized that our inn is merely a
Speaker 1: servant of this powerful will. When we're hungry, our rational
Speaker 1: brain finds justifications to eat. When we feel anger, our
Speaker 1: mind creates arguments to validate that emotion. When we want something,
Speaker 1: our intelligence works to get it, not to question whether
Speaker 1: we really need it. This discovery is fundamental to understanding
Speaker 1: our era. Today. More than ever, our will is being
Speaker 1: constantly stimulated. Social media, advertising, entertainment. Everything was created to
Speaker 1: awaken our most primitive desires and our poor reason it
Speaker 1: runs behind, trying to justify every impulse we feel. Schopenhauer
Speaker 1: said that only in rare moments can we free ourselves
Speaker 1: from this slavery. When we contemplate art, nature or profound truths,
Speaker 1: our will temporarily falls silent. Only then can our intelligence
Speaker 1: truly function. But how many of these moments do we
Speaker 1: still have in our digital lives. Modern society has created
Speaker 1: the perfect environment for the will to dominate completely. Every
Speaker 1: notification is a new desire, every scroll is a new need,
Speaker 1: Every like is a new dependency. Our intelligence no longer
Speaker 1: has time or space to emerge. This dynamic explains why
Speaker 1: intelligent people make apparently irrational choices, why debates turn into wars,
Speaker 1: why information doesn't translate into wisdom. The will has hijacked
Speaker 1: our capacity to think, and we don't even realize we've
Speaker 1: been hijacked. Schopenhauer taught us that recognizing this problem is
Speaker 1: the first step toward liberation, but do we still have
Speaker 1: the strength to take this step. The answer lies in
Speaker 1: how our reality has been completely reformulated by technology. The
Speaker 1: philosopher use the expression veil of Maya to describe how
Speaker 1: our perception of reality is always limited and illusory. Maya
Speaker 1: in Hindu philosophy is the goddess of illusion, who prevents
Speaker 1: us from seeing things as they really are. For Schopenhauer,
Speaker 1: we live trapped in representations that our mind creates about
Speaker 1: the world. Today, this veil has gained an even more
Speaker 1: powerful digital version. Social media platforms are not just communication tools,
Speaker 1: they are machines for creating alternative realities. Each algorithm functions
Speaker 1: as a new veil, showing only what confirms our beliefs
Speaker 1: and desires. Imagine that you believe in a specific theory
Speaker 1: about politics or health. The algorithm quickly identifies this preference
Speaker 1: and starts showing only content that confirms your opinion. In
Speaker 1: a short time, you're convinced that all of humanity thinks
Speaker 1: like you. This is the modern version of the veil
Speaker 1: of Maya. What's most dangerous is that these digital bubbles
Speaker 1: create the illusion of knowledge. We see hundreds of posts, videos,
Speaker 1: and articles that confirm our worldview our mind interprets this
Speaker 1: repetition as evidence of truth. After all, if so many
Speaker 1: people are saying the same thing, it must be right. Right.
Speaker 1: Schopenhauer warned that our natural tendency is to seek conformation,
Speaker 1: not truth. We want to be right, not to learn.
Speaker 1: Digital platforms have transformed this human tendency into an industrial
Speaker 1: system of producing false certainties. Before the Internet, we were
Speaker 1: forced to live with different opinions at school, at work,
Speaker 1: in the family. There was always someone who thought differently.
Speaker 1: This created conflict, but also intellectual growth. Today we can
Speaker 1: live in completely separate worlds, each with its own truth.
Speaker 1: The result is a society fragmented into digital tribes, each
Speaker 1: convinced of possessing absolute truth. And the more fragmented we become,
Speaker 1: the less capable we are of thinking beyond our bubbles.
Speaker 1: The digital veil of Maya doesn't just prevent us from
Speaker 1: seeing reality. It convinces us that our illusion is more
Speaker 1: real than reality itself. This transformation in how we perceive
Speaker 1: the world leads us directly to the next aspect of
Speaker 1: the crisis. How our natural pessimism has been completely distorted
Speaker 1: by modernity. Schopenhauer was known as the pessimist philosopher, but
Speaker 1: his pessimism was in fact a form of realism. He
Speaker 1: believed that recognizing the problematic nature of existence was the
Speaker 1: first step to finding some peace. His dark view of
Speaker 1: the human condition wasn't despair, it was lucidity. The German
Speaker 1: thinker predicted that humanity would move toward a state of
Speaker 1: growing superficiality. He saw that as life became materially easier,
Speaker 1: people would lose the capacity for deep reflection. Comfort, ironically,
Speaker 1: would be the enemy of wisdom. This prophecy has been
Speaker 1: fulfilled impressively. Never in history have we had so much
Speaker 1: access to information, education, and resources. Paradoxically, we've never been
Speaker 1: so superficial in our thinking. Schopenhauer understood that adversity forces
Speaker 1: intellectual growth, while excess ease makes us mentally lazy. The
Speaker 1: philosopher also anticipated the phenomenon of democratization of knowledge. He
Speaker 1: feared a world where everyone would feel equally qualified to
Speaker 1: give opinions on any subject. For Schopenhauer, true knowledge required discipline, time,
Speaker 1: and humility, qualities that would become rare observe our era.
Speaker 1: Any person with a smartphone feels authorized to debate medicine
Speaker 1: with doctors, economics with economists, science with scientists. This is
Speaker 1: exactly the situation Schopenhower feared, not because common people are
Speaker 1: incapable of learning, but because the illusion of knowledge prevents
Speaker 1: real learning. Schopenhauer's pessimism also included a healthy distrust of
Speaker 1: technological progress. He suspected that each material advance would come
Speaker 1: accompanied by a spiritual or intellectual retreat. Once again, his
Speaker 1: intuition proved accurate. Today we see exactly this. We have
Speaker 1: more powerful computers than ever, but our capacity for concentration
Speaker 1: has diminished drastically. We have instant access to humanity's entire library,
Speaker 1: but we read fewer and fewer books. We have incredible
Speaker 1: communication tools, but we understand each other less and less.
