The Moral Obligation to Be Intelligent

I

The question is posed: When a wise person inventories our genuine admirations, will intelligence be among them?
The author questions if intelligence is considered a virtue or a peril.

II

The idea that intelligence is a peril is an old Anglo-Saxon concept.
English literature, while impressive, doesn't prominently celebrate intelligence.
The quote, “Be good, sweet maid, and let who will be clever,” suggests a choice between goodness and intelligence.
There's an assumption that stupidity is linked to moral conduct, while cleverness leads to mischief, implying reason and God are at odds.
Kingsley’s line exemplifies the traditional distrust of the mind in English literature.
Shakespeare's intelligent characters are often villains or tragic figures (Richard, Iago, Edmund, Hamlet).
The successful characters are often of good character but not particularly intelligent (Bassanio, Duke Orsino, Florizel).
Intelligent women in Shakespeare are often foreign (Portia) or possess conventional English virtues (Viola).
Many of Shakespeare's heroines (Ophelia, Juliet, Desdemona) are loved for qualities other than intellect, while intelligent female characters (Lady Macbeth, Cleopatra) are often wicked.
Milton portrays Satan in Paradise Lost as highly intelligent, even liberty-loving, contrasting with a God that seems illogical and repressive.
It is perturbing that God's angel cautions Adam against inquiry, while Satan questions and explores (a possible Anglo-Saxon interpretation).
The theologian and the scientist, according to Milton's reckoning of intelligence, take after Satan.
English novels often distinguish between intelligence and goodness, favoring a kind of "inexpert virtue."
The English novel's hero is often a well-meaning but flawed character who is rescued from his blunders.
The women they marry are often less intelligent, valued for their patience, humility, and faithfulness (Agnes in David Copperfield).
Intelligent female characters like Beatrice Esmond and Becky Sharp are portrayed negatively.
Lower-class heroes are viewed with amusement and a sense of superiority, even while being admired for their loyalty.
Balzac, in contrast, might evoke pity for the tragic unintelligence or vulgarity in similarly good-natured characters (Père Goriot, Eugénie Grandet).
Comparing racial temperaments can help in self-understanding. For example, the author wonders what Socrates have thought of characters such as Mr. Pickwick, or the Vicar of Wakefield, or David Copperfield, or Arthur Pendennis.

III

The author acknowledges this is not a comprehensive account of English literature and that this handling of the writers may seem cavalier.
The author is using the love of literature as a tool to prompt introspection.
If we admire these works without understanding what qualities they promote, then our admiration is not discriminating.
English history reveals a peculiar conflict between character and intellect.
Great Englishmen, like great Greeks, possess both intelligence and character.
Unlike the Greeks, however, the notable Englishman is often seen as an exception, often better appreciated abroad.
Even those Englishmen who possess this character/intelligence combination often fail to recognize its value in others.
Shakespeare's portrayal of amateurish statesmen coincided with the capable governance of Burleigh and the rise of Francis Bacon.
Milton, who portrayed the life of reason and intellectual inquiry, also discouraged it in his epic.
Figures like Byron, Shelley, and Spenser possessed and valued intelligence, though were often neglected in England.

