This blog post discusses the tyranny of reason, which is often perpetrated by the intellectual class through the suppression of free speech and imposition of ideological constructs. While intellectuals play a crucial role in disseminating knowledge, their influence can be misused to propagate their own ideologies and suppress dissent. This leads to intellectual tyranny where reason is used for control rather than enlightenment. Philosophers, in contrast, are the originators of ideas who question established norms and beliefs, laying the groundwork for intellectual discourse.
This distinction becomes crucial when we consider the potential for intellectuals to misuse their influence. As "merchants of ideas," intellectuals have the power to shape public opinion and discourse. However, when they prioritize ideology over truth, or fail to critically engage with the ideas they are disseminating, they can contribute to intellectual tyranny. This is why it's crucial for intellectuals to maintain a commitment to truth, openness, and critical thinking, just like philosophers.
As discussed in a conversation between Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson, the intellectual class often uses the banner of activism as a quick route to moral virtue, often bypassing the arduous process of self-improvement and understanding. This is a form of intellectual tyranny, where the ideology of the few is forced onto the many under the guise of moral righteousness.
In the context of protests and activism, Peterson argues that often, the motivation behind such movements is not purely to make the world a better place but to broadcast one's virtue. This is indicative of an intellectual elite attempting to impose their vision onto the world, often without understanding or addressing the root issues at play.
This form of intellectual tyranny extends to the suppression of free speech, where the intellectual class often seeks to shut down differing opinions, not because they disagree with them, but because they deny the very concept of free speech itself. They view speech not as an exchange of ideas between autonomous individuals but as a power struggle between different hierarchies.
A Point of View: The writer who foresaw the rise of the totalitarian state
Drawing from Fyodor Dostoevsky's experiences in Siberia and his subsequent realizations, intellectuals often find themselves disconnected from the realities of the common people. They tend to develop a disdain for the common man and prioritize ideological constructs over human considerations. Dostoevsky's journey from being an intellectual to understanding the value of the common man's perspective highlights the dangers of intellectual tyranny and its potential to lead to a nihilistic and amoral society. A practical example being that if you stand opposed to an idea, then it can be rationalized in the extreme that you must be made to suffer or be killed. History demonstrates by the millions how easy it is to reason such a thing.
In the European context, this form of intellectual tyranny is seen in the attempts to control what people hear, think, and say. The intellectual elite, possessed by their ideology, are not willing to entertain ideas contrary to their own. This has led to a situation where the rights and dignity of individuals are often trampled upon to serve the interests of the intellectual class. We are seeing increasing populist opposition to these ruling elite as demonstrated by protests and election results.
Drawing from Russia's historical experiences, it is possible to observe that the country might be more sensitive to this form of intellectual tyranny. Having lived under communist rule, a system largely driven by intellectual elites imposing their ideologies onto the masses, the nation has firsthand experience of the potential dangers of such a system. This history might explain why Russia under Putin appears keen to distance itself from such intellectual tyranny, favoring instead a reassertion of traditional Russian culture and values. The insights gained from Tucker Carlson's interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin suggest a desire for a more balanced approach that respects individual freedoms and national identity, rather than being dominated by a single ideological narrative.
Contrasting Russia's apparent shift away from ideological possession with Europe's escalating enforcement of laws that suppress dissent and individual freedom paints an intriguing picture. It seems that Russia, having experienced the harsh realities of ideological possession under the communist rule, is now striving to distance itself from such constraints. This is reflected in President Putin's emphasis on restoring and preserving Russian traditions and values, as observed in Tucker Carlson's interview and Putin's rejection of the ideals of the World Economic Forum. Putin has criticized the WEF's globalist approach and overemphasis on climate change and environmental issues.
Conversely, Europe appears to be moving in the opposite direction, with its intellectual elite increasingly imposing their ideologies onto the masses. This is evident in the increasing number of laws that suppress dissent and limit individual freedoms. The intellectual elites, as highlighted in Mike Benz's interview by Tucker Carlson, appear to be using censorship and control of information as a means to consolidate their power and control public discourse. This is a stark contrast to the traditional European values of individualism, freedom of expression, and democratic governance.
The growing populist movements in Europe, characterized by widespread protests and changing election results, indicate a rising discontent among the populace against this suppression of their rights and freedoms. This, coupled with the intellectual elites' refusal to entertain ideas contrary to their own, presents a worrying trend towards intellectual tyranny.
In this context, Russia's shift away from ideological possession appears as an attempt to prevent the recurrence of past mistakes. The country's emphasis on reasserting its cultural identity and preserving traditional values reflects a desire to safeguard its society from the dangers of ideological possession. This is not to suggest that Russia has become an emblem of freedom and democracy, but rather that it provides a contrasting perspective to the increasing ideological control within Europe.
While Russia seems to be distancing itself from the oppressive grip of ideological possession, Europe is increasingly showing signs of embracing it. The impact of these contrasting paths on the future of these regions remains to be seen, but they certainly underscore the importance of vigilance against the encroachment of intellectual tyranny.