Black Thought

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture
Submitted by Kyrel Zantonavitch on Sat, 2019-04-20 12:10

Evil intellectuals almost always write in deliberately complex, subtle, obscure, tricky ways. This is almost their signature behavior. As was observed at the very dawn of the liberal era 2600 years ago: "Poets tell many lies." The reference then was to the familiar, metered, rhyming style of most of the philosophers, intellectuals, and critics of that period.

Such thinkers then, just as today, purposefully made their arguments, and even claims, hard to follow. And because their convoluted reasoning usually was nonsense, it was impossible to understand by design. As a rule, the poor logic and writing of evil intellectuals indicates poor thinking, which possesses minimal value, insight, and truth.

One salient result of all these complex and subtle inferences -- resulting in such false and evil intellectual conclusions -- is that literally no-one on Earth who is significantly intelligent, educated, morally good, honest, brave, and the like will bother to read, and then refute, the works of the evil intellectuals, except very briefly. Smart and virtuous philosophers and analysts are naturally repelled by the low intellectual and moral quality which they find on display. So they almost always stay away and fall silent.

This is also because if any given intellectual is a genuinely good person of even minimal competence he will naturally tend to love himself, his life, his mind, and all of the relatively-brief and irreplaceable moments inside his precious existence. Thus he will not waste very much of his time and effort "understanding", and then soundly refuting, such black-souled people and their fraudulent pseudo-arguments.

Unfortunately for mankind, this does give the intellectual evil-doers a solid advantage over the good guys. The bad guy thinker can forever truthfully say: "No-one of quality understands me, or rigorously and honestly refutes -- or even addresses -- my intellectual arguments and claims." This is because virtually no-one should. However the good guys do have a right and duty to display a significant amount of righteous anger towards the evil intellectual and his corrupt, sleazy, disgusting arguments.

The only thing the talented, strong, virtuous, and admirable thinkers of the world really should do, or need to do, is show when the evil-speaker’s simplest, or most fundamental, or most important arguments, start to go wrong; as well as indicate where and how the arguments are illegitimately and dishonestly made.

The evil intellectual’s tortured reasoning and bizarre arguments are designed to frustrate -- especially those who are philosophically competent and morally good. They’re artfully crafted to exasperate and infuriate. The fraudulent thinker privately wants any legitimate truth-seeker or man of virtue to give up -- to surrender the field to him. If he can’t win the philosophical debate with his intellectual trickeration, he at least wants to leave the issue under consideration publicly unclear, uncertain and "unresolved". This sort of stalemate between Good and Evil essentially gives the victory to Evil. This is why the 'logic' and claims of the philosophical liars must be considered, at least partially, and then vigorously, competently attacked.

Ultimately, the purpose of these profoundly disingenuous pseudo-arguers is to cause widespread despair and ennui so as to deflect and defeat both the good guys and human goodness in general. At a minimum, the bad guys seek to con and mislead the naive and innocent.

The "lying poets" consciously -- or at least psychologically and subconsciously -- sometimes even seek to defeat reason and science themselves. They secretly, or even openly, desire the mangling of sound logic and thus the victory of some sort of relativism, subjectivism, dogma, or faith. They want victory for high irrationality -- for nihilism or religion. These intellectual monsters seek nothing less than the triumph of the massively false and the massively evil.

But the good news here is that even a fairly brief and partial refutation of their reasoning, theories, and conclusions is generally good enough to crush them if the counter-arguments are reasonably competent, systematic, exact, insightful, brave, honest, and morally good.


Modifiers

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Well, that's a great quote, Philip! I'll try to take your advice. But, like Rabelais, I really enjoy playing with words.

I also hate simplifying or dumbing down my thought and writing, and leaving out ideas I definitely think, and thus want to get across. I write much more to satisfy myself than others.

Many thanks for that compliment at the end too!

"Adverbs, like the passive

PhilipD's picture

"Adverbs, like the passive voice, seem to have been created with the timid writer in mind. … With adverbs, the writer usually tells us he is afraid he isn’t expressing himself clearly, that he is not getting the point or the picture across."

~ Stephen King

39 adverbs! Out with the sharp blade Kyrel, I'll allow you 5. Timid writing from the world's most fearless philosopher, will not do.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.