Digital Anvil
God is in Each of your Tomorrows.
Followers who wish to change from readers
Saturday, 12 September 2026
Boys: A Rescue Plan.
Friday, 11 September 2026
Need for You. [Unpopular Notion!]
Need for You:
It’s tempting to think we’re strong, we’re capable, and “we’ve got this.” But in reality, we are powerless on our own. We desperately need God—every moment of every day.
Thursday, 10 September 2026
One Intellectual's Admission:
One Intellectual's Admission
But what is truly stunning is that, with some intellectuals, there is no need to pursue any inquiry because they make no bones about what they are doing. They candidly admit that truth is not their guiding consideration at all.
One of the most frank is Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World.
Huxley’s later book of essays, Ends and Means, is “an inquiry into the nature of ideals,” and in the course of it he is candid about his own beliefs. “All that we are,” he repeats twice, “is the result of what we have thought,” so it is important for us to think well, to be clear about how we think, and to choose the best worldview.
“It is impossible to live without a metaphysic. The choice that is given us is not between some kind of metaphysic and no metaphysic; it is always between a good metaphysic and a bad metaphysic.” And how are we to decide? By observing the one that is closest to reality, and may be considered true.
Yet “no philosophy is completely disinterested,” Huxley argues. “The pure love of truth is always mingled to some extent with the need, consciously or unconsciously by even the noblest and most intelligent philosophers, to justify a given form of personal or social behavior, to rationalize the traditional prejudices of a given class or community.” Everyone, he claims, thinks for both “intellectual reasons” (based on truth) and “voluntary reasons” (based on desires and the will).
Huxley was a deeply thoughtful and sensitive man who was unafraid to take positions that bucked the fashionable trends of his day and even of his own famous family. He criticized the dangers of false systems of meaning, such as nationalism, national socialism, communism, a false view of science, and argued that a philosophy of meaninglessness can be useful if it liberates people from such false views.
Then, with considerable realism he also goes on to criticize those who go to the other extreme and claim to be able to live without any meaning at all. Those, such as the Marquis de Sade, who are consistent proponents of meaninglessness, are dangerous, while most people—fortunately for them—are not consistent. They can only live without meaning for a short time and in selective areas, and only then because they assume unacknowledged sources of meaning in other parts of their lives.
Huxley finishes with a sharp description of the problems created by this approach. On the one hand, by overriding considerations of truth and giving so much attention to personal needs, it creates a fateful divorce between truth and whatever is considered goodness. On the other, it becomes impossible in practice to live without meaning.
“The mind is so constituted that a philosophy of meaninglessness is accepted only at the level of the passions and is persisted in only by those whose heredity and upbringing make it possible for them to live as though the