Speaker 1: Schopenhauer's prophetic pessimism wasn't gratuitous negativity. It was a warning
Speaker 1: about the dangers we would face if we didn't develop
Speaker 1: intellectual defenses against our own impulses. Unfortunately, we didn't heed
Speaker 1: the warning, and now we face the consequences on a
Speaker 1: scale that he himself might not have imagined. The first
Speaker 1: and most obvious manifestation of this prophecy is our modern
Speaker 1: obsession with instant gratification, which is systematically destroying our capacity
Speaker 1: to think with depth. We live in the era of now.
Speaker 1: We want immediate answers, instant entertainment, results at the speed
Speaker 1: of a clique. This need for immediate gratification is rewiring
Speaker 1: our brains in a concerning way. We're losing the ability
Speaker 1: to tolerate the temporary frustrat that all deep thinking requires.
Speaker 1: Schopenhauer knew that true contemplation requires patients. Great ideas don't
Speaker 1: emerge in thirty seconds. Deep insights don't fit in tweets.
Speaker 1: Wisdom doesn't develop by watching fifteen second videos. But our
Speaker 1: society is structured exactly to avoid any form of waiting
Speaker 1: or prolonged reflection. Think about how we consume information today.
Speaker 1: We scroll infinitely through feeds that change every second. We
Speaker 1: watch videos at accelerated speed. We read only headlines. We
Speaker 1: form opinions based on first impressions. This behavior is training
Speaker 1: our brain to automatically reject anything that requires time to
Speaker 1: be understood. What's most alarming is that this rush is
Speaker 1: invading areas where speed is the enemy of quality. We
Speaker 1: want to learn languages in thirty days, master complex skills
Speaker 1: through quick courses, solve psychological problems with instant techniques. The
Speaker 1: very idea that some things take time to develop has
Speaker 1: become unacceptable. This tyranny of speed has devastating consequences for
Speaker 1: our intellectual development. Research shows that our capacity for concentration
Speaker 1: has diminished drastically in recent decades. Many people can no
Speaker 1: longer read an entire book without checking their phone several times.
Speaker 1: Sustained attention, the foundation of all complex thinking, is becoming
Speaker 1: a rare skill. Schopenhauer observed that the will always seeks
Speaker 1: the easiest path. In our era, this path is the
Speaker 1: instant gratification offered by technology. Each notification offers us a
Speaker 1: small dose of dopamine without any effort. Why would our
Speaker 1: brain choose the hard work of thinking when it can
Speaker 1: have immediate pleasure. The result is a society addicted to
Speaker 1: superficial stimuli and increasingly incapable of dealing with the real
Speaker 1: complexity of the world. Problems that require careful reflection are
Speaker 1: abandoned in favor of simple and wrong solutions. Relationships that
Speaker 1: need time to mature are discovered added for instant and
Speaker 1: empty connections. This dynamic leads us directly to the empire
Speaker 1: of superficiality, where the appearance of knowledge has completely replaced
Speaker 1: the search for truth. Our era has transformed superficiality into virtue.
Speaker 1: Being dynamic, agile, and connected has become more valued than
Speaker 1: being reflective, careful, and deep. This inversion of values is
Speaker 1: undermining the foundations of genuine thinking and creating a culture
Speaker 1: where appearance matters more than substance. Observe how we consume
Speaker 1: culture today. We prefer summaries to complete works, reviews to readings,
Speaker 1: ready made opinions to our own analyzes. We want to
Speaker 1: know about everything, but we don't want to really know
Speaker 1: anything in depth. This is the fast food mentality applied
Speaker 1: to knowledge. Quick, easy, but nutritionally empty. Social media has
Speaker 1: amplified this phenomenon to the extreme. Platforms like Instagram and
Speaker 1: TikTok are structurally incompatible with depth. Everything needs to be visual, immediate, impactful.
Speaker 1: Complex ideas are reduced to memes. Millennial philosophies become motivational posts.
Speaker 1: Scientific discoveries transform into sensationalist headlines. This superficiality isn't just
Speaker 1: an esthetic preference. It's changing our way of thinking. When
Speaker 1: we get used to consuming only simplified versions of reality,
Speaker 1: we lose the capacity to deal with real complexity, we
Speaker 1: begin to expect everything to be simple, clear, and definitive.
Speaker 1: Schopenhauer warned that the will always prefers the easy to
Speaker 1: the true. In our era, technology has made it extremely
Speaker 1: easy to avoid any confrontation with complexity. We can live
Speaker 1: entirely in a world of simple explanations, quick answers, and
Speaker 1: comfortable certainties. The problem is that reality isn't simple. Important
Speaker 1: questions like justice, relationships, politics, economics are intrinsically complex. When
Speaker 1: we try to force them into superficial formats, we're not
Speaker 1: explaining them better, we're completely distorting them. This distortion has
Speaker 1: serious consequences, people educated on a diet of artificial simplicity
Speaker 1: becoming capable of making complex decisions. When they face real problems,
Speaker 1: which always involve multiple variables, trade offs, and uncertainties, they
Speaker 1: become paralyzed or make choices based on superficial criteria. The
Speaker 1: empire of superficiality also creates a false sense of understanding.
Speaker 1: After reading a post about economics, we feel we understand economics.
Speaker 1: After watching a video about relationships, we consider ourselves psychology experts,
Speaker 1: this illusion of knowledge is perhaps even more dangerous than
Speaker 1: complete ignorance because it prevents us from seeking true learning.
