Why We Must Return to Intellectual Living

Image for post
Image for post

More and more, people are discussing how it is mankind are retreating into factions for interpretation of events, philosophies, life, social interactions, governance, sexual interactions, spirituality, and religion. Retreat into factions for delineation of personal responses implies people no longer are attempting to think things through, merely are adopting thoughts advocated within their respective factions in respect of matters, weighty or trifling. We have then that as part of mankind’s evolution, there exists a non-trivial likelihood that those who have the least developed capacity for rigorous intellectual thought may out survive those of us who become vulnerable because in our clinging to application of rigorous thought to matters of life we at end of the day become factionless. The ‘Divergent’ series of movies of course already have explored this possibility — a world ruled by those who lack capacity for rigorous intellectual thought, a world within which those who dare to think lose capacity for maintenance of their economic welfare. After hundreds of years of celebration of people such as Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Jesus Christ etc. who helped man see things in different lights, who all arrived at self discipline as important end of life via application of themselves to rigorous intellectual thought we end up with stupidity and idiocy as defining characteristics of mankind.

elative to animals, capacity for intellectual pursuits is the one defining differentiating characteristic of mankind. Animals make homes in the wild but leave the wild unchanged. Man not only makes a home in the wild, always the wild is transformed into something less wild. Much as the Bible declares concerning man’s innate desire, man always attempts to dominate his or her environment. We have then that intellectual capacity, the most important distinguishing feature of man, the one feature which clearly demarcates man from animals is under assault. Somehow, however, we regard this assault as part of our evolution, as opposed to what in fact it must be, attempts by some elements of society to reduce mankind’s view of itself to be no different from state of animals. Under the guise of substituting of robots for humans at work, man will be reduced to spending his or her time in hibernation, sex, and eating. What exactly do animals spend most of their time doing if not sleeping, having sex (typically non-monogamous, yet more likely to be polygamous than otherwise), or eating. In the intellectually deficient world that likely is outcome of denigration of intellectualism, polygamy reins, feminism dies, women end up in worse state than in the stone age. We really think this will be an improvement, evidence for evolution?

The only good perhaps that can be outcome of reducing of man to state of mind of animals is that contrary to man’s intellectualism, male animals never have sex with one another. Males are drawn to scents other males of their species never can generate for sex. By the same token, female animals never have sex with one another because in so far as process required for sexual attraction and copulation are concerned, other females lack some unique capacity of males. Related to this is the fact that animals of any well defined specie never attempt to develop relationships with animals of other species.

Animals of different specie can coexist peacefully, they never ever attempt to develop relationships with one another.

Prides of lions consist only of lions. Same with prides of elephants. Same with communities of apes. Same with deers, antelopes etc. In presence of denigration of man’s intellectual state we at least never again will have to see some man or woman trying to develop relationship with dogs or cats — we never again get to see men or women kissing dogs or cats. One wonders which is the worst panacea for loneliness — masturbation, homosexuality, lesbianism, or kissing of animals, because let’s face it all of highlighted deviant behavior are attempts at resolving of loneliness. If homosexuality is not deviant behavior, outside of applications of science, can mankind survive if every single person becomes homosexual or lesbian? Homosexuality and lesbianism are feasible deviant choices only because most people remain heterosexual — continue to provide new human beings via procreation for maintenance of man’s dominance of his environment. Other than highlighted wishful restoration of heterosexual relations and constraining of relationship formation to be within-species, I cannot think of any other benefits from reduction of man to intellectual state common to animals.

love homosexuals and lesbians. Whenever I want to spend my money, I do not ask whether the product or service was created by a homosexual or a lesbian. At work, my estimate of a colleague’s capabilities has nothing to do with their sexual orientation. When I read an article, my estimate of the article has nothing to do with perceived sexual orientation of author of the article. Again, I love homosexuals and lesbians.

But love is love only because in presence of disagreement, frictions, imperfections, people continue to respect one another, people do not discriminate against one another, people make no attempt to hurt one another. A world within which heterosexuals are regarded to be non-corformist merely because they voice their views about homosexuality or lesbianism in ‘impersonal this is my opinion formats that are not attacks on any particular person’ — a world devoid of intellectual thought, a world reduced to intellectual existence of animals — is a world I just have shown cannot validate either of homosexuality or lesbianism. In presence of non-validation of either of homosexuality or lesbianism in context of absence of intellectual thought, the best we can hope for is intellectual disagreement in context of a society within which regardless of intellectual disagreements people love one another.

Love and Disagreement

I grew up in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, a church organization within which I no longer am participating, but in which I visit sometimes because all of my extended family remains part of the church organization. Currently, I do not participate in church services at all because current set up of church services — some preach or teach, others listen, those listening never really get the opportunity to love on one another — is a perversion of original intent of church services.

Consider this, how many people ever have made friends from attendance at church services? If church is supposed to be community, yet people hardly ever get opportunity to make friends in church — a context consisting of people most like them in beliefs and spirituality — what exactly is church in today’s world?

Regardless of my philosophical differences with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I continue to believe that the prophet associated with emergence of the movement — Ellen G. White — was inspired by God. The evidence is very strong, particularly her willingness to update her beliefs whenever someone other than herself was the source of new truths.

But Ellen G. White was not, never claimed to be, and is not God. I do not have to stay in the church she was associated with to connect with or have fellowship with Jesus Christ — Jesus Christ was not a Seventh-day Adventist. Neither do I have to hate Seventh-day Adventists just because I entertain philosophical differences over their interpretation of Christian Scriptures. Regardless of my philosophical differences, I continue to love my parents and siblings who remain part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church Family.

The point is, essence of man’s intellectualism and capacity for love is possibility of coexistence of intellectual disagreement and love. In Apostolic Christian times, Paul and Barnabas disagreed about fitness of Mark as Apostle of Jesus Christ (Book of Acts Chapter 15). Many years later, Paul and Barnabas remained friends with each other, Paul who disagreed as to fitness of Mark would refer to Mark as helpful for his ministry in Jesus Christ (2Timothy 4:11). There was intellectual disagreement between three great men yet friendship, respect, love never was lost. Paul was right Mark needed more time to mature, as such was unfit for participation in his immediate trials of which it turns out he next ended up in jail in Philippi. Barnabas was right Mark had potential for Apostleship. The disagreement worked out for all three — Paul, Barnabas, and Mark.

If we are to lift mankind out of its current moral cesspool, a cesspool within which some people glorify masturbation as appropriate hedonistic pleasure while driving on highways, it is time we got back to respecting of intellectual discussion that is rooted in respect for, lack of discrimination against, tolerance for, non-persecution of opposing views, and factionless love. This is the only route to reining in of progressive descent of society into meaninglessness of despair and loneliness. This is the only route to joyful, meaningful living and existence for mankind.

Written by

Educator and Researcher, Believer in Spirituality, Life is serious business, but we all are pilgrims so I write about important stuff with empathy and ethos

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store