Intellectuals, Philosophy and the Trail of How We Got Here

Intellectuals, Philosophy and the Trail of How We Got Here

This paper summarizes the philosophical views and theories of nine specific philosophers spanning seven hundred and fifty years. The focus is on the philosophers’ paradigm-changing thoughts and the portrayal of those ideas. The purpose is to detail philosophy, the intellectuals and trace the trail of how we got “here”. The definition of “here” is how modern intellectuals think. Western ideas, as illustrated in Europe and the United States, also portray this thinking. The ideas were innovated in Europe where the roadmap was designed. It seems as though the U.S. has surpassed Europe and is now the world leader in implementing them.

Philosophy is at the top of the pyramid regarding thoughts and ideas. It is important to understand that both mathematics and science were regarded as part of philosophy as recently as a couple of hundred years ago. To gain an understanding of where society is going, the path is through philosophers and their ideas.

Big Picture Beliefs held by Today’s Intellectuals

The following paper summarizes the big picture beliefs held by today’s intellectuals. The specific philosopher’s and their philosophies that are at the root of the following thinking will be analyzed. The intellectuals:

• do not like capitalism or think capitalism is unfair.
• are atheists, with especially vocal beliefs. They think religion is for the weak or that religion is wrong.
• believe that their moral values are superior to others, or are excessive. This becomes more pronounced when the moral superiority is coming from those not directly affected by the issues. Terms like “woke” or “cancel culture” are directly related.
• hold the concept that science is correct. Everyone agrees science is good. The problem occurs when an opinion is attached to science and is made worse when the opinion has a moral component.

Perspective of Paper

The views held by philosopher’s are subject to different interpretations. Additionally, there are many nuances to a philosopher’s ideas. The goal is to look at the big picture and non-controversial interpretations of their philosophy. All philosophers discussed have extensive writings and views on many subjects. It is my goal to be succinct in my attempt to accurately summarize their beliefs which support the thesis presented. I focus on specific theories to conclusively prove how we got here.

When the word “I” is used in this paper, it refers to my opinion. Someone can agree or disagree with an opinion. This is the opposite of a factually based paper. The ideas presented will have a beginning, middle and end. Facts support the ideas presented.

Thomas Aquinas, Philosopher (1224-1274)

Thomas Aquinas was a philosopher, as well as a religious man. He developed a philosophy about God using faith and reason. One needs reason to believe in the existence of God. To believe in God, it takes faith. The Catholic Church has adapted this logic and many would consider it be the philosophical rationale for Christianity today. Aquinas’ views have been studied for eight hundred and fifty years.

Background on Religion and Philosophy

The influence of the Catholic Church on Western philosophy has been significant. This paper does not take a pro- or anti-Church position. The summary of the Church’s actions is meant to be factual and non-controversial. The actions taken by the church contain many nuances. The goal is to look at the big picture. The Catholic Church is an active member of society and has had a major influence on philosophy. Many of the philosophical theories discussed in this paper were in direct response to actions taken by the Church.

It is a fact that the Catholic Church became directly involved with rulers of countries, monarchs, kings, and emperors. Moreover, it could be dangerous to question the Church doctrine. History has judged some of the Church’s actions as wrong.

For example, the actions against Galileo Galilei illustrate this. Galileo believed that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Obviously, today we know that is factually correct. In the 1600’s, the Church claimed the opposite. Galileo was suspected of heresy and was subject to house arrest for the rest of his life. It took hundreds of years for the Church to admit they were wrong.

Generally, the Catholic Church like many organizations or individuals with power, find it hard to apologize for their actions. According to Catholic Church doctrine, everyone is a sinner. Certainly, the Church leaders were humans who committed sins.

Religion and the Use of Power

I believe the Catholic Church’s mistakes were about power, not religion (see John Locke and the separation of church and state below). For example, Socrates beliefs are considered the birth of western philosophy. He was put to death in 375 BC for challenging the authority of the ruling power of Greece, a great example of how power reacts to threats. Occurring two thousand four hundred years ago, this illustrates that these concepts are not new.

