The Definitive Guide to Stop Being a Fool

If you are here, you have probably already realised (or suspect) that being silly is not a very pleasant thing. This undesirable trait may seem like a humorous and somewhat pejorative term, but in reality it is a problem of everyday philosophy and has existential implications.

If Freud were still alive, he might point out that part of this concept stems from an ‘emotional populism’ with origins in childhood attachment patterns. This means that all our foolishness could be an unresolved issue from our past.

But, as the father of psychoanalysis has been six feet under for quite some time now — and I am not a psychoanalyst — let's say that ceasing to be foolish involves being aware that someone is making us foolish and that we are encouraging this behaviour.

It would be nice to stop this pattern, which only exists because, at some point—and regardless of the reasons—we lowered our values in favour of a false need for emotional crumbs and approval.

What does it mean be a fool?

To put it bluntly, being foolish is allowing other people to take advantage of our kindness, naivety or lack of boundaries. It is when we are that person who always gives too much of themselves, who is always ready to help/listen to everything and everyone, who puts their own resolutions and problems aside to provide brotherly support.

Most of the time, fools receive no recognition or reciprocity. After they provide support, information, money, etc., they are left with only the sound of silence from the other person.

I don't know what you think about this, but I know that there would be no need for each of us to have an average of 86 billion neurons to understand that this is not such a great thing to experience. Even a flatworm, if it had emotions, would not like it very much.

And the most interesting thing is that only a fool is capable of changing this condition. He is 100% responsible for what he allows others to do to him.

The Philosophy of Foolishness

If ‘being made a fool’ existed as a branch of philosophy, it would certainly be centred on the concept that:

‘Foolishness reflects the attitude of a naive person who is overly confident and almost completely lacking in perception when faced with situations in which they may be harmed and/or deceived.’

Unlike stupid behaviour, foolishness occurs within the emotional and relational dimensions. Its basic principles are:

• Extreme trust: Fools deeply believe in the goodness and honesty of people, even when faced with evidence to the contrary.

• Persistence in error: The fool ends up repeating the same mistakes because they firmly believe in giving second chances, precisely because they believe in the redemption of certain situations.

• Conscious naivety: Although the fool is repeatedly deceived, they remain faithful to the principle of good faith. They do not do so out of stupidity, but rather out of personal ethics and an unconscious resistance to the cynicism of others.

With knowledge of the concepts and principles of philosophical foolishness, we realise the fundamental questions below:

Would it be possible to live without being foolish? Or is foolishness an inevitable characteristic of the human race?

Could foolishness be considered an ethical virtue? For, in a way, it reveals emotional openness, vulnerability and trust, qualities that are highly valued by some philosophical traditions.

Is foolishness a choice or an existential condition?

To Be Foolish or Not to Be, That Is the Question…

Nietzsche, our favourite moustachioed philosopher, would say that foolishness is a mortal sin against oneself. The fool is not only being made a fool of by others, he is, above all, denying his own individuality - and dignity. He would shout in the fool's ears: ‘Become who you are!’ Precisely to remind him that, first of all, the fool needs to discover who he really is not.

Kierkegaard might call this ‘an unresolved existential choice.’ In other words, the fool prefers to please others rather than honour his own essence. Simone de Beauvoir would look at the fool with pity and teach him about the importance of autonomy and legitimate empowerment.

The serious-faced uncle, Arthur Schopenhauer, would emphasise that ‘expectations are the root of all suffering.’ The fool tends to believe so much in the good intentions of others that he begins to harbour illusions, often unconscious, that lead him to suffer painful disappointments. The old tale of naive optimism that makes the ‘excited fool’ easy prey for opportunists.

Now, let us imagine a scenario in which a hypothetical debate takes place, the theme of which is the fundamental questions of the philosophy of foolishness. We will adopt a dialectical approach here, using two fictional characters who recognise the presence of paradoxes and ambiguous values in the philosophical line in question.

On one side, we have the philosopher Arthémisia II of Delphi, founding master of the Order of Delphaia.

On the other side, we have Erixane of Halicarnassus, regent philosopher of the Hýlaxica School.

