Intelligence and the ethical Segregation of Human Attributes. 

I have been ranting and about intelligence and something else. And it is not too difficult to notice that I could be talking about myself versus everyone else. That I am supremely intelligent and that everyone else in the universe is a complete moron. While this might be the case, If I am to be a part of any world where there are people that I am addressing were speaking to or attempting to communicate with her through this blog then I have to step back from my omnipotent posture. 😛 

And it might be possible that this is really where I am getting this idea from. Because it seems like at every step I take weather backwards or forwards weather macro or micro, I inevitably and left in a situation where I can’t help but deemmyself as being more sensible than the other of my topic. I can’t help but take myself as a rhetorical subject, but it is in this ability to take myself as merely some sort of speaking universal object that I am therefore able to find issue with those who are unable to remove themselves from their own serious endeavor.

For mine is the most serious there is; why else would people react so violently against it? Why would people go to the mall to get some Sirius discount prices on cool things the day after Christmas and then find themselves in a fight with 500 other people? Am I allowed to say it’s because they’re idiots? 

See also that the situation that I keep finding myself and is a very philosophical problem. The philosopher is constantly in a battle to stay in the middle. One must be careful not to posit ideas that isolates him or herself from the rest of the comprehending group, but at the same time any philosopher of significance and integrity cannot Acquiesce to the group findings. Physical science will always be incapable of accounting for the human being into total sense; for isn’t this what we’re talking about? Aren’t we in the attempt to find the absolute true thing? The grand master narrative into which all existence will fit to be explained and to be sensible and accessible to our comprehension? 

So when I say that most people are idiots it really is that I’m saying that most people are small minded and myopic in the reckoning of truth and reality. So while my argument tends to isolate me as this unique single individual as opposed to the rest of humanity, as though i am only talking about myself as supreme ruler, it is really more to indicate then I’m probably not the only one.

In this moment of considering how 500 people could get in a riot at the mall the day after Christmas, and extrapolating it to say fans at a soccer game, or a football game, I am contemplating a theoretical possibility that a democracy by the people necessarily and eventually has to reckoned by a sort of blind, behind which most of the “people” really are left voiceless while still seeing themselves as having a voice. Indeed that it would be a sort of fiction in which “the people” are involved as a total reality such that they must activate their being in such away consistent with the fact of their reality that they are involved with the government by the people. For it seems necessary that ignorance is in capable of maintaining a structured government by which society may be ordered. Any government that we have that we know of as government does not arrive to the equal voices of all the people that are governed. As an analogy example, a group of fourth-graders did not secure the state of Arizona; just as an example. 

The very idea of being governed by the people of a democracy work every single cytisine has a voice must necessarily and eventually be founded in a realization that most of the people only have a voice at certain junctures, certain occasions that have meaning for the people themselves. Perhaps he is junctures fall under the category of justice, but then somehow this meaning of justice is extrapolated into a government by the people that is not really inclusive of everyone’s voice in the determination of government.

In effect, what occurs in the discourse of enlightenment is an inevitable realization that there is a certain aggregate population of people that while represented, essentially have no voice because they have no concept of what a voice could really mean in the context of government. In effect, due to the inclusion of a system that concerns the economy of moving goods and products and services, we might want to say oligarchy, but really we would be talking about an aristocracy. 

This is a situation then that my segregate itself from regular real discourse. And the automatic miss trust that goes along with such aristocratic or imperial tendencies there by must be kept within its own arena of real human causation; the check on the tendancy for human despotism will and should continue. The real method of justification that accounts for all the activities of human beings within a context of dysfunction, trauma, and idyllic historical utopia should and will be left to its own mythological fantasies. Because it is real. 


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s