Baruch Spinoza’s treatment illustrates that the Jewish religion acted in the same way as the Catholic Church. The Rabbis of the community that had religious power excommunicated Spinoza in 1656 for “evil opinions and acts”. Although the specific reasons are unknown, Spinoza would be afraid to publish his works using his own name. He did publish some under his name, but most were anonymous or signed by “caute,” a Latin word meaning cautious. Most dramatically, his most significant paper was published after his death.

The concept of a threat to power seems like the basic issue. I believe the Jewish leaders actions were motivated by their own power and contrary to Jewish doctrine. Motivation identical to actions by Catholic Church leaders. When countries are ruled from a religious perspective, many complicated issues arise.

Catholic Church Doctrine generally provide Good Morals

The teachings or doctrine of the Catholic Church generally provide good moral guidelines and values for society. Jesus of Nazareth said “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Also, “if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” These statements made two thousand years ago qualify Jesus as an all-time great philosopher. They are core values that many try to practice in their lives. Values that both Christians and Non-Christians aspire to.

Francis Bacon, Philosopher (1561-1626)

Francis Bacon is known for his advancement of the scientific method. He believed in experimentation and interaction, “the commerce of the mind with things.”

Bacon advanced the concept of using science, or the scientific method to prove things correct. Today, this seems like a basic concept, but one must realize that the field of science did not exist in Bacon’s time. Furthermore, Bacon was actually creating science since there was not a distinction between philosophy and science at the time. In the 1800’s, science would become its own field of study, separate from philosophy based upon how extensive the field of science had become.

Rene’ Descartes, Philosopher (1596-1650)

Rene Descartes is considered the father of modern philosophy. I think, therefore I am and all truths are ultimately linked are two concepts attributed to Descartes. Descartes believed in the scientific method and advanced the theory of mathematics.

The concept that reason is similar to mathematics is attributed to Descartes. One can develop and solve math problems without any prior knowledge. Reason grew into the philosophical idea of rationalism which is defined as knowledge that is gained through reason, as opposed to knowledge acquired from one’s experiences. One can use their mind, or reason to solve problems.

John Locke, Philosopher (1632-1704)

John Locke believed people should have rights, such as the right to life, liberty and property. All individuals are equal in the sense that there are certain inalienable natural rights, that is, God-given life, liberty, and property. 

The principles of John Locke were the core beliefs in the founding of the United States. Today, there are still many countries that do not offer their citizens these rights. The founding of America started a worldwide change. In the thousands of years of civilized history, no country was every founded on these principles. This represented a bold idea 350 years ago.

John Locke believed in the separation of church and state which was a very good idea that would avoid many problems. This concept was a natural extension of Locke’s belief that people should have rights. Both the government and religious institutions should not control these natural rights.

Locke elevated the concept of Empiricism in his work. He believed that knowledge comes from experience. Science and the scientific method are attributes of Empiricism.

The Philosophy of Rationalism and Empiricism

The concept of Empiricism, or that knowledge is gained from experience is the opposite of Rationalism, which supports that knowledge is gained through reason. Around 1700, the distinction between Empiricism and Rationalism became a major idea in the philosophical world and there is still a debate today on these ideas.

Adam Smith, Philosopher (1723-1790)

Adam Smith believed prudence, or self-interest is the most important virtue. It is natural for people to have a primary interest in taking care of themselves. This is a basic instinctual quality of people. Taking care of yourself is not at the expense of others. It is not a win/lose situation. Importantly, after a person is able to take care of themselves, they are then capable to help others.

Adam Smith is behind the concept of a free-market economy or capitalism. His belief that this was the best system of government was an outgrowth from his ideas of prudence or self-interest. Each individual’s instinctive quality of trying to improve one’s position makes the group more likely to succeed. Moreover, a free-market economy would benefit all members of society. The United States is a great example of this, where the standard of living of the poor in the United States is greater than most people in the world.

Adam Smith’s connection between self-interest and a free-market economy or capitalism needs to be emphasized. He believed that the reason capitalism was best for economic growth and society as a whole was because of self-interest. Those who do not think it is moral to act in one’s self-interest will object to capitalism because of this direct relationship.

Immanuel Kant, Philosopher (1724-1804)

Immanuel Kant believed both empiricism and rationalism correct. “Thoughts without contents are empty, perceptions without conceptions are blind.” This seems like the correct approach. A new born has to learn by experience, however, they gain knowledge and start using reason from a young age. To me, this issue has less controversy than any other discussed in this paper.

