Sign in to follow this  
srmaher

Elder Packer Vindicated 21 Years Later

Recommended Posts

I think I understand what is happening now. I feel that Boyd K. Packer was referring the philosophical definition of intellectualism in his talk, which is thought completely devoid of emotion; thought that only uses reason and logic. This is a very unhealthy process of thought that is detrimental to society and the soul.

Does this explain our difference?

Yes, that is the definition of intellectualism mostly utilized throughout all disciplines. It is actually not at all an unhealthy way to live. Many forms of therapy employ similar forms of rational thinking in order to manage our emotions. Elder Oaks has actually said that those therapies, "evidenced-based" therapies, are the ones we are supposed to pursue in counseling.

Also, there are 6 faculties of mind: memory, imagination, emotion, attention, perception, and reason. Some people say will and intuition instead of emotion and attention--whatever. All of these serve very specific purposes that are healthy and important. Reason and logic are important for problem-solving and accomplishing tasks/objectives, among other things. These are your intellect (measured by IQ tests). Intellectualism is nothing more than the act of applying our intellect. That is very healthy.

Yes, it is devoid of emotion, but emotion and cognition (intellectualism/intelligence/intellect) come together to form an overall response. The affective neurosciences are doing a lot to demonstrate how these learn to work together in a healthy way.

I really need to read that talk and find out just what the grannysmithapple Elder Packard was talking about.

Edited by Urstadt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 2 Nephi 9 has a scripture that sums up the intellectualism debate

 

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

 

2But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 2 Nephi 9 has a scripture that sums up the intellectualism debate

 

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

 

2But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

 

No fair, you cant quote scripture to prove your point :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 2 Nephi 9 has a scripture that sums up the intellectualism debate

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

Yeah it does. I actually really think Sr8shooter and I are saying the same thing, just with different verbiage. If I am correct, he and I both agree that completely living without emotion would be unhealthy, living by the philosophies of men (what he is calling intellectualism and I am calling ideology) instead of the gospel is dangerous, and pure logic and reason are insufficient by themselves. If I am right about this, then he and I are in pretty good agreement. We are just getting tripped up on the verbiage. Edited by Urstadt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it does. I actually really think Sr8shooter and I are saying the same thing, just with different verbiage. If I am correct, he and I both agree that completely living without emotion would be unhealthy, living by the philosophies of men (what he is calling intellectualism and I am calling ideology) instead of the gospel is dangerous, and pure logic and reason are insufficient by themselves. If I am right about this, then he and I are in pretty good agreement. We are just getting tripped up on the verbiage.

Yes.

To further clarify, the intellectualism that I am referring to is using rational thought in ALL aspects of life. Using rational thought is without question needed in many, many situations but when it comes to moral and spiritual choices, intellectualism (as defined by philosophy) can lead to devastating choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

To further clarify, the intellectualism that I am referring to is using rational thought in ALL aspects of life. Using rational thought is without question needed in many, many situations but when it comes to moral and spiritual choices, intellectualism (as defined by philosophy) can lead to devastating choices.

 

Very much so. Yeah, we are in agreement.

 

If I may, I would like to build a little on specific philosophical definitions of intellectualism. While there is really no universal definition from philosophy, many distinct schools of philosophy give morally-laden definitions of it. The definition I provided above from Ryle talks about employing our intellect in a way of "getting it right", which is a position of virtue: it is virtuous in it of itself to "get it right." Socrates talked about "moral intellectualism" while Aristotle described virtues as moral and intellectual. Aristotle described phronesis as practical wisdom, or having a knowledge of universal truths; e.g. do unto others as you would have done unto you. So, in many branches of philosophy, intellectualism is all about obtaining an ethos, or moral compass. This is why I made the statement way back on the first page of this thread that intellectualism, if employed correctly, as 2 Nephi 9:28-29 says, can actually strengthen faith and obedience. But, we agree that that can only come through the direction of the Holy Ghost and the counsel of Christ's chosen prophets and apostles.

 

However, once we get into atheistic and moral nihilism philosophies, then we start treading on a very slippery slope. This is where I do agree that it can be very dangerous, and absolutely unhealthy. Anything belief system that takes a person further from Christ and His gospel drives the spirit away and is very unhealthy in my humble opinion.

 

Furthermore, I very much agree with you that we cannot, and should not, rely on rational thought alone. So many people throughout history have pointed this out time and again. In fact, Plato's concept of self-mastery was impoverished by the fact that he relied too heavily on rational thought, and is precisely why no one could achieve it in the form which Plato envisioned.

 

Experiences=emotion=cognition=behavior=experiences. Ideally, everything should be coming together to guide us. That's why I really like that the affective neurosciences are mapping in the brain how all our faculties come together to help us make sense of our world and our experiences. And, we know through the gospel that the Spirit can guide the process of that equation.