IV

No people or literature can be great without intelligence, and England has produced great statesmen, scientists, and poets with lofty intellects.
The author presses the audience to reconsider their reading in history and fiction, and question if the English race has usually thought highly of the intelligence by which it has been great.
Those who prefer character to intelligence have precedent in English history and literature.
The English people's conscience originates in the German forests, valuing will-power over intellect.
The Germans and Saxons prized will-power and self-reliance, not craftiness.
Integrity and keeping one's word were paramount; the individual's character became more important than their actions.
Actions were judged based on the character of the person performing them.
Fielding wrote Tom Jones to illustrate that good men can do bad things and vice versa, but this was not popularly received.
We are far from realizing that a good action must contribute to a good end, and that intelligent beings have a moral obligation to determine if an action leads to a good or bad end.
A system of ethics that excuses one from that obligation is vicious.
Giving poison instead of food is not a good act, and one must take responsibility for the lack of intelligence in failing to differentiate the two.
Matthew Arnold said the purpose of culture is “to make reason and the will of God prevail.”, and that culture must have a basis in character.
Arnold believed that making an intelligent being more intelligent will make the will of God prevail more often.
We must determine what the will of God is before attempting to make it prevail.
Kingsley, prioritizing goodness over cleverness, was embarrassed when he wrongly accused Newman of lying.
The poet sings “Toll for the brave,” forgetting the lack of intelligence that led to the tragedy. The courage is remembered over the mistake.
The charge of the Light Brigade is celebrated for the heroism of the victims, but the shocking blunder is overlooked and forgotten.
The sinking of the Titanic, caused by driving through icebergs at top speed, was met with pride for the bravery of those who died, overshadowing the lack of intelligence that caused the disaster and ignoring the tragedy of the shipwreck of intelligence.

V

American culture is being influenced by immigrants who value intelligence because of their life experience.
They share a Greek love of knowledge and believe ignorance is the root of sin and misery. Also, that to know is to achieve virtue.
The scientific spirit, like the immigrants, has been doing the hard work and has been putting up with contempt.
The conflict is between those who trust in willpower and those who trust in intelligence.
College men are divided into those who want to be men, those who want to be intelligent men, and those who want to do the will of God. It seems particularly need.
If trying to get out of prison, what you need is the key to the lock, not courage and steadfastness.
England has historically relied on character more than intelligence, but the right approach depends on the problem.
Not all problems can be solved by willpower.
When England defeated Bonaparte, it was not his intelligence that was defeated. It was a matter of physical endurance.
America faces similar problems and often defaults to moralizing economic and social issues, because it feels ignoble to admit it is simply a question for intelligence.
We address the problem using oratory and invoke our hereditary divinities, when the patient needs only a little quiet, or permission to get out of bed, invoking primitive and obsolete thought patterns.
Leaders threaten to kick down doors they cannot open.
We curse obstacles as if they were devils, instead of simply addressing them as obstacles.
Intelligence is sought not just for answers, but because it is life.
Intelligence is not just for making the will of God prevail, but because it is the will of God.
Intelligence is loved for its own sake and is virtue's more precise name.
Virtues await intelligence.
Love, hunger, and fear have followed the discipline of intelligence.
Killing aging parents was once a demonstration of solicitude, and raw meat and fear the sun’s eclipse were once motivations. Intelligence has changed those outcomes.
We no longer hang the thief or flog the schoolboy, not because we think less harshly of theft or laziness, but that intelligence has found a better persuasion to honesty and enterprise.
Intelligence has long proven itself as the master-virtue, decreasing fear and increasing opportunity.
It has robbed the altar of its sacrifice and the priest of his mysteries.
The resistance to intelligence often comes from those who guard temples or established beliefs.
Countless sacrifices were made for favorable winds before the invention of the boat that could tack.
The altar was deserted, the religion revised.
Sacrifices were not abandoned all at once.
As demonstrated throughout history, one religion has driven out another - the faith that needs the fewest altars, the hypothesis that leaves the least unexplained, survives.
The shock of the scientific spirit on religion was due to the large amount of intelligence introduced at once.
The lover of intelligence must be patient with those who cannot readily share his passion.
The mind can inflict pangs upon the heart.
Affections divide us, as we become attached to our local customs and language.
Intelligence unites us with mankind by leading us to understand other times, places, and customs.
Intelligence begins in a pang but leads to a vision.
Intelligence makes life an opportunity, makes goodness articulate, and makes virtue a fact.
Sin is ignorance, and knowledge and virtue are one.
Intelligence will eventually lead the human race to its destiny.
Man will find himself within an infinite order.
Virtues are found through insights into our needs; let us cultivate insight.