Why be smart?

While it is understandable that intelligence may assist those seeking advancement in society, brilliance may perhaps be a hinderence. In my case, and that of those with whom I conspire, being smarter is accompanied by a different understanding of the world. I say different instead of better because the understanding is more objective than that of lay people--not specifically better. This perspective of the world is filtered through an eye of equations and empirical observations. Thus, through the objective eye, everything is abstracted from its context and true meaning. A leaf no longer represents a beautiful appendage of a tree, but a collection of cells with the primary purpose of transforming energy. While energy transfer is the leaf's purpose, there is much more to it than that. The best way to demonstrate this is through a quote by John Sanbonmatsu. He would say, "If I were to describe someone to you--say for a blind date, I would not begin by describing that they have two kidneys, about nine feet of lower intestine, and a brain. Furthermore, I would not use even more specific details, perhaps a measure that is perfectly unique to them and identifies them specifically. No, you begin by describing what the person is like, what they have done. It is not mere physical being that makes a thing, it is the experiences of that thing." In the empirical understanding of the leaf, there is no room for a story about how it was the first to grow to its full size in the spring, or that that particular leaf is the favorite of a bird that lives in a nest just a few feet away. Perhaps that is a bit too much anthropomorphism, but the point is still there. Such perspectives make sense when considering Descartes's ideas regarding separation of body and mind. It is from Descartes's objective observation that the scientific method was derived. Questioning the validity of my perspective in the first place is a product of his writings.
Moving on, it is not clear yet if this perspective is limited to the intelligent. The primary argument for this is that most people do not consider such subtitles as non-ideal behavior of solutions--even when they encounter such solutions constantly. This disregard or perhaps ignorance can be extended to nearly any topic of chemistry or physics or biology or any other science. So then it is through a vivid understanding of quantized physical processes that I am distanced from my world. It follows then that those who are not familiar with the knowledge of the subtle workings of processes are not distanced from nature. This is not to say that they are unintelligent, but merely ignorant.
Marx would make a contrary argument, attributing this estrangement from nature to our economic structure. Working estranges the worker from everything around him, and himself. This is done, according to Marx, because the product of labor is not the possession of the laborer. One who is working puts oneself into a product which is only to be taken away, taking away oneself as well. When labor becomes necessary for survival (as it is in contemporary society), the natural need for survival is supplanted by labor, and thus labor becomes natural and that which was previously natural (eating, drinking, sleeping) becomes animal. It is thus through labor that we are disconnected from the world. Clearly, this does not apply only to those who look at the world through an empirical lens. Under Marx's argument, all members of Contemporary American Society are disconnected from the true function and true reality of all that surrounds us.
How can this disconnection be overcome? According to Marx, the estrangement as a product of labor is a natural step in the transition to communism. Thus, he (as no doubt Hegel would too) would argue that it will subside with the progression of time Perhaps even by merely recognizing it one can transcend the confines of this mind state (a very Buddhist idea). These two ideas seem that they could work for disconnection via labor, but how does one overcome disconnect rooted in intelligence or, more accurately, understanding. Does gaining knowledge of the fact that there is more to something that what can be measured constitute an escape from an empirical analysis? Can this problem, as many philosophers would argue, be solved through philosophy, by merely considering what could be behind the numbers? More importantly than these two questions, does one who lacks understanding have a more intimate connection with the truth of everything they see? This last question becomes even more important when one considers that a Cartesian perspective is rooted in human observation. With this in mind, one can conclude that those who are better versed in empirical knowledge gain a more human understanding of the world. Therefor, a less empirical and more intimate understanding must be closer to what the true or pure relationship is intended to be. At any rate, I must end my post here (though still incomplete).