Kant’s Moral Extremism

Kant was not alone in his belief that both rationalism and empiricism are fundamental to human thinking. Certainly, he is among the most influential philosopher that held this belief. However, Kant’s views on morality are much less known. They are extreme and have become the standard of today’s intellectual ideas, two hundred years later.

Kant’s moral theory is that a person’s actions are good or bad depending on the motivation and that the consequences of actions do not matter. He had a very strict definition of altruism, or morality, that a person cannot receive any benefit for an action to be considered altruistic. For example, if you win the lottery and want to do a good thing such as donate to charity, he would not consider that a good deed as the act of wanting to do a good deed would violate his definition. Kant believed that one cannot get satisfaction from their actions to be defined as altruistic.

Kant’s morality

Kant’s morality is based upon duty, which can be a law or a rule that one must follow. The basic laws of society are an example of duty. Laws such as killing and stealing are beneficial to society and most would agree with the concept in this regard. Kant’s definition of duty is also attached to other moral issues such as altruism and he believed that it is one’s duty to perform moral actions.

Acceptable moral actions are dynamic and change over time. They are determined by intellectuals and their current thinking. The viewpoints, once accepted, form the basis for morality and it then becomes one’s duty or obligation to follow the accepted morality.

The Philosophy of Immanuel Kant Compared to that of Adam Smith

Immanuel Kant’s morality is the opposite of Adam Smith’s. Smith believed that you need to first take care of yourself, as prudence is the highest moral act. Afterward, you are in a position to help others. The opposite of taking care of yourself first is taking care of others first, which is one’s moral responsibility according to Kant’s morality.

The United States border policy is the best example of this. The United States can easily implement a guest worker program. It is appropriate for a country to know who is coming in, their background and their plans. Seeking employment, vacation, or establishing a new permanent residence are three motivations to enter the United States.

There are two motivations for wanting illegal immigration. There are many that want immigration for cheap labor. These people are looking out for their own self-interest, or following Adam Smith’s belief. Kant’s theory has influenced those that advocate an open border policy from a moral perspective.

Illegal immigration is a natural outcome of Kant’s morality. The citizens of the U.S. do not receive any benefit when the government grants citizenship to people who enter the U.S. illegally. The concept that illegal immigration is moral is a direct influence from Kant.

The Consequences of Practicing Immanuel Kant’s Morality

Kant’s extreme view that one cannot get satisfaction from their actions if they are to be defined as altruistic has a wide range of consequences. These views have been taught for over two hundred years and form the basis of morality for the intellectuals.

Kant’s morality is everywhere and is part of our everyday life. Being woke is a direct consequence. Typically, being “woke” happens to those that have not been part of the problem, those that have had no direct, or indirect involvement in the specific issue. However, they understand the injustices to others and feel as though they must advocate for a solution. They believe that by advocating for issues they receive no benefit from, they are practicing the highest morality. Moreover, they seem to feel as others should agree and act in the same manner.

The “cancel culture” is another phenomenon that is an outgrowth of Kant’s morality. The advocates that support shutting down views and opinions that are different than their own are acting as though their morality is superior to the morality of others. Again, they do not need to have a direct involvement in the specific issue. As a result of Kant’s teachings, if they are not receiving a benefit from their actions, they are on a moral high ground. The New York Times will have a well written front-page story illustrating why these values are noble and they will write a perfect story supporting Kant’s views, probably as factual news.

The Rationale behind Capitalism, is it Successful?

The rationale behind capitalism is why today’s intellectuals believe that it is selfish and unfair. Capitalism is mean spirited. inherently not moral or fair. Also, it holds back the poor. There is a direct connection to Adam Smith and his moral theory of prudence or self-interest, and as such, the intellectuals associate capitalism with selfishness. All anti-capitalism sentiment can be directly associated with Adam Smiths and his ideas.

Clearly, capitalism is not perfect and can lead to excess. The United States has implemented many laws and regulations for the benefit of society and the U.S. standard of living is among the highest in the world for its citizens.

The United States also gives back a lot to the world. I think we are a good country and have been great world citizens since our inception.

