ReAwaken America Tour and Intelligent Ethics

ReAwaken America Tour – Wikipedia
— Read on en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReAwaken_America_Tour

–

ReAwaken America Tour – The ThriveTime Show
— Read on www.thrivetimeshow.com/reawaken-america-tour/

–

The Irony of Intelligence.

Human intelligence is not a given. Many humans are not intelligent. Belief is about ideological content, not intelligence.

We typically grant human beings with thought. I feel we also naturally extend intelligence to thinking, and then further that human intelligence is something better or higher than say, the thinking that an intelligent dog might do, or an intelligence of a tree, or a weather front.

I am not so sure that the category of human defines a consistent space of intelligence and thinking in all cases.

This is not to say that someone is not human if they think differently or exhibit, some sort of intelligence that I don’t agree with. But I am suggesting that human beings, if we hold the category,  move in a certain way. I might even go so far as to say that ethics defines intelligence. An ethics that defines an intelligent human being is one that allows people or accounts for people in the context that they can think whatever they want so long as how they act or behave, does not interfere with what someone else might think or say or behave. This with the qualifier, I imagine, that the person who is being impinged upon does not like it.

Then I would imagine that we must define this intelligent ethics within a system, that weighs what people think, but ultimately believe.

I might further move to suggest that when people assert what they believe, what they are doing is asserting a certain organization of ideological content. But not only that, and as much as they assert what they believe, as something essential to the human being, they thereby are not being ethically intelligent.

Indeed, they are being true to thier faith, and could be there by said to be intelligent, in the sense that they are able to decide what ideological content they want to adhere to as well as that they organize it in such a way, however, they are not being intelligent so far as ethics must extend out to all of the human creature.

In order for this to be sound, we would thereby have to mark a point at which human epistemological relativity ends, which is to say, the point at with ethics does not become merely an ideological organization, but rather to decide what basic category that we are going to use intelligently.

 I think it is this kind of demarcation of ethics that everyone in our modern day is afraid of. Because they look back to the 20th century, and they see the world wars, and all that dictatorship and violence and political nonsense by power mongers, and they listen when they read this post that I’m posting, and what I’m saying, and it reminds them of these terrible atrocities in these basically crazy people, and crazy groups of people, and they say “whoa, no, you’re being unethical”.

Yet, I would say that that reaction, that fear, is not based in an intelligent ethics, but is rather based in a particular selection and organization of ideological material.

Thoughts??



👽
x