 

Thank you for taking the time to chat with me, Str8Shooter. I am very pleased that we found that common ground, and the truth be told, that barring terminology and a nuance or two, we were pretty much right in agreement with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very much so. Yeah, we are in agreement.

 

If I may, I would like to build a little on specific philosophical definitions of intellectualism. While there is really no universal definition from philosophy, many distinct schools of philosophy give morally-laden definitions of it. The definition I provided above from Ryle talks about employing our intellect in a way of "getting it right", which is a position of virtue: it is virtuous in it of itself to "get it right." Socrates talked about "moral intellectualism" while Aristotle described virtues as moral and intellectual. Aristotle described phronesis as practical wisdom, or having a knowledge of universal truths; e.g. do unto others as you would have done unto you. So, in many branches of philosophy, intellectualism is all about obtaining an ethos, or moral compass. This is why I made the statement way back on the first page of this thread that intellectualism, if employed correctly, as 2 Nephi 9:28-29 says, can actually strengthen faith and obedience. But, we agree that that can only come through the direction of the Holy Ghost and the counsel of Christ's chosen prophets and apostles.

 

However, once we get into atheistic and moral nihilism philosophies, then we start treading on a very slippery slope. This is where I do agree that it can be very dangerous, and absolutely unhealthy. Anything belief system that takes a person further from Christ and His gospel drives the spirit away and is very unhealthy in my humble opinion.

 

Furthermore, I very much agree with you that we cannot, and should not, rely on rational thought alone. So many people throughout history have pointed this out time and again. In fact, Plato's concept of self-mastery was impoverished by the fact that he relied too heavily on rational thought, and is precisely why no one could achieve it in the form which Plato envisioned.

 

Experiences=emotion=cognition=behavior=experiences. Ideally, everything should be coming together to guide us. That's why I really like that the affective neurosciences are mapping in the brain how all our faculties come together to help us make sense of our world and our experiences. And, we know through the gospel that the Spirit can guide the process of that equation.

 

Thank you for taking the time to chat with me, Str8Shooter. I am very pleased that we found that common ground, and the truth be told, that barring terminology and a nuance or two, we were pretty much right in agreement with each other.

Semantic ambiguities are often the bane of many online conversations, and for that matter, the entire English language. Ugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I confess, I find it hard to compass this distrust of 'interleckshalls' or, in other words, people more intelligent, better informed and more knowledgeable than I am. On the contrary, so often, in the past, they have pointed me in directions I would have taken ages to discover off my own bat, and saved me much time and wasted effort. I am grateful to them all; they all contribute, so far as I can see, to a culture of enlightenment.

 

And that may be the rub. As far as I am concerned, all accurate knowledge is of God's truth, whether we are talking the distance to the nearest star, some particularly interesting wrinkle of the brain, or some strange attribute of an even stranger sub-atomic particle. But, it could be that this religiously inspired anti-intellectualism is because, as the frontiers of knowledge extend, specific matters of religious faith may be called into question. The whole creation-evolution debate seems to exemplify this dynamic quite well. For my part, I worry that a religious faith that sets itself against intellectual progress is a religious faith with something to hide. Only in such a situation, I submit, with allegiances split between truth and belief, could such a distrust of academic progress pervade.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who believes the church discourages intellectual thought is an unthinking half-wit. Study by learning and also by faith is a core tenet of the church. 

 

I have no problem with those that differ from me in political/social views, but what irritates me are those who are intellectually dishonest. You make a great point, and only those who are intellectually dishonest refuse to believe this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I confess, I find it hard to compass this distrust of 'interleckshalls' or, in other words, people more intelligent, better informed and more knowledgeable than I am. On the contrary, so often, in the past, they have pointed me in directions I would have taken ages to discover off my own bat, and saved me much time and wasted effort. I am grateful to them all; they all contribute, so far as I can see, to a culture of enlightenment.

 

And that may be the rub. As far as I am concerned, all accurate knowledge is of God's truth, whether we are talking the distance to the nearest star, some particularly interesting wrinkle of the brain, or some strange attribute of an even stranger sub-atomic particle. But, it could be that this religiously inspired anti-intellectualism is because, as the frontiers of knowledge extend, specific matters of religious faith may be called into question. The whole creation-evolution debate seems to exemplify this dynamic quite well. For my part, I worry that a religious faith that sets itself against intellectual progress is a religious faith with something to hide. Only in such a situation, I submit, with allegiances split between truth and belief, could such a distrust of academic progress pervade.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

I love what Clayton Christensen said that truth is constant with truth. I think he was quoting Elder Eyrings dad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this