The U.S. have had presidents, appointed cabinet members and congressional representatives that have made mistakes. Similar to the Church’s abuse of power, the U.S. has not always used its power with the best outcomes. Psychology 101 tells us it is the action and not the person who is bad or who has failed. The U.S. is not bad, a politician’s specific decision is. The United States has been the best country in the world over the last two hundred and fifty years, or since its existence.

Fredrich Nietzsche, Philosopher (1712-1786)

Fredrich Nietzsche was a complicated philosopher that wrote on a wide range of issues. Nietzsche is known for his “God is dead” pronouncement, which is intended to mean that philosophy has proven that God cannot exist. This is a provocative statement that gets a lot of attention. Certainly, a nice headline for the intellectuals.

Nietzsche’s view on morality is much less known which is not surprising. His beliefs are contrary to today’s intellectuals and would not be discussed widely, only to remain words on a page. “Fredrich Nietzsche held the idea that it is virtuous to treat others as more important than oneself; it is degrading and demeaning to the self, and hinders the individuals’ pursuit of self-development, excellence and creativity. He maintained that it was an ideology fabricated by the weak for the weak, and master’s self-poisoning resentment about
individual and collective weakness.”(1) Nietzsche’s belief on altruism is similar to Adam Smith’s beliefs, a different perspective arriving at the same conclusion. Again, the opposite of Immanuel Kant, or the intellectuals of today.

Charles Darwin, Philosopher (1801-1882)

Charles Darwin was a naturalist and studied nature. He was able to prove the concept of natural selection, a theory of evolution.

The concept of natural selection relates to specific characteristics within a species that help it adapt to its environment. The ability to find food and to avoid predators are two examples. Specific members of a species with these characteristics are most likely to survive and reproduce and their offspring will receive these traits that enable them to succeed in the environment.

Darwin, because he was a naturalist, had the good fortune to land in the Galapagos Islands. These were small islands, hundreds of miles off the coast of Ecuador. The Galapagos Islands were a pristine experimental setting. There was not an intermingling of species, thus he was able to prove through the scientific method (empiricism) that specific changes in finches were due to natural selection. The possibility of cross-breeding did not exist due to the isolation of the islands. The changes had to occur through the survival of the fittest, or natural selection.

The concept of evolution was not a new concept, but Darwin proved the Theory of Natural Selection using the scientific method. He was clearly a great scientist and has rightly earned that title.

Empiricism is Victorious over Rationalism

Darwin’s accomplishments in the philosophical world cannot be overstated. Through the scientific method, he proved the concept of evolution conclusively. The intellectuals interpret this as contradicting Church doctrine, thus the Church’s view on evolution is wrong and God cannot exist.

Around 1860, the debate if knowledge is obtained through empiricism or rationalism had been discussed for two hundred and sixty years. The distinction was established to take away the philosophical argument for religion. More than four hundred and fifty years earlier, Thomas Aquinas used the argument of faith and reason to explain Church doctrine. This was a powerful philosophical argument for God’s existence. If all knowledge is gained exclusively through science or experience, a philosophical argument cannot be made for God.

Incorrect Distinctions

Today, the Empiricism versus Rationalism argument is applied to many philosophers’ work. Plato and Aristotle lived in 350 BC, over two thousand three hundred years ago. These philosophers did not make the distinction between Empiricism and Rationalism. But others have cited elements of their work to support a particular concept. Plato is considered to be a Rationalist and Aristotle is categorized as an Empiricist. However, it is simplistic and misleading and has been used to manipulate or add credence to arguments by making arbitrary distinctions.

Rene’ Descartes, the father of philosophy had views that included both math and science. Descartes is characterized as a rationalist because he was a great mathematician. Labeling Descartes as a rationalist hundreds of years later is a revision of history to support the argument against religion.

Darwin Proved there is no God

Darwin proved the concept of evolution through science, or empiricism. As a consequence, it voided Thomas Aquinas’ and Church doctrine views from the philosophical, or highest levels of acceptance. It eliminated the possibility that God exists.

The philosophical argument against religion is the concept that God is mystical, or magical. Science and the scientific method can never prove that God exists. A person that believes in God is using mysticism over science. Alternatively, if the concept of reason is accepted, Thomas Aquinas’ Church doctrine stands up to scrutiny eight hundred years later.