Speaker 1: This superficial dynamic connects directly with another alarming phenomenon, the
Speaker 1: massification of thought, where intellectual diversity is being replaced by
Speaker 1: algorithmic conformity. One of the most concerning characteristics of our
Speaker 1: era is how similar thoughts spread instantly across millions of people.
Speaker 1: We're not just talking about fads or trends, but specific
Speaker 1: ways of interpreting events, problems, and solutions. It's as if
Speaker 1: humanity is losing its intellectual diversity. Schopenhauer valued originality of
Speaker 1: thought above almost everything. For him, the capacity to think
Speaker 1: independently was the mark of true intelligence. He despised what
Speaker 1: he called herd thinking, the tendency to repeat popular ideas
Speaker 1: without critical questioning. Today, this heard thinking has been industrialized.
Speaker 1: Social media algorithms create echo chambers, where the same ideas
Speaker 1: circulate indefinitely among the same people. The result is a
Speaker 1: homogenization of thought that would have been impossible before the
Speaker 1: digital era. Imagine ten different people from completely distinct backgrounds,
Speaker 1: all sharing exactly the same opinion about a complex event,
Speaker 1: even using similar words. This phenomenon increasingly common reveals how
Speaker 1: our capacity to think independently is being undermined by technological forces.
Speaker 1: What's most disturbing is that this massification disguises itself as diversity.
Speaker 1: We see many different voices speaking, but all saying essentially
Speaker 1: the same thing. The Internet gives us the illusion of
Speaker 1: being exposed to multiple perspectives, when in reality we're receiving
Speaker 1: superficial variations of the same basic theme. This homogenization happens
Speaker 1: through psychological mechanisms that Schopenhauer had already identified. People have
Speaker 1: a natural fear of thinking differently from the group they
Speaker 1: want to be accepted, liked, shared, so, consciously or not,
Speaker 1: they adjust their opinions to align with what they pos
Speaker 1: as social consensus. Digital platforms have amplified this phenomenon by
Speaker 1: providing instant feedback on our ideas. How many likes, shares,
Speaker 1: positive comments, and opinion receives becomes the criterion for determining
Speaker 1: its validity. Ideas that don't receive social approval are quickly abandoned,
Speaker 1: even though they might be correct. The result is a
Speaker 1: society where millions of people believe their thinking independently but
Speaker 1: are actually just reproducing variations of the same limited set
Speaker 1: of ideas. This false diversity is even more dangerous than
Speaker 1: open uniformity because it prevents us from realizing that we've
Speaker 1: lost our capacity for original thought. This massification of thought
Speaker 1: leads us directly to the collapse of one of humanity's
Speaker 1: most fundamental abilities, the capacity for true contemplation. Schopenhauer considered
Speaker 1: contemplation as the highest state of human experience. For him,
Speaker 1: it was the moment when our will fell silent and
Speaker 1: our pure intelligence could emerge. In these rare moments, we
Speaker 1: become capable of perceiving reality without the filters of our
Speaker 1: desires and fears. This contemplative capacity is rapidly disappearing from
Speaker 1: modern human experience. We're losing the ability to simply observe
Speaker 1: without judging, to be present without reacting, to think without
Speaker 1: seeking immediate conclusions. Our mind has become a machine of
Speaker 1: constant production that never stops to really see observe your
Speaker 1: own behavior. How many times per day can you stay
Speaker 1: in total silence without external stimuli, just observing your own thoughts?
Speaker 1: How many times can you look at something, a tree,
Speaker 1: a person, a problem without immediately classifying, judging, or seeking utility.
Speaker 1: Contemplation requires a type of patience that our society has
Speaker 1: systematically attacked. It requires the capacity to tolerate emptiness, uncertainty,
Speaker 1: the lack of immediate stimulus. But we've been trained to
Speaker 1: fill every empty second with some form of entertainment or distraction.
Speaker 1: The smartphone has become contemplation's number one enemy. Its mere presence,
Speaker 1: even when turned off, is sufficient to reduce our capacity
Speaker 1: for concentration. Our brain knows that at any moment it
Speaker 1: can access infinite distractions, so it never manages to surrender
Speaker 1: completely to the present moment. This loss of contemplation has
Speaker 1: devastating consequences for our intelligence. It's during contemplative moments that
Speaker 1: the deepest insights emerge, the most creative connections, the most
Speaker 1: meaningful understandings. Without these moments, our thinking becomes purely reactive
Speaker 1: and superficial. Schopenhauer believed that art, nature, and philosophy were
Speaker 1: paths to contemplation, but observe how we consume art today.
Speaker 1: We listen to music while doing other things, watch movies
Speaker 1: while checking our phones, visit museums, taking selfies. We've transformed
Speaker 1: contemplative experiences into content production opportunities. The same happens with nature.
Speaker 1: A walk that should be a moment of silence and
Speaker 1: reflection becomes a photo session for social media. The sunset
Speaker 1: that should inspire contemplation becomes just a story on Instagram.
Speaker 1: We've lost the capacity to be genuinely present in experiences
Speaker 1: that should nourish our soul. This atrophy of contemplation is
Speaker 1: directly connected with another serious problem, our confusion between having
Speaker 1: an opinion and having knowledge. One of the most striking
Speaker 1: characteristics of our era is how people confuse having a
Speaker 1: strong opinion with possessing real knowledge. This confusion is generating
Speaker 1: a society where everyone feels qualified to debate any subject,
Speaker 1: regardless of their training or experience in the area. Schopenhauer
Speaker 1: made a clear distinction between knowledge and opinion. For him,
Speaker 1: true knowledge emerged from careful contemplation and discipline study. Opinion,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, was often just a disguised expression
Speaker 1: of our desires and prejudices. Today, this distinction has completely disappeared.
