Tyranny of the intellect

It has been two years since I have written anything. I am guessing that my writing skills would have deteriorated dramatically this past few years since I have not practicing it lately but bear with me.

The reason that I have come to write this particular post was that there are some things that have frustrated me which I felt that must be written rather than acquiesce on.

For those that have read my blog, you would have known that I enjoy an intellectual argument and written with an intellectual bent but I have noticed something such as " tyranny of the intellect" or the "intellectual superiority complex".

What this means that our intellect rules over our values. This means that our actions can be justified by any means possible regardless whether it is against some agreed upon values. Take for example, we believed that gays have rights too but at the same time, I also do not mixed around with gays. This means that only an intellectual level everyone are ascribed universal human rights but at the same time, we really think/ believe that what they do is wrong/ or make us awkward.

This might seem trivial but consider that a traditional Muslim just killed 50 gays in the land where universal human rights is suppose to reign free- in America. This is a matter of values triumphing over the intellect.

Our values define us and not our intellect. The reason that I brought up the above case is that everyone on an intellectual level believed that gays have their rights- the right to live without someone taking their lives without rule or law is one of them but yet the values by which one lives by this rule does not exist at all. This means that we actually don't like them [ by we, I mean those who believed that their lifestyle is wrong or incorrect]

But yet the gay movement exists. Why does it exist- because on an intellect level we believed that we cannot deny them their rights but yet the movement find little salience with many sections of the population simply because it is merely intellectual movement and not one driven by deep-rooted values. We cannot deny them the rights is not quite the same as we should not deny them rights.

This brings me to my first point: the tyranny of the intellect. There are many instances of where the intellect triumphs over our values: where our actions is dictated by what we think is rather than what should be.

I have noticed that locally there have been lots of brickbats on what we considered as those who are incumbents. Every mistake by anyone associated with the ruling parties is free game for criticisms. They have been ridiculed at, personally attacked at or character assassinated at just because they belong to an existing ruling bloc.

This I believed that is from an existing intellectual strain which calls us to constantly question the status quo. This means that their interests have triumphed over all other interest.

As a sociologist, as a person who have studied inequalities in society, I am more than qualified to tell you that it is an intellect movement to bring about social mobility but at the same time, it is an universal value for the betterment of humans in general. Hence the value itself is not just exclusive to a certain enlightened group of people but rather for mankind in general.

This means that the so-called left-leaning bloc which constantly barrage well-meaning intentions for what they believed to be positive for society has to called into question their behaviour in bringing about change.

It has to reflect on their actions that magnify the human failings of their opposition and heckled at those who might have fallen. Their modus operandi, seems to be picking on their mistakes of their opponents and then calling for change- as an evidence of "corrupt" or "unfair" state of society. Take for example, the crucifying of a certain "ruling party" grassroots leader for scolding a disabled service personnel even after she has apologized publically.

This left leaning bloc has to develop a conscience for their actions by which their actions brings into question their effectiveness as a political entity. Their actions driven by the intellectual discourse of the humanist movement must not conflict with that of human values. They must see themselves as humans first before seeing themselves as agents of change.