In the modern era, “folly” and “wisdom” have become terms used to forge collective solidarity. In conflicts between the Right and Left on social media, or in bullying within schools and workplaces, these words are exploited in myriad forms.
By labeling specific individuals or groups, these terms facilitate the formation of a collective consciousness. For instance, in a one-on-one relationship, pointing out another’s folly allows one to assert their own wisdom, making it possible to either assimilate or exclude the other.
Successful assimilation leads to the formation or expansion of a group; exclusion helps maintain the integrity of one’s own group. Are “folly” and “wisdom,” then, merely linguistic tools for group formation and maintenance? If one were to live alone on a deserted island, would folly or wisdom even exist?
It seems these terms require the presence of at least two people. While one could lecture oneself on one’s own folly, is that not because of prior experience belonging to a group? Alone on an island, attempting something entirely new, one would not know what is foolish or what is wise.
Nevertheless, one can identify a superior method after the fact and regard past attempts as foolish. When folly and wisdom serve as terms for personal reflection and improvement, they represent a pursuit of better methodologies.
However, the presence of others often increases the efficiency of such reflection. Cooperating with others in pursuit of better methods leads to group formation, which then evolves into group-versus-group dynamics.
When folly and wisdom are preached in group-versus-group conflicts, each side possesses its own accumulated history and methodology. These are sources of affection and trust—the very essence of a group’s solidarity. This introduces a hierarchy into the methodologies by which groups and individuals have survived. The denial of that process—the culmination of a search for better methods—inevitably sparks conflict.
These group-level conflicts eventually descend to the individual level. Modern phenomena like social media “flaming” or bullying are cases in point. This is not limited to political clashes; it applies equally to bullying in schools or workplaces. Bullying might appear different because it involves a group against an individual.
However, an individual who exists as a “different” entity with a distinct methodology is a threat to the group. For instance, even if the individual is unaware of it, a “strong” bully often cannot tolerate a “weak” person who is accepted by society despite their weakness. This often stems from the bully’s own history of not being permitted to exist as “weak.”
Everyone lives through a unique history and environment, navigating them through diverse methods. Rarely are these identical. The terms “folly” and “wisdom” collapse these diverse backgrounds onto a single axis. Yet, the objects of evaluation on that axis are fundamentally disparate.
When we question folly or wisdom, are the subjects being evaluated truly comparable? If the goal is personal reflection or the pursuit of better methods, they are. But in group-versus-group or group-versus-individual scenarios, can we really apply a single axis of evaluation?
Even if we do, it requires a clearly defined axis and comparable subjects. Modern social media conflicts and bullying bypass this clarification and the necessary dialogue, skipping straight to evaluation. It is a violent act of judgment.
