11:52
But in another sense, Aristotle focused more on thinking correctly rather than seeing and understanding. Now, to think correctly is pretty much the domain of those gifted with a certain cerebral intensity which must invariably also be cultivated with proper training and instruction, where as seeing and understanding is pretty much open to anyone, at least in principle, and subject only to inward realization, contemplation and experience. So what happened when Aristotle was introduced in the Christian west, displacing the Platonism of the fathers of the Church in the process? Well, then the issue became that cerebral prowess and instruction were seen as primary, where as actually knowing anything was relegated to the background. And it was relegated to the background because as i said cerebral prowess and the ability to know and understand are not really synonymous with one another, and what's more, and here lies the problem, it is statistically more likely to be either cerebral or intelligent than to be both, for to be gifted in more then one thing is rarer than to be gifted in only one particular thing.So basically, beginning with the so called "high" middles ages, the number of people who were truly intelligent and knowledgeable became marginalized because the only thing that was recognized was the cerebral ability to master the Aristotelian method, regardless of what anyone knew. Now keep in mind of course that i'm not saying that to be cerebral is mutually exclusive with being intelligent, which is the opposite fallacy, but of course if only those with a certain cerebral ability were heard it was only a matter of time before true intelligence was banished from the discourse, which is precisely what happened eventually (to wit: how many have ever heard of Meister Eckhart, and of those who did how many do you think know that he is not a mystic, but a true intellectual?). The vast majority of western philosophers are basically men of genius who are actually rather confused in their knowledge and understanding, but who can tackle the most complex of thought processes and are thus given primacy over anyone who may actually know better, but who's cerebral gifts may be more modest or uncultivated. Ergo, why modern so called "thought" is a bunch of shit, starting with the notion that there is no truth, an idea so incredibly idiotic that even a child could see how stupid it is, but which is dealt with by individuals of such incredible mental gifts (for whom the act of entertaining nonsense may be just a way to exercise their capacities at the expense of truth and common sense) nobody is able to really talk them down.