Philosophers were fearful the Catholic Church could persecute them for their views. This created an additional dynamic in a philosophers view of the Church and contributes to their hostile viewpoint of religion. It also leads to the rewriting of history and the making of arbitrary distinctions. It is difficult to analyze the definition of the word reason from different philosophers, especially as it is written and interpreted in different eras and in different languages. Also, most philosophers held beliefs that are today classified as both Rationalists and Empiricists.

Darwin and the Atheists

Darwin’s place in history as one of the greatest philosophers of all time is completely wrong. The intellectuals consider Darwin an all-time great philosopher because he proved to their minds that scientifically, God was dead, while Nietzsche only proclaimed it.

Darwin’s place in history should be as a naturalist that was great at his job, but his legacy will be that he proved God does not exist. The intellectuals will always remember him for the results of his work that proved Christianity and the Catholic Church are wrong.

Martin Luther King Jr. Champion of Ethics and Morality (1929-1968)

Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy is exclusively as a civil rights leader. During his lifetime, he was able to have a major impact on the rights of Black Americans by leading the civil rights movement. His legacy as an all-time great American will always exist.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a philosopher with world class abilities. His views on ethics from his speeches and writings are as significant as any philosopher. However, not surprisingly, history does not consider him a philosopher.

The reason is simple, he was a third-generation Baptist minister. Religion was at the core of how he viewed the world. The intellectuals could never recognize King as a philosopher since his religious views eliminate him from the club.

The contrast between the status of Charles Darwin as a philosopher and Martin Luther King lack of recognition as one is because of God. The intellectuals who are the judges will agree with like-minded thoughts.

Philosophy, the Intellectuals, Morality and Religion

During the 1960s, the intellectuals had a strong presence in colleges. They probably represented the majority of the professors and were actively preaching Kant’s views. For example, Noel Chomsky was an all-time great linguist. Similar to Darwin, his status was elevated to that of a great philosopher. Chomsky has many radical views but the intellectuals and the media have given him a free pass on many of his statements. Laughably, he is also part of those that are judging if Martin Luther King is a philosopher at all. Chomsky believes King was a good leader, nothing more. A devout Atheist could never elevate a Baptist minister to the rank of elite philosopher and neither could any of his contemporaries who hold the same views.

Philosophers have debated morality and religion for four hundred years. Moreover, these views have become part of the Western World thinking. It is clear the intellectuals are winning in the United States.

Western culture will continue in this direction. The ideas started with Francis Bacon around 1600, it accelerated with John Locke seventy-five years later. These teachings have been taught and studied for over three hundred years. They constitute best practice for most intellectuals.

The Press

The New York Times are intellectuals as described above. The Times was once one of the great newspapers in the world, but today, news, not editorial decisions, are based upon how they align with their own beliefs. This includes positioning in paper, length of story and even decision to write the story at all.

Problematically, a significant portion of the press is aligning with the New York Times and the intellectuals. Being woke and the cancel culture are part of the morality of the intellectuals. The press considers themselves intellectuals, so it is not surprising that they have chosen to side with the intellectuals. They aspire to preach Kant’s views on morality.

I would argue that almost every media outlet has moved towards Kant’s view on morality. The New York Times is completely aligned. Many other media outlets are following their lead and there seems to be a contest who can best meet Kant’s view on morality. Most troublesome, middle of the road media are now advocating for this position also.

The Direction of the Press

Today, many in the press consider themselves intellectuals and there are an unlimited number of examples. The media is using their personal moral beliefs as a filter for reporting the news which should worry everyone. By the definition of reporting, using moral filters is not reporting. Filters are opinions that are designed to influence, similar to an editorial. There is no argument that makes manipulation of the facts acceptable.

These are the logical outcomes of this philosophy and we should expect things to continue in this direction. Kant’s extreme view on morality is now the north star that our moral compasses are expected to be set to. It feels like the middle ground has shifted in the 2000’s. What were considered radical views until quite recently, are becoming mainstream today. Kant’s morals and values are gaining significant ground. What started out as a whisper from Bacon four hundred years ago has turned into front page news in the New York Times on a daily basis.