Speaker 1: Social media has transformed every person into a specialist commentator
Speaker 1: on all possible subjects medicine, economics, psychology, politics. No matter
Speaker 1: the complexity of the topic, there are always millions of
Speaker 1: people ready to offer their definitive analyzes. The problem isn't
Speaker 1: that ordinary people have opinions. The problem is that these
Speaker 1: opinions are presented and accepted as if they had the
Speaker 1: same weight as specialized knowledge. A viral post from someone
Speaker 1: without medical training can influence more people than years of
Speaker 1: scientific research. This democratization of intellectual authority seems positive on
Speaker 1: the surface, but in practice is creating epistemic chaos. When
Speaker 1: all voices have the same weight, no voice has real weight.
Speaker 1: When every opinion is valid, no opinion is really valid.
Speaker 1: Schopenhauer new that true knowledge is difficult to achieve. It
Speaker 1: requires time, discipline, humility, and willingness to be wrong. It
Speaker 1: demands that we confront our comfortable beliefs and question our
Speaker 1: basic certainties. Most people simply aren't willing to pay this price.
Speaker 1: It's much easier to form an opinion based on a
Speaker 1: few posts or videos that confirm our existing beliefs. It's
Speaker 1: more comfortable to believe that our intuition is as valid
Speaker 1: as years of specialized study. It's more satisfying to feel
Speaker 1: we know something without going through the hard work of
Speaker 1: really learning. This culture of easy opinion is undermining the
Speaker 1: foundations of real knowledge. Why would someone spend years studying
Speaker 1: a subject if they can form an informed opinion in
Speaker 1: a few hours of Internet. Why develop expertise if all
Speaker 1: expertise is questioned by people who did their own research.
Speaker 1: The result is a society where trust in specialized knowledge
Speaker 1: is collapsing, but trust in amateur opinions is high. This
Speaker 1: inversion of values is making us collectively more ignorant, even
Speaker 1: having access to more information than any previous generation. This
Speaker 1: problem intensifies when we consider how our attention has been
Speaker 1: completely fragmented by modern technology. The capacity to maintain focused
Speaker 1: attention for prolonged periods has always been fundamental to intellectual development.
Speaker 1: Schopenhauer knew that deep thoughts require sustained concentration. It's not
Speaker 1: possible to understand complex ideas by constantly jumping between different stimuli.
Speaker 1: Our era has systematically attacked this capacity. Multitasking, presented as
Speaker 1: a valuable skill, is actually fragmenting our mind in a
Speaker 1: concerning way. Research demonstrates that when we try to do
Speaker 1: several things simultaneously, we don't do any of them well.
Speaker 1: Observe your own behavior during a task that requires concentration.
Speaker 1: How many times do you check your phone? How many
Speaker 1: different tabs do you have open in your how many
Speaker 1: unrelated thoughts pass through your mind, our attention has become
Speaker 1: a completely dispersed resource. This fragmentation has devastating consequences for
Speaker 1: our intellectual development. When our mind is constantly jumping between
Speaker 1: different stimuli, we lose the capacity to dive deeply into
Speaker 1: any subject. Our thinking becomes superficial by structural necessity. The
Speaker 1: problem is even more serious because our culture has begun
Speaker 1: to value this dispersion. Being multitask is seen as efficiency.
Speaker 1: Managing to process multiple information simultaneously is considered intelligence, But
Speaker 1: in reality, we're just becoming superficial data processes, losing our
Speaker 1: capacity for synthesis and deep understanding. Schopenhauer warned that the
Speaker 1: will always seeks novelty and stimulus. Our modern technology offers
Speaker 1: infinite novelty and stimulus, creating a vicious cycle where our
Speaker 1: attention becomes increasingly fragmented. Each new notification is a small
Speaker 1: reward that reinforces our dispersed behavior. This dynamic is rewiring
Speaker 1: our brains in a concerning way. Studies show that people
Speaker 1: who grew up in the digital era have greater difficulty
Speaker 1: maintaining prolonged concentration. Their minds were literally structured to process
Speaker 1: information in a fragmented and superficial way. The result is
Speaker 1: a generation that can access any information instantly, but can't
Speaker 1: concentrate enough to really understand anything. We have more powerful
Speaker 1: intellectual tools than ever existed, but we've lost the mental
Speaker 1: capacity to use them adequately. This fragmentation of attention connects
Speaker 1: directly with the decay of our educational systems, which privilege
Speaker 1: technical competencies over development of wisdom. The modern educational system
Speaker 1: is producing people who are technically competent but intellectually immature.
Speaker 1: We obsessively focus on teaching specific skills, measurable competencies, and
Speaker 1: practical knowledge, but we've completely abandoned the formation of intellectual
Speaker 1: character and wisdom. Schopenhauer believed that true education should develop
Speaker 1: the capacity to think, not just the ability to reproduce information.
Speaker 1: For him, it was more important to teach someone to
Speaker 1: question than to teach ready made answers, more valuable to
Speaker 1: form a critical thinker than a technical specialist. Observe how
Speaker 1: our schools function today, Students memorize facts for tests, but
Speaker 1: don't learn to question the validity of these facts. They
Speaker 1: master specific techniques, but don't develop wisdom to know when
Speaker 1: to apply them. They accumulate certificates and diplomas, but leave
Speaker 1: the educational system without real capacity for independent thinking. This
Speaker 1: approach is creating a society of ignorant specialists. People who
Speaker 1: know a lot about their specific areas but can't think
Speaker 1: critically about broader questions. Doctors who understand medicine but can't
Speaker 1: evaluate scientific evidence, Engineers who master technology but don't understand
Speaker 1: its social implications. The problem is that we've reduced education
Speaker 1: to professional training. We've forgotten that the original purpose of
Speaker 1: education was to form complete human beings capable of navigating
Speaker 1: existence as complexity with wisdom and discernment. Today we only
Speaker 1: form specialized workers. This change has economic roots. In a
Speaker 1: competitive world, parents and students want to guarantee employability. Schools
Speaker 1: respond by offering practical courses that promise immediate professional results. Philosophy, literature, art,
Speaker 1: everything that develops critical thinking is seen as dispensable luxury.
