Facing wrath from several sides, the average labeled 'intellectual' seems sercure from the fact that 'those who do not understand' need not bother him with 'what he should be understanding'. A standing that establishes itself upon his own assumptions about what the understanding should be, of course, not without neglect of the opposition's thesis just so that the other parties views may be incoperated and then caculated as defective thinking under his way.

That is of course, if an intellectual is to be assumed as one that dissects concepts and encourages himself to ponder more upon those dissected regions. Inclusive of the usual blows of analytical reasoning followed by classification or realisation. Still, we are walking over abstract waters when dealing with this object for his type (which thereby reflects his arguement) is vague, deep and broad. A scientifc intellectual may hold similarities with a humanistical intellectual, but their patterns of thought might be same, just grasping onto drastically different content. One may argue that there is intergration between all fields of thought, but the average genius knows that he cannot be an expert in more then one field. To be proficient in both philosophy and chemistry is a feat, but to be pioneers of new breakthroughs of them both, hovers above impossible.

To reason that intellectuals use more of their heads then their hearts, for the very fact that they think and absorb content, expects the undermining of the emotions in the intellectual process. Even in terms of fields that respect 'emotion' to be a key player in the triggers that affect their work, perhaps that role is just considered as such. To have ordinate emotions to a being will therefore be considered null, or not in contribution to the intellectual process. Of course, I cannot suppose that intellectuals have lives beside this role of analysis. Alternate roles and situations may even aid intelligence, for the so-called inspiration does not work when you demand of its presence the most.

But is intelligence really to be prestiged as a incarnate without the tapping of any emotions? The loopholes of this are easily decided, and anyone can bring out factors to show that in terms of identity, purpose, work relation and anticipated actions; intelligience must run with emotions at some point. To void emotions out totally just because it does not contribute to an intellectual process becauses quite stupid after awhile. A robotical working-with-only-thoughts person is unable to react after dealing with evaluation. Well, it is quite odd to even think of how such a person evaluates. To have emotions run along with the process of intellect however, is not all that emotions are capable of. Besides that support role that aids with spurs and boosts, the emotion can rally the processes and make decesions. It can forge alliances with reason and rule it so that it may reach its objectives. The heart can very easily command the head if it wills itself to. A sentiment is required for intellegience to function and for it to be in a working condition.

My second point invovles the analogy of the astrological bodies. A orbitance should be more appropirate. For such is the position of intellectuals many, many times. Somewhere I had read that all who seek are idiots who run around this race to nothing, while the secret to the answer lies in the center of their search, laughing at them. (It was phrased in a much more intellecual tone) An incapablility to understand always lingers in the air of intellectuals. Let us first not mention that knowledge that humans do not know, but intstead try to gauge who in the world can profess to know fully the knowledge that humans do know about a particular field? A very simple, two-level reasoning, that all intellectuals will nod towards. The depth can drown one who desires the answers and the width of it may overwhlem that who seeks.

Afterall of course, intelligence is just a concept that was constructed because of human's inability of fathoming the greats of this earth. To know or realise more then other person - how in the world does that make you more 'intelligent' then the other? In terms of the prestige and respect we have presented to intellectuals, it is but a slient wrong that has evovled beyond sensibility. If those who 'understand what should be understood' are not bothered with understanding 'what cannot be understood', he is but the same with those who 'do not understand'.

And therefore intellectuals, I laugh at you.

---

_Past

June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009

---