Today’s Morality, Going on for a Long Time

This paper argues that these concepts have been evolving for over four hundred years. The momentum is accelerating and the United States cannot turn back. Progressive generations have been taught these concepts and this is the most extreme yet in today’s generation.

Today, a child is taught in elementary school that it is selfish and self-centered to practice prudence or self-interest. The concept of nobody wins is a direct consequence of this thinking. Participation awards are used instead of first place ribbons.

Franklin Roosevelt, Intellectual

Franklin D. Roosevelt, born in 1882, is an example of an intellectual that dates back one hundred and thirty nine-years. He attended a wealthy private school and Harvard University which exposed him to the intellectuals of his generation. He was a great president that had his views and philosophy shaped by the intellectuals of his day. The perspectives of the intellectuals’ viewpoints taught to Roosevelt were the same as today. Of course, the specific issues were much different, though they were certainly cutting edge for his times. Obviously, moral issues where very different in the 1880s.

The intellectuals taught Franklin D. Roosevelt that it was moral to help white people in need. As such, Roosevelt’s racist actions can be attributed to the intellectuals. This is not-controversial, and one only has to look at his treatment of Jesse Owens or his appointing the KKK supporter Hugo Black to the supreme court. These are the same thoughtful intellectuals practicing Kant’s theory on morality today.

The United States remains a great country despite Roosevelt’s racism. Remember, it is the action, not the person. The concept of Roosevelt as president making mistakes does not eliminate him from being a great president. It certainly does not change the fact that the United States is the greatest country ever founded.

Everything Needs to be Proven through Science

Again, empiricists believe that problems are solved through science. Developing vaccines through the scientific method is what John Locke was writing about over three hundred years ago. The concept of using science and intermingling with Kant’s morality cannot be accepted by any philosopher at any point in history.

Today’s intellectual, including scientists have been taught Kant’s philosophy in their schooling and training. It has become a basis for their morality, they are not making a conscious decision to hold these beliefs. Furthermore, their friends, colleagues, spouses, and many of their circle agree with these concepts. Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., NIAID Director (1984-present) is a scientist that illustrates this training and thinking.

Bill Gates, todays intellectual

For example, Bill Gates, similar to his parents is an intellectual. Bill Gates was born in 1955 and his parents were born in the 1920’s. His father was a prominent attorney, his mother was on the Board of Directors of the United Way. Gates went to a private school and then to Harvard before dropping out to start Microsoft. At Microsoft, he was a cut-throat businessman and clearly followed Adams Smith’s morality of prudence or self-interest. Subsequent to leaving Microsoft, his actions seem much more altruistic in the work for his foundation.

Gates does not seem to perform the acts strictly from duty. He seems like he receives a benefit so he is falling short of Kant’s morality. In his book, How to avoid a Climate Crisis, he does suggest that others follow Kant’s morality. The United States alone can make less than a 1% difference on climate change if we implement everything in his book, yet Gates think Americans should be willing to pay more for energy and food because it is the morally right thing to do. Increased costs can harm many middle-to low-income Americans, and, furthermore this will only make a meniscal difference, .1%. Of course, he chooses the convenience of private jets and lives in huge houses making him a huge CO2 emitter.

Prudence, or Self Interest

I believe Adam’s Smith’s concept of prudence or self-interest is the correct perspective. Charles Darwin proved how animals adapt to survive. All living things instinctively do everything possible to survive. There are no exceptions to this rule.

Karl Marx is a popular philosopher for those who do not like the direction the U.S. is taking. For his philosophy to be successful, he has to accurately summarize basic human concepts. He believed humans are not naturally competitive, that they are social creatures who cannot survive without cooperating with each other. Marx also believed people are malleable and will adjust to their environment. He seems to imply one’s nature changes under capitalism versus if they lived under communism.

Certainly, elements of Marx’s views on human nature are correct as they are special attributes that make humans so unique. They can be admirable qualities that we should strive for. However, when our goal is to understand the building blocks of humans, Adam Smith’s views are the correct foundation.

Bibliography

1. Alawa, Peter Z.  “Altruism, Its Relevance for the Individual in the Contemporary Society: A Philosophical Perspective.” African Research Review, April 2017 https://www.ajol.info/index.php/afrrev/article/view/157120/146731

Thank you for visiting our website. Moreover, we have other interesting articles.