Question 1: Would it be possible to live without being foolish?

Arthemísia - Yes. Life requires discernment, trusting all individuals, regardless of who they are. This is not a moral failing, but we must also stick to our experiences and learn from them. Constantly and indefinitely repeating the same mistakes is not a virtue, but recklessness. The world requires individuals to have a healthy dose of scepticism. And the development of reason and emotional intelligence are part of the maturation of any human being.

Erixane - No. Every individual is or will be foolish at some point in their life. In human relationships, vulnerability is inevitable. All forms of trust always involve risk. Thus, foolishness occurs as a kind of openness to others. Feelings and actions such as love and help are ways in which we expose ourselves to the possibility of being deceived. If there were no form of foolishness, life would be nothing more than an isolated and sad act, like an emotional prison.

Question 2: Could foolishness be considered an ethical virtue?

Arthemísia - No. The exercise of ethical virtue requires balance. There must be harmony between trust and prudence. Any form of kindness that insists on not learning is nothing more than collusion. Ethics that ignore context and repeated mistakes can end up becoming immoral, precisely because of their omission.

Erixane - Yes. When understood as a form of good faith towards others, foolishness becomes an act of radical love. We could say that foolish people should be seen as individuals who protest against the coldness of current relationships. Therefore, the emotional courage that these individuals have in not giving up on others should not be seen as a sign of weakness.

Question 3: Is foolishness a choice or an existential condition?

Arthemísia - Deception is part of the human experience, especially when we talk about emotional relationships, regardless of whether they are romantic, fraternal or familial. Foolishness is not just a decision, it is an inevitable consequence that stems from the deep need that human beings have to belong, to give of themselves and to connect with others.

Erixane - Everyone chooses to trust, love or forgive, regardless of whether they have been hurt or not. In this way, the act of being foolish is given moral agency. For there are those who are fully aware of their own foolishness and therefore choose to assume this ‘position’ in an ethical manner.

The Third View

This is not a conclusion to this imaginary debate, but rather an addendum.

This business of imprisoning ‘foolishness’ in fixed categories may be a mistake. Speaking from experience, obviously, ‘being foolish’ is not a virtue to be embraced, much less a weakness to be overcome.

We must not forget that trust, error, and vulnerability coexist in the real flow of human existence. The polarisation demonstrated by the fictional debate between Arthemísia and Erixane was a playful way I found to demonstrate how we have become accustomed to ‘having to choose’ one side.

The vast majority of people, when faced with situations of debate, tend, even if unconsciously, to choose the opinion that most closely matches their beliefs. As a result, they may fail to consider the other view, even if it is more coherent. This is called confirmation bias.

Therefore, it would be interesting to reflect on the following information: life constantly confronts us with the desire to trust and the sense of self-protection. There will be times when foolishness is a conscious choice, while at other times it will simply be the result of an illusion, even if unintentional. And curiously, these moments of foolishness and not bringing are part of the whole complex cluster of our human condition.

The maxims: ‘For every choice, there is a sacrifice.’ and ‘We are winning and losing with every decision we make.’ They can be used for reflection and even taken into account when making decisions. We often live to minimise our mistakes, but even so, this does not prevent them from happening. Trusting, being sincere and believing in people is optional, even if they are important conditions in any meaningful relationship.

While an attitude can be heroic — insisting on a friendship because of the past, for example — it can also be self-destructive. Ethics and virtue, therefore, are not about being or not being a sucker, but about knowing how to recognise when our kindness is building us up and when it is draining us. Empathy is necessary, yes, but so are lucidity and good sense.

Choices and conditions are not opposites, they are layers. Foolishness may be partly a matter of the human condition, because we all know what it is to trust and believe in those we shouldn't. But what we do with that experience is, in fact, a choice that is ours alone.

We can become cynical and ‘use’ the other side as much as they use us, we can continue to bet on the other in a more conscious way, we can simply walk away... the possibilities are many. But none of them should be chosen for the sake of the other, but rather for ourselves. Because, contrary to what many say, this is not selfishness, it is freedom of choice.

