RE: writ large, another sip

Arrogance concerning intellect is often the result of thinking ones self as
right since some sort of intellectual reasoning was used. I think we can
agree that reason is a valid but limited way at discerning what is right.
But I think that we can agree that not everyone reasons flawlessly (myself
particularly included). But those who place a high value on their right
conclusions derived from their intellect have to be aware of their
prone-ness to error hence an external check. Since many in a specific field
tend to be prone to the same errors and need an external check to the group.
The intellectual who ignores the infallibility of his intellect or under
values it displays arrogance and since it often ignores the external check
then it becomes disconnected from reality. Hence the real danger that those
who place a greater value upon the intellect are more susceptible to
arrogance and disconnectedness since they derive all their conclusions from
that source. It is circular in certain respects to the point of becoming a
vicious circle. It has been said that the fear of God is the beginning of
wisdom, so humbleness opens the door to better reason which aids the
intellect in its choices between true and false, being subject to
correction from whatever source, the earthy or the clouds. No one is
perfectly humble, but the opposite is deadly. Yes, knowledge puffs up, like
you said but it is more tragic when it is false knowledge, it is an illus
ional leaven. You one likes to be reminded that they could be wrong, myself
included but if an intellectual places all his trust in his own intellect
then who can say anything to him?
Daniel

Ah, ok. No, I think you're making connections from my statements that I
didn't intend. I didn't do anything to stop you from making those
connections, though.

Let me spell it out a bit more:

Members of the KKK ascribe specific negative personality traits to
blacks as a group.
You ascribe specific negative personality traits to intellectuals as a
group.

It's irrelevant that blacks are "born" blacks but intellectuals are
"educated" to be intellectuals. Both you and my Klan co-workers were
equally ascribing "specific negative personality traits" to a large and
diverse group of people.

You could extend this to the specific types of statements made:

KKK: Blacks like fried chicken and watermelon and are lazy and dishonest.
YOU: Intellectuals are arrogant and disconnected from reality.

No one is "born" dishonest or liking fried chicked, just as no one is
"born" arrogant and disconnected from reality. In both cases the
specific examples are the product of acculturation of some sort.

Here's one point of difference:

KKK: Blacks are racially -- genetically -- inferior.
YOU: Race or genetics has nothing to do with being an intellectual.

Ok, the comparison breaks down at that point. You still need to account
for the ways it still holds up.

Jim

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

>Because skin color is inborn, your KKK example. Ok, you're linguistically
>calling me a bigot, whatever that means.
>Daniel
>
>
>
>
>

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Apr 30 13:01:46 2003