Speaker 1: Schopenhauer predicted exactly this situation. He knew that when education
Speaker 1: becomes purely utilitarian, we lose our humanity. When we teach
Speaker 1: only technical skills, we create sophisticated automatons, not genuine thinkers.
Speaker 1: The result is a society where People who are highly
Speaker 1: educated formally are easily manipulated by simple propaganda, where specialists
Speaker 1: in their areas make personal choices based on completely irrational criteria,
Speaker 1: where technical knowledge coexists with profound intellectual immaturity. This intellectual
Speaker 1: immaturity becomes evident when we observe how our society has
Speaker 1: become addicted to sensationalism and drama. Our era has transformed
Speaker 1: the extraordinary into ordinary through a constant escalation of sensationalism.
Speaker 1: What use to be exceptional is now expected, what use
Speaker 1: to shock is now ignored. This dynamic is desensitizing our
Speaker 1: capacity for discernment and creating an addictive need for increasingly
Speaker 1: extreme stimuli. Schopenhauer observed that human will always seeks growing
Speaker 1: intensity of experiences. When we get used to a level
Speaker 1: of stimulus, we need something stronger to feel the same satisfaction.
Speaker 1: This natural tendency has been completely exploited by modern media
Speaker 1: and technology. Observe how journalism has evolved. News that used
Speaker 1: to be reported factually is now presented as epic dramas.
Speaker 1: Every event is historic, every problem is a crisis, every
Speaker 1: change is a revolution. This inflated language doesn't inform better,
Speaker 1: It actually distorts our perception of reality. The same happens
Speaker 1: on social media. Common posts don't generate engagement, so people
Speaker 1: learn to dramatize their experiences. A disagreement becomes an attack,
Speaker 1: a difficulty becomes trauma. A simple success is presented as
Speaker 1: epic transformation. We're living in constant dramatic mode. This escalation
Speaker 1: of sensationalism has serious consequences for our thinking capacity. When
Speaker 1: everything is presented as extreme, we lose the ability to
Speaker 1: make subtle distinctions. When every situation is dramatized, we can
Speaker 1: no longer evaluate the relative importance of events. Schopenhauer warned
Speaker 1: that the constant search for emotional intensity atrophies our capacity
Speaker 1: to appreciate more subtle experiences. When we become addicted to drama,
Speaker 1: we lose the capacity to find meaning in simple and
Speaker 1: reflective moments. Our inner life becomes dramatically impoverished. The problem
Speaker 1: is that truly important situations lose impact when everything is
Speaker 1: treated as extraordinary. When we call everything an emergency, true
Speaker 1: emergencies go unnoticed. When everything is incredible, nothing really impresses anymore.
Speaker 1: This dynamic creates a vicious cycle where content producers need
Speaker 1: to be increasingly extreme to capture attention, YouTubers shout louder,
Speaker 1: headlines become more alarmist, debates become more aggressive. Modulation and
Speaker 1: nuance essential for intelligent communication disappear completely. The result is
Speaker 1: a society addicted to indignation, drama, and conflict. People who
Speaker 1: feel bored when there's no crisis to be indignant about,
Speaker 1: who can no longer tolerate cars and reflective conversations, who
Speaker 1: need constant emotional stimulation to feel alive. This need for
Speaker 1: constant drama connects directly with another concerning phenomenon, the general
Speaker 1: infantilization of adult thought. One of the most alarming trends
Speaker 1: of our era is how adults are adopting forms of
Speaker 1: thinking that were previously characteristic only of children. We're seeing
Speaker 1: a massive regression to magical, simplistic, and emotionally reactive mental patterns.
Speaker 1: Schopenhauer observed that children live dominated by will without sufficient
Speaker 1: intellectual development to moderate it. They want immediate gratification, simple explanations,
Speaker 1: and magical solutions. Maturity was expected to bring greater capacity
Speaker 1: to deal with complexity, ambiguity, and frustration. Today we see
Speaker 1: adults exhibiting exactly the infantile mental patterns they should have overcome.
Speaker 1: They want instant solutions to complex problems. They believe in
Speaker 1: magical explanations when real is difficult to accept. They react
Speaker 1: emotionally when confronted with uncomfortable information. This infantilization manifests in
Speaker 1: multiple ways. In politics, we see people expecting leaders to
Speaker 1: magically solve all problems, as if they were all powerful parents.
Speaker 1: In health, they seek miraculous cures that eliminate any need
Speaker 1: for effort or personal change. Magical thinking, the belief that
Speaker 1: our desires can influence reality, is resurging with full force.
Speaker 1: Adult people believe that visualization can alter external events, that
Speaker 1: positive energy can resolve practical problems, that ignoring problems will
Speaker 1: make them disappear. This regression isn't accidental. Our technological society
Speaker 1: has created an environment that rewards infantile behavior. Social media
Speaker 1: gives us attention when we have public tantrums. Algorithms protect
Speaker 1: us from uncomfortable information. Entertainment platforms provide us with constant
Speaker 1: in instant gratification. Schopenhauer knew that intellectual development requires facing
Speaker 1: unpleasant realities. It requires accepting that we don't always get
Speaker 1: what we want. It demands tolerating uncertainty and ambiguity, but
Speaker 1: our modern technology allows us to systematically avoid all these
Speaker 1: growth challenges. The result is a society of chronological adults
Speaker 1: who maintained infantile mentality, who expect the world to adapt
Speaker 1: to their desires instead of adapting their desires to reality,
Speaker 1: who interpret any frustration as personal injustice. This infantilization is
Speaker 1: creating a political and social environment where mature solutions become impossible.