In short, the fictional Philosophy of Stupidity, in its essence, does not defend stupidity or glorify naivety. It invites us to enter the neutral zone, the middle path. Where vulnerability meets wisdom, where mistakes give rise to growth, and where being foolish is sometimes just a misnomer for those who insist on trusting those who do not know or have forgotten how to respect.

The dignity of foolishness dwells in this harmony. It is neither destiny nor a banner. It is just part of the journey.

The Neutral Zone

Now, faced with this reflection and a possible broader and more compassionate understanding of foolishness, we can see that the goal does not necessarily have to be to banish this experience from our lives. Perhaps it would be more interesting to cultivate awareness and self-questioning so that we can identify when it is happening and thus act more wisely.

After all, there is a big gap between trusting and losing oneself. And in order to fill that gap with self-knowledge, a sense of limits and intuition, some practices can be useful.

• Recognise repetitive patterns

Sartre said, ‘...we exist first, then we define ourselves...’ So, if we only recognise our value after someone uses us, something is wrong. If you feel like you are always repeating the same situations — helping too much (even when you are not asked), forgiving beyond limits, giving everything and then being left aside — this is not just a coincidence, it is a pattern.

Observe yourself honestly (and, if possible, without judging yourself), foolishness lies in repetition that does not want to become learning.

• Set Clear Boundaries

  
  

Learning to say ‘no’ is the new ‘I love myself’. It won't do any good just to know what you deserve, you have to practise, and that's where ‘no’ comes in. Fools will always try to bend their own boundaries out of fear of conflict, loss or rejection, to play the good Samaritan, to please others... The cliché ‘Life is too short to please everyone’ exemplifies this very well.

• Balance between giving and receiving

  
  

The fool's heart suffers from emotional imbalance; they give more than they receive. Therefore, when only one side is investing, only one side is wearing themselves out. Generosity is wonderful, but it is interesting that it is reciprocal, even if in completely different ways.

• Value your time more

  
  

In the age of social media, time has become gold. It is a valuable resource, so don't waste it waiting for gratitude or on those who don't deserve it. Do what you believe is right without expecting emotional returns.

• Listen to and trust your intuition

Fools always sense trouble coming, but emotional attachment always ends up silencing instinct. Our intuition is subtle and makes us uncomfortable, but it is accurate. It is like a dog: the owner may be miles away, but the dog always knows he is on his way.

• Cultivate yourself before others

No philosophy or practice surpasses the value of genuinely loving yourself. If you don't know what that is, then learn! Every human being seeks happiness, but the root of it all has to do with knowing, loving and respecting yourself. Knowing what and who is good for you determines how much you will allow yourself to be walked over. In other words, if you treat yourself badly, you are automatically allowing others to do the same.

• Debunk the Myth of the Saviour of the Nation

  
  

Providing support is very different from being a crutch. Nietzsche would say that all idealism is a way of hiding frustrations. So, if you're playing the superhero, ask yourself the following: ‘What would I like to save myself from?’ Or ‘What is all this redemption for?’ Every excess hides a lack.

• Build your emotional autonomy

  
  

We don't need constant approval or advice from others for every decision we make. Clarice Lispector once said: ‘Freedom is not enough. What I want still has no name.’

And remember, there are people out there who are living proof that evolution is not mandatory. So don't be a pile of empty words when arguing with someone who has already lost their mind before even opening their mouth.

We can also be the ones who light up the room when we leave it. After all, not all spaces need our presence.

If you enjoyed this article, leave your comments, suggestions, complaints, whatever. Feel free. And don't forget to recommend the blog to those who are openly foolish. Oh, and if you enjoy more exclusive, unfiltered content tailored to sharper minds, visit the UN4RT website — our free backstage, reserved only for the most daring.

“The illusion crumbles when we question reality” - UN4RT

Here are the sources and references. Enjoy without moderation.

• Personal experience: I was a for a long time, so I know all the nuances of what that means. I learned a lot from my experiences, but today, I no longer follow that philosophy.

• Sigmund Freud, Civilisation and Its Discontents.

• Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil.

• Søren Kierkegaard, The Concept of Anxiety.

• Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex.

• Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation.

• Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness.

• Clarice Lispector, Near to the Wild Heart.