Can an intellectual and a brute evr come to terms? let’s say the intellectual sees himself in the position of being assaulted on all sides by his nemesis, the brute. The brute is trying to instill in a community the manhood of brawn of the energizing of the male hormones, the need to fight. He may see and interpret intellectualism as a defensive posture, based on the premise, that the pen is not mightier then the sword, forgetting, or never have learned otherwise. further, the brute will project an image of the intellectual as an ephemeral aesthete , a boodkwormish effeminate creature, who becomes nullified and irrelevant in the presence of the brute. the brute is the sophist, who, by virtue of his superior skills in rhetoric and mass communication with like minded masses, gets popular support. So the intellectual in many cases cedes power to those,but only as a ploy, which is not easily interpreted by brutes, and it is done literally, by presenting brute facts unassumingly left bereft of any subtlety, which needs the fine tuned skill of interpretation to make itself understood. The communication thus distills to various skillful ways of distorting meaning using facts to conform to the expectations of understanding by those who require and often demand such understanding. distortion becomes the glass, through which darkly, we all view our shared reality. we are for once and ever more presume this state of affairs to be the status quo.
I have seen very good relationships between brute and intellectual, as friends and mates (no the male is not always the brute). A true bond between such forms when competition ends. Both bring to the table what the other needs. Deep bonds occur after. Only truly shallow will follow the path you put down.
The intellectual can be the brute, and the brute can be the intellectual.
Very true.
Once the intellectual becomes a brute, he ceases to be one, and vica versa. Kris, it’s not necessarily about shallowness or depth, it’s about mutual understanding, at any level without pretensions. The idea of an honest and believable brute is a contradiction in terms, whereas a dishonest
intellectual is merely one who is speaking defensively for self or other serving needs, some of which may be beneficial to him and/or to others.
Rarely.
Did anyone else read the OP and experience having the ‘brute’ seem more and more like a stereotypical intellectual to them?
DNA wise, all humans are fundamentally 96-98% brutes and merely 2-4% human.
The intellectual [the faculty of reason and pure reason] is reflected in that mere 2-4% of the DNA sequence and their manifestations.
Instead of seeing the brutes in others, one should understand the brute in oneself and make it a point to modulate the impulses from one’s own inherent and unavoidable brutish nature.
To be effective, one should not directly engage with the brute forces of others but rather facilitate and enlighten others to recognize their own inherent nature [know thyself], i.e. the danger and threat of the animality in themselves if not modulated and also the usefulness of those elements of humanity in themselves.
This is one of the elements within the grand vision of Kant and Buddhism.
Said like a true Kantian.
Mind and Body
The mind is the greatest weapon.
The brute uses his physical power, whereas the intellectual uses his mental power.
Have you ever seen how vicious philosophers can be in debates? It’s akin to a physical duel, two warriors battling it out, name-calling, taunting as they land blows.
A brute will flex his biceps and triceps; an intellectual will flaunt his vocabulary, knowledge, etc.
2op
The brute will be sled, the future world will have no need of them. That is to say, that our descendants will have adapted to a world where mundane tasks will not be performed by humans. the existing generations of brutes wont be alive then or eventually. a time will come inevitably as I see it.
Orb,
By coming to terms, whilst preserving the current dynamic of Intellectual & Brute, the intellectual is faced with this:
Is there a scenario that would justify the acceptance/tolerance of the brute’s state by the intellectual? As opposed to the continual effort by the intellectual to guide the brute out of their presumably harmful ways - thereby changing the dynamics of the brute to non-brute.
I’d say as a general rule of thumb, no. The intellectual can’t in good conscience allow the brute free reign - unless the intellectual is incapable of overcoming the brute OR the intellectual deems the brute’s influence negligible and thus disregards OR there are more pressing / economical investments for the intellectual’s energy.
If by coming to terms, we allow the brute’s state to be substantially altered to non-brute, then yes, the intellectual and the brute can come to terms.
This scenario depends on the intellectual, not the brute. It’s fair to assume the brute is incapable of breaking the self reinforcing cycle they’re in with their own tools - almost a given. Thus, it falls on the shoulders of the intellectual to break the cycle.
If the cycle can’t be broken, it is a failing in the intellectual, not the brute. The intellectual ought be held accountable for the result, not the brute.
If there’s a (sane) will, there’s a way.
Ben,
I am the way, the truth, and the life. Here, the whole proposition hinges on Truth, and it is the intellectual in the Brute, who has to realize it, as part of Himself. I think once this is realized, the will becomes the tool of the energy, which translates into the redemptive work, that is an absolute.
That same will, is spotless, regardless of interpretations what That is, and the redemptive power, has given some major thinkers bad faith, because, they did not think it interns of the absolute.
In the sane will, repentance is not even needed, because of the realization as to what is good, what is evil, what is beneath and beyond. Those who do not,
have faith in the absolute, can not imagine the enormity of Redemption.
Intellectuals are usually apologists, and their efforts at changing brutes, are based on the premise, that they are of little faith to begin with.
Their lack of faith, has to be replaced by the excercise of the only tool at their disposal, the act of will, to overcome the deficiencies , as they see it.
The brute who can not excercise by strength of will the self imposed brutality, need to be controlled in some way.
This is where we are today by and large, in trying to get out from under the powerlessness which nihilism has bound us to.
The intellectual has to change the brute from inside out, and most are reluctant or fearful. They generally live in ivory towers of dubious reason. They have to admit to their own brutality, before they can come to their senses.
I am sure, there are even terrorist intellectuals who value brutality as a form of cleansing and purification. Intellect does not translate into The Good, directly.
The Truth, is what the Brute is really after, and that remains a shadow of what it has been. The will has a lot,to do with it’s credibility, so intellectuals are ignored, whereby the way and the life become merely conjectures based On the manner they are envisioned and acted upon. Perspective is lost, as a result, and brutality and guilt reign supreme.
Only a re affirmation of the basic tenets of faith will save, based an acceptance of contradictory claims to truth.