Speaker 1: Complex problems that require sacrifices and compromises are rejected in
Speaker 1: favor of magical promises. Politics transforms into emotional theater, where
Speaker 1: maturity is seen as weakness. This infantile dynamic connects directly
Speaker 1: with the crisis of intellectual authority that characterizes our era.
Speaker 1: Schopenhauer had a complex relationship with democracy. He valued individual freedom,
Speaker 1: but feared that unrestricted democratization could lead to mediocrity's dominion
Speaker 1: over excellence. His concerns have proven prophetic in the digital era.
Speaker 1: The German philosopher believed that not all opinions have the
Speaker 1: same value. For him, opinions based on study, reflection, and
Speaker 1: experience should have greater weight than opinions formed by impulse
Speaker 1: or prejudice. This intellectual hierarchy may sound elitist, but it
Speaker 1: reflects a basic reality. Knowledge isn't democratic. Today we live
Speaker 1: the extreme experiment of knowledge democratization that Schopenhauer feared. Any
Speaker 1: person with Internet access can publish their opinions with the
Speaker 1: same visibility as recognized specialists. This platform equality has created
Speaker 1: an illusion of authority equality. The result is what we
Speaker 1: can call tyranny of democratized ignorance. Conspiracy theories receive the
Speaker 1: same space as scientific research. Amateur opinions are presented as
Speaker 1: valid alternatives to specialized knowledge. Expertise is seen as an
Speaker 1: elite attempt to suppress popular truth. This dynamic is especially
Speaker 1: dangerous because it exploits legitimate democratic instincts. It's natural to
Speaker 1: want all voices to be heard. It's understandable to distrust
Speaker 1: authorities who may have their own interests. But when this
Speaker 1: distrust becomes total rejection of expertise, we create intellectual chaos.
Speaker 1: Schopenhauer predicted that democratization without adequate education would lead to
Speaker 1: what he called despotism of ignorance. When the majority doesn't
Speaker 1: have sufficient knowledge to evaluate complex questions, their collective decisions
Speaker 1: can be disastrous. We see this happening in public health issues,
Speaker 1: climate change economics, Topics that require years of study to
Speaker 1: be adequately understood become matters of popular opinion. Scientific knowledge
Speaker 1: competes with research done on social media, frequently losing this competition.
Speaker 1: The problem isn't that ordinary people are incapable of learning.
Speaker 1: The problem is that our society has created the illusion
Speaker 1: that they don't need to learn, that intuition and common
Speaker 1: sense are sufficient to understand complex questions, that all specialists
Speaker 1: have hidden agendas, but ordinary people always seek truth. This
Speaker 1: systematic distrust of expertise is creating a society where important
Speaker 1: decisions are made based on proud ignorance, where competence is
Speaker 1: seen as suspicious and inexperience as virtue, Where knowing less
Speaker 1: about a subject is considered qualification to give opinions about it.
Speaker 1: This dynamic connects directly with the epistemological narcissism that characterizes
Speaker 1: our era. One of the most striking characteristics of our
Speaker 1: era is how each individual considers themselves a legitimate source
Speaker 1: of universal truth. This form of intellectual narcissism is creating
Speaker 1: a fragmented society where everyone be leaves they possess special
Speaker 1: knowledge that others don't have. Schopenhauer had already observed that
Speaker 1: the human ego has a natural tendency to consider itself
Speaker 1: special and superior. In our era, this tendency has been
Speaker 1: amplified by technology that allows each person to have a
Speaker 1: global platform for their opinions. Epistemological narcissism manifests when someone
Speaker 1: believes their personal perspective is more valid than objective evidence,
Speaker 1: when someone thinks their research of a few hours is
Speaker 1: worth more than decades of scientific study, when someone considers
Speaker 1: their intuitions more reliable than empirical data. This mentality is
Speaker 1: extremely seductive because it offers a sensation of intellectual superiority
Speaker 1: without requiring the real work of learning. It's more gratifying
Speaker 1: to believe we've discovered hidden truths that specialists ignore than
Speaker 1: to admit we have limited knowledge about complex subjects. Social
Speaker 1: media has amplified this narcissism by creating echo chambers, where
Speaker 1: each person can find a group that validates their opeaions,
Speaker 1: no matter how strange they may be. This artificial social
Speaker 1: validation reinforces the belief that their ideas are not only correct,
Speaker 1: but revolutionary. Schopenhauer knew that true knowledge requires humility. It
Speaker 1: requires recognizing the limits of our understanding. It demands willingness
Speaker 1: to be wrong and learn from others. But epistemological narcissism
Speaker 1: makes this humility impossible. The result is a society where
Speaker 1: millions of people believe they've discovered truths that the entire
Speaker 1: scientific community missed, Where individuals with limited education feel qualified
Speaker 1: to refute established theories, where intellectual self confidence is inversely
Speaker 1: proportional to real knowledge. This dynamic creates an environment where
Speaker 1: genuine learning becomes almost impossible. Why would someone seriously study
Speaker 1: a subject if they already know the truth? Why question
Speaker 1: their beliefs if they believe their superior to all alternatives.
