To those that object to my arguing “against intellect”, that’s not really accurate. I’m arguing against intellect as morality…I’m arguing against intellectual bullying (as opposed to “cowardice”)…I’m arguing against the violent change from an undesirable society that demeans intelligence and glorifies anything “common” to an undesirable society that demeans athletics, slang – anything “common” – and glorifies intelligence and pure scientific methodology as the defining virtues of the best of society.
I’m arguing that the best of society are neither smart nor dumb, neither athletic nor geeky, neither formal nor informal, neither abstract nor concrete, neither demeanors of intellect nor kneeling worshippers of it, neither atheists nor theists, neither male nor female, neither any race vs. any other race, neither rich nor poor…
The best of society are good and decent vs. sorely lacking in morality. And that is all.
Besides…if the people you’re talking to are so stupid, and you’re so smart, why do you need to use (and I quote) “an objective approach that frowns upon personal connections between the entities examined”?
If you’re so smart, can’t you win your argument on any level? With or without formal adherence to logical fallacy policy?
Can’t you be smart enough to understand – and out-argue – a dumb person on any level they choose? Can’t you drop your rigid, programmed, computerized comments and responses for something a bit more emotional (i.e. human)?
Better put:
“…My intellectual work forms only an insignificant part…love and personal understanding are much more important. Leading intellectuals with their zeal for objectivity kill these personal elements…”
“…Unanimity of opinion may be fitting for a church, for the frightened or greedy victims of some (ancient, or modern) myth, or for the weak and willing followers of some tyrant. Variety of opinion is necessary for objective knowledge…”
– Paul Feyerabend