Proteus : $b or, The future of intelligenceLee, Vernon
Philosophy
Proteus : $b or, The future of intelligence
Lee, Vernon
Intellect
There seems not to exist a word――for words are old while meanings
may be new――which answers exactly to what I shall speak of as
_Intelligence_. But space being short for what has to be said, I
will not waste any in preliminary definitions. That which I mean by
Intelligence will become evident by what I expect from its presence
and attribute to its absence. I start from the assumption that it
already exists, however insufficiently; and I deduce from what it has
done that its nature is to intensify and extend. Whether this will be
witnessed in the near future, or whether it may be checked by adverse
circumstances, is no concern of mine. Writers of this series, and
several others besides, have enlarged on the political and economic
contingencies to which Intelligence, or persons presumed to have it,
seem likely to be exposed. Whether Intelligence may become the weapon
of a dominant caste, as was the hope of Comte, of Renan, and, at one
moment, of Mr. H. G. Wells; or whether, as proposed by M. Charles
Maurras, Intelligence shall be honoured with a subordinate function in
some sort of Fascist State, I am inadequate to judge. Nor do I even
feel certain that history has shown, or economic theory demonstrated,
that Intelligence can be bullied or starved out of existence. Meanwhile
let me confess that what I have to say about the Future of Intelligence
is the expression as much of my hopes as of my convictions, both,
however, arising from a longish experience of changes already brought
about, and changes beginning to be brought about, by the particular,
and perhaps rather modern, something I mean by _Intelligence_. What
_I_ mean, and what, under restriction to that meaning, appears _to
me_ likely or desirable. By underlining these personal pronouns, I am
able to forestall the mention of one great change which Intelligence
is already initiating, namely, the recognition and avowal that what
one thinks (as distinguished from what primers, manuals and other
authorities have taught one to believe) is――well, _just what one does
think_, and neither the consensus of human opinion nor the revelation
of the Deity’s irrefragable truth.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account