Speaker 1: Epistemological narcissism also explains the fear resistance many people demonstrate
Speaker 1: when their opinions are questioned. They're not just defending ideas,
Speaker 1: they're defending their identity as truth discoverers. Questioning their opinions
Speaker 1: is questioning their intellectual superiority. This narcissistic dynamic connects directly
Speaker 1: with the extreme polarization that characterizes our public debate. The
Speaker 1: growing incapacity to maintain rational dialogues is perhaps the most
Speaker 1: visible symptom of our society's intellectual collapse. Conversations that should
Speaker 1: be joint exploration of truth have transformed into tribal wars,
Speaker 1: where the objective is to destroy the enemy, not understand
Speaker 1: their perspective. Schopenhauer observed that human will naturally sees differences
Speaker 1: of opinion as personal threats. When someone disagrees with us,
Speaker 1: our will interprets this as an attack on our identity.
Speaker 1: This primitive emotional reaction makes rational dialogue extremely difficult. Our
Speaker 1: era has intensified this problem by transforming opinions into identities.
Speaker 1: We no longer have opinions about politics. We are our
Speaker 1: political opinions. We don't have health preferences. We are our lifestyles.
Speaker 1: This fusion between personal identity and intellectual positions makes any
Speaker 1: disagreement an existential threat. The result is that debates have
Speaker 1: transformed into tribal validation rituals. People don't participate in discussions
Speaker 1: to learn or question their beliefs. They participate to demonstrate
Speaker 1: loyalty to their group and attack opposing groups. The objective
Speaker 1: isn't to discover truth, but to win the battle. This
Speaker 1: polarization is amplified by algorithms that discovered that conflict generates
Speaker 1: more engagement than cooperation. Digital platforms profit from our indignation,
Speaker 1: so they constantly feed us content designed to irritate us.
Speaker 1: We're trained to see other human groups as existential enemies.
Speaker 1: Schopenhauer knew that true dialogue requires a special form of
Speaker 1: in intellectual humility. It requires willingness to consider that we
Speaker 1: might be wrong. It demands the capacity to separate ideas
Speaker 1: from personal identity. It requires the ability to see value
Speaker 1: in different perspectives. All these capacities are atrophying in our society.
Speaker 1: We've developed a war mentality, where admitting error is seen
Speaker 1: as weakness, where considering opposing perspectives is treason, where changing
Speaker 1: opinion is shameful inconsistency. The result is a society divided
Speaker 1: into hostile tribes that can no longer communicate effectively. Each
Speaker 1: group lives in its own alternative reality, seeing others as
Speaker 1: fundamentally dishonest or ill intentioned. This fragmentation makes collective solutions
Speaker 1: to complex problems practically impossible. Polarization also creates an environment
Speaker 1: where extreme positions are socially rewarded. Moderation is seen as
Speaker 1: lack of conviction, Nuance is interpreted as cowardice, the capacity
Speaker 1: to see multiple sides of complex questions, a mark of
Speaker 1: intellectual maturity becomes socially undesirable. This polarized dynamic leads us
Speaker 1: to the question, do spaces still exist where genuine intelligence
Speaker 1: can prosper? Despite the somber panorama? Spaces still exist where
Speaker 1: more elevated forms of intelligence manage to survive and even prosper.
Speaker 1: These refugees offer hope and models for how we can
Speaker 1: resist the general intellectual collapse. Schopenhauer believed that true intelligence
Speaker 1: always finds ways to preserve itself, even in hostile eras.
Speaker 1: He himself lived in an era that didn't value his
Speaker 1: type of philosophy, but managed to develop his ideas by
Speaker 1: creating his own intellectual space. Today, we can identify some
Speaker 1: of these refugees. Certain universities still maintain commitment to rigorous
Speaker 1: investigation and genuine debate. Some scientific communities preserve elevated standards
Speaker 1: of evidence and reasoning. Determined groups of artists continue creating
Speaker 1: works that demand deep contemplation. These spaces have common characteristics
Speaker 1: that protect them from general degradation. First, they maintain elevated
Speaker 1: standards for participation. They don't allow amateur opinions to have
Speaker 1: the same weight as developed expertise. Second, they value process
Speaker 1: over result. The method of reaching conclusions matters more than
Speaker 1: the conclusions themselves. Third, these refugees cultivate intellectual patients. They
Speaker 1: recognize that important questions don't have simple answers. They're willing
Speaker 1: to live with uncertainty and ambiguity. They value deep questions
Speaker 1: more than convenient answers. Fourth, they maintain genuine intellectual diversity,
Speaker 1: not the false diversity of our culture where all positions
Speaker 1: are variations of the same basic theme, but true diversity
Speaker 1: of methods, perspectives, and fundamental assumptions. These refugees also share
Speaker 1: a less obvious characteristic. They actively resist pressures of popularization.
Speaker 1: They don't try to make their ideas accessible at any cost.
Speaker 1: They recognize that some truths require intellectual preparation to be understood.
Speaker 1: This resistance to popularization is crucial. Schopenhauer knew that when
Speaker 1: we try to oversimplify complex ideas, we frequently destroy them
Speaker 1: in the process. Some insights can only be preserved in
Speaker 1: their original form, requiring that people rise to the level
Speaker 1: of the idea instead of lowering the idea to the
Speaker 1: popular level. These refugees aren't perfect nor completely isolated from
Speaker 1: external pressures, but they offer examples of how communities committed
Speaker 1: to intellectual excellence can maintain elevated standards even in a
Speaker 1: hostile environment. Their existence proves that intellectual collapse isn't inevitable
Speaker 1: nor irreversible. With conscious effort in deliberate protection, it's possible
Speaker 1: to create and maintain spaces where genuine intelligence can flourish.
Speaker 1: This leads us to the question of how esthetic experience
Speaker 1: can serve as an antidote to intellectual collapse. For Schopenhauer,
Speaker 1: art represented the most powerful form of human experience. It
Speaker 1: was through encounters with genuine works of art that our
Speaker 1: will could temporarily fall silent, allowing our pure intelligence to emerge.
