Publius Returns

Noah Webster


AN INTELLECTUAL REVOLUTION

"Achilles [famous as the quickest of all Greeks at Troy] can never overtake a tortoise; because by the time he reaches the point from which the tortoise started, it will have moved on to another point; by the time he re- reaches that second point, it will have moved on again, and so forth ad infinitum.” Zeno, a disciple of Parmenides


Although you may find the quotation somewhat convoluted and at best ridiculous, it signifies a step in our intellectual evolution of understanding of the world around us. We refer to the Scientific Revolution and the thinking of Locke, Rousseau, and others, who took from a previous century to make strides in our understanding of man in the next, to help us deal with the ideas of today. And, I will admit, that here too, the title An Intellectual Revolution is, itself, a misnomer.

Then and today we convey ideas through many forms, the primary of which is language. But language is often vague and subject to misinterpretation. What, in today’s world, is the meaning patriot? It means different things to different people. The English language in particular is filled with many meanings of the same word and is rife with innuendo. It is difficult to be clear, artful, succinct and at the same time include a precise definition of every word used.

What, even, do the words intellectual and revolution mean? I am using Microsoft word to write this. The synonyms listed for each are:

Intellectual: thinker, academic, brain, scholar, rational, logical, cerebral.
Revolution: rebellion, revolt, uprising, insurgency, insurrection, riot, mutiny

Thus, my use of the phrase intellectual revolution could mean: a thinker’s riot, an academic’s insurrection, a rational uprising, a scholar’s rebellion, etc. A paranoid government might see this blog as meaning one thing, while a conservative reader might interpret it as meaning something quite different. Thus, I am obligated to define the term intellectual revolution with some precision. I could do it by defining what it is not. For example, it is not a call to violence; it is not a call for secession; it is not a call for a coup. Or I could define it by what it is: A call to debate on a scholarly level, with rational, logical, and precise terms. It is a call to unite people of similar beliefs, culture, and values with the use of precise terms that are clearly understood and that follow the precepts of traditional America based on the constitution and founding documents.

Here again we are being vague because people see the policies that arise from that differently. However, can anyone truly believe that the constitution and founding documents call for the behemoth government bureaucracy of today? One might even side with the Anti-federalists on that point.

I invite you to analyze the following statement alluding to a previous blog:

“You and your Republican Party need to pull your head out of the sand and realize that you are living in the past. Your tactics of “thrashing” your competition do not work any more. Bill Clinton is one of the many very capable Democratic leaders of our great country, and has proven himself so. President Obama slam-dunked your Republican candidate in the past election because he focused his campaign on benefits for the majority of the American people and not on privileges for the affluent few. America is about the welfare of the Majority of its citizens as it has always been, and should be. Until you can be fair-minded with your Blob, please don’t send me any more or your trash.”

The terms used are reasonably straight forward, being on about an eighth grade reading level. I don’t mean that as an insult. Most writing is and should be on an eighth grade level, since the majority of Americans might not understand it otherwise. Again, not an insult. The majority of Americans are busy providing a living for their families, not spending time memorizing the dictionary. Good so far. The writer is also clearly upset. The statement, “pull your head out of the sand and realize that you are living in the past.” is both unclear and troublesome. Pulling your head out of the sand is a metaphor meaning to see things as they really are. But what are they, really? Living in the past. Now that can host a whole variety of meanings. Does he mean that we should relent to becoming a Muslim state or a multicultural entity, leaving behind our traditional culture? Does he mean that we should forgo the constitution since it was scribed some 200 years ago, and things have changed? Should what was once considered deviant sexual behavior be redefined by relativism and the passage of the hate crimes bill? Does he contend, or rather infer, that Obama will bring benefit to the majority of Americans, but will exclude the affluent? That might indicate that he is pro socialist, and if he is, is he for changing everything America stood for? Note that I said STOOD for. I can go on, but need I? The point is that this paragraph is anything but intellectual in its revolutionary content. And yes, it is purulent, socialistic revolutionary double speak. How is that for “trash” talk?

The idea that Achilles cannot catch the tortoise is based on an undefined premise as well as taken out of context. Does a moving body redefine itself in continuum? It is understood by most people that we define ourselves by our environment and the boundaries set by our senses, prescribed as they are. We know that what we see is not what is. What we do and what we perceive is affectation. Thus man has built around himself a construct in which chaos is minimized, and he can live within some amount of structure that is reasonable, if not comfortable.

That construct is partly of self-defined, and he refines that definition as time passes and more information becomes available. It often amuses me that I first took a degree in philosophy at the university, but switched to mathematics and engineering out of disgust for the vagary of philosophy. Two plus two is always four, right! But is it really? The reality, I am sad to say, is that mathematics and physics are both vague and changing as new information becomes available. When I graduated, Newtons laws were thought to be the end of physics. There was simply nowhere else to go. Yet Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and many other elite mathematicians have shown Newton’s laws to be incorrect. Yes, I will admit that Newton’s laws still work acceptably for many things we engineers use to build what people want. Yet String theory, a developing branch of theoretical physics that combines quantum mechanics and general relativity into a quantum theory of gravity, is showing Newton to be wrong.

Ah, yes, you say, but what has all that to do with an intellectual political revolution? As the coming rallies and protests against the bailouts, the stimulus packages, the take over of some of America’s major corporations, the arbitrary earning ceilings on corporate managers, the regulating of an entrepreneurial and capitalist society, the acquiescence to our enemies, and the apologies for protecting freedom around the world unfold, this blog will devote itself to outlining an intellectual approach to what is rapidly becoming an American revolution. The conscious use of precise language is the key to revolutionary success.