Why people have intelligence?
Almost every day we are facing thing, that somebody claims that some writers are just stupid, and they don't understand things. This was the attitude in the medieval period. And then somebody asked, "why those people burned in the bonfire"? The reason was the thing, which is called the blasphemy. Those people were talked or wrote something, what was against the opinion of the Catholic and Protestant church. In fact, the only thing, what first changed in the Protestant church was the language, what was used in the church.
And of course, priests were allowed to get married, and that thing was used to show that the priest was not Catholic. But otherwise the law was the same, and in the Lutheran and other protestant countries, the place of the pope was given to King, whose criticism would mean the blasphemy because the king ruled because of the will of God. The ruler of England Henry VIII persecuted protestants first, but when he turned to protestant, that man started to persecute Catholics.
The reason for that was turning was that he needed a divorce from his wife. The way how Henry VIII handled the problems in marriage was straight, he executed all his wives except one. That kind of thing caused little bit embarrassing situation because people started to think, that if somebody needed to die because of writings and speeches that thing had influence for somebody, who had something to hide. The official attitude of the pope and other rulers was that the normal people were like children, and then somebody must die. That thing was meant that the things were not influential.
Another version about this kind of question is "why we have brains"? In the begin of the empiric research, somebody asked why we just cannot just be, and leave the thinking to god? The people, who made the research answered the person, who made that question by saying God has given us brains, so why would we not use them? In fact, at that time everything what people said and what they had done must have the reason, what should be found from the Holy Bible. In modern time there are people, who are really thinking, that they are somehow wise because they don't write or say a thing, and they just want to be.
This is one version of the wise people, that they are doing nothing, and that thing denies them to make mistakes. If the person does nothing or tries the now things, life would be safe, but then we must realize that there must be really something if we ever try new things. Because if the fear of mistakes makes the person just laying without making anything, would that support the things like predestination and descending of the position. In that model, the persons, who have not born in wealthy families are not allowed to go to higher class education, because they are born in some less wealthy families. I just wrote this thing in the last writing, but I like it very much, so I write it again, and that is that if we would be very wise, we would live on the trees and eat a banana.
I haven't created that quote myself, I have read it from some book, and I always been very sad about that, because that means that I cannot get my own quote in the history, what the wise men would use in their texts. That quote about the wisdom of living on trees and eating bananas has been written by Douglas Adams in the "Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy", and it has rotated in my head very often.
Sometimes we are facing the thing, that somebody says that the wise men ever get in the trouble. So, in this case, that kind of person would tell that people are better to be without own ideas because that thing would make other people laugh. This is the thing, what somebody would repeat and repeat endlessly. And that kind of ideas is supporting one-man leadership. In this kind of cases, the thing is that we should think carefully, why somebody wants to support that kind of things?
When we are thinking about the questions, what we should ask in those cases, we might ask what is the position of that person, who wants to support the leaders? Where that person is in the hierarchy? If we would think about the case. that somebody, who writes about something, is just stupid, we must also think something else. Why that thing is mentioned on the front page of the biggest daily newspaper? If somebody is stupid and the writings of some person have no influence, why this thing must comment?
Almost every day we are facing thing, that somebody claims that some writers are just stupid, and they don't understand things. This was the attitude in the medieval period. And then somebody asked, "why those people burned in the bonfire"? The reason was the thing, which is called the blasphemy. Those people were talked or wrote something, what was against the opinion of the Catholic and Protestant church. In fact, the only thing, what first changed in the Protestant church was the language, what was used in the church.
And of course, priests were allowed to get married, and that thing was used to show that the priest was not Catholic. But otherwise the law was the same, and in the Lutheran and other protestant countries, the place of the pope was given to King, whose criticism would mean the blasphemy because the king ruled because of the will of God. The ruler of England Henry VIII persecuted protestants first, but when he turned to protestant, that man started to persecute Catholics.
The reason for that was turning was that he needed a divorce from his wife. The way how Henry VIII handled the problems in marriage was straight, he executed all his wives except one. That kind of thing caused little bit embarrassing situation because people started to think, that if somebody needed to die because of writings and speeches that thing had influence for somebody, who had something to hide. The official attitude of the pope and other rulers was that the normal people were like children, and then somebody must die. That thing was meant that the things were not influential.
Another version about this kind of question is "why we have brains"? In the begin of the empiric research, somebody asked why we just cannot just be, and leave the thinking to god? The people, who made the research answered the person, who made that question by saying God has given us brains, so why would we not use them? In fact, at that time everything what people said and what they had done must have the reason, what should be found from the Holy Bible. In modern time there are people, who are really thinking, that they are somehow wise because they don't write or say a thing, and they just want to be.
This is one version of the wise people, that they are doing nothing, and that thing denies them to make mistakes. If the person does nothing or tries the now things, life would be safe, but then we must realize that there must be really something if we ever try new things. Because if the fear of mistakes makes the person just laying without making anything, would that support the things like predestination and descending of the position. In that model, the persons, who have not born in wealthy families are not allowed to go to higher class education, because they are born in some less wealthy families. I just wrote this thing in the last writing, but I like it very much, so I write it again, and that is that if we would be very wise, we would live on the trees and eat a banana.
I haven't created that quote myself, I have read it from some book, and I always been very sad about that, because that means that I cannot get my own quote in the history, what the wise men would use in their texts. That quote about the wisdom of living on trees and eating bananas has been written by Douglas Adams in the "Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy", and it has rotated in my head very often.
Sometimes we are facing the thing, that somebody says that the wise men ever get in the trouble. So, in this case, that kind of person would tell that people are better to be without own ideas because that thing would make other people laugh. This is the thing, what somebody would repeat and repeat endlessly. And that kind of ideas is supporting one-man leadership. In this kind of cases, the thing is that we should think carefully, why somebody wants to support that kind of things?
When we are thinking about the questions, what we should ask in those cases, we might ask what is the position of that person, who wants to support the leaders? Where that person is in the hierarchy? If we would think about the case. that somebody, who writes about something, is just stupid, we must also think something else. Why that thing is mentioned on the front page of the biggest daily newspaper? If somebody is stupid and the writings of some person have no influence, why this thing must comment?
Comments
Post a Comment