Speaker 1: This esthetic experience offered a refuge from the tyranny of
Speaker 1: desires and a window to superior forms of consciousness. In
Speaker 1: our era of intellectual collapse, authentic art becomes even more
Speaker 1: crucial as a means of preserving and developing intelligence. But
Speaker 1: we're facing a simultaneous crisis in the production and consumption
Speaker 1: of genuine art. Most of what our society calls art
Speaker 1: is actually entertainment products designed for easy consumption and immediate gratification.
Speaker 1: Music that doesn't require attention, films that don't provoke reflection,
Speaker 1: Literature that doesn't challenge assumptions. This pseudo art reinforces our
Speaker 1: intellectual laziness instead of combating it. True art, in the
Speaker 1: Schopenhauerian sense, requires something different from both creator and observer.
Speaker 1: It requires that the artists transcend their personal impulses and
Speaker 1: capture something universal. It requires that the observer open themselves
Speaker 1: to experiences that may be initially uncomfortable or confusing. This
Speaker 1: form of art still exists, but is being marginalized by
Speaker 1: market forces that favor instant entertainment. Composers who create contemplative music,
Speaker 1: writers who explore deep philosophical questions, visual artists who demand
Speaker 1: careful reflection all face growing difficulties finding audiences. The problem
Speaker 1: isn't just that genuine art is being less produced, but
Speaker 1: that we've lost the capacity to consume it adequately. When
Speaker 1: our attention was fragmented by technology, we lost the ability
Speaker 1: to surrender ourselves completely to an esthetic experience. Schopenhauer knew
Speaker 1: that true, true aesthetic experience requires a special form of receptivity.
Speaker 1: We need to be able to silence our habitual thoughts,
Speaker 1: suspend our immediate judgments and allow the work to transform us.
Speaker 1: This capacity for contemplative receptivity is becoming rare, But when
Speaker 1: we manage to have authentic aesthetic experiences, they function as
Speaker 1: a form of intellectual therapy. They remind us of superior
Speaker 1: forms of consciousness. They exercise our capacity for deep concentration.
Speaker 1: They reconnect us with more elevated aspects of human experience. Therefore,
Speaker 1: seeking and cultivating genuine aesthetic experiences becomes a form of
Speaker 1: resistance to intellectual collapse, not just as escape, but as
Speaker 1: exercise of mental capacities that our society is systematically attacking.
Speaker 1: This salvafic function of art leads us to the final point,
Speaker 1: how we can apply Schopenhauer's insights to reconquer our capacity
Speaker 1: for wisdom? From all this analysis of contemporary intellectual collapse
Speaker 1: through the Schopenhowian lens, the crucial question arises, what can
Speaker 1: we do as individuals and as a society. Is there
Speaker 1: any way to reverse this deterioration and reconquer our capacity
Speaker 1: for genuine thinking? Schopenhauer offers us a path, but it
Speaker 1: requires courage, discipline, and willingness to swim against the cultural current. First,
Speaker 1: we must recognize that the reconquest of wisdom is fundamentally
Speaker 1: a personal project. We can't wait for institutions or technologies
Speaker 1: to solve the problem for us. The first step is
Speaker 1: developing what Schopenhauer called denial of the will, the capacity
Speaker 1: to resist the immediate impulses that our society constantly stimulates.
Speaker 1: This means deliberately creating moments of silence, boredom, and reflection
Speaker 1: in our lives. It means resisting the temptation of constant
Speaker 1: time filling with stimuli. Second, we must cultivate intellectual patience
Speaker 1: in a world that promises instant answers. We need to
Speaker 1: relearn to live with questions, develop tolerance for ambiguity, uncertainty,
Speaker 1: and complexity. Accept that important questions don't have simple solutions. Third,
Speaker 1: we need to recover intellectual humility. This means recognizing the
Speaker 1: limits of our knowledge, questioning our certainties, and being willing
Speaker 1: to change our minds when presented with better evidence. It
Speaker 1: means valuing the learning process more than possessing opinions. Fourth,
Speaker 1: we should actively seek experiences that challenge our habitual thinking,
Speaker 1: read difficult books, expose ourselves to different perspectives, study subjects
Speaker 1: that require sustained mental effort, treat intellectual development as a
Speaker 1: long term project that deserves serious investment. Fifth, we need
Speaker 1: to create and protect spaces for genuine contemplation. This may
Speaker 1: mean regular periods without electronic devices, meditation or reflection practices,
Speaker 1: time dedicated to careful observation of nature or art. Finally,
Speaker 1: we must develop intellectual discrimination, the capacity to distinguish between
Speaker 1: genuine knowledge and pseudo knowledge, between authentic art and entertainment,
Speaker 1: between wisdom and opinion. This discrimination only develops through constant
Speaker 1: exposure to examples of excellence. Schopenhauer reminds us that true
Speaker 1: intellectual transformation is always minoritarian. Most people in any era
Speaker 1: choose the easiest path, but each individual who chooses the
Speaker 1: more difficult path of genuine development contributes to preserving the
Speaker 1: possibility of human wisdom. The reconquest of wisdom isn't a
Speaker 1: utopian project of total social transformation. Its individual work of
Speaker 1: resistance and cultivation that, when multiplied by sufficient people, can
Speaker 1: keep alive the flame of genuine intelligence even in dark times.
Speaker 1: Schopenhauer's ideas offer us a precise diagnosis of our time.
Speaker 1: We live the collapse of intelligence because we allowed our will,
Speaker 1: stimulated by technology, to completely dominate our capacity for reflection.
Speaker 1: But this same diagnosis shows us the way back. Wisdom
Speaker 1: hasn't died, It has just taken refuge, waiting for those
Speaker 1: brave enough to seek it. In every moment we choose
Speaker 1: contemplation over reactivity, depth over superficiality, we're contributing to the
Speaker 1: intellectual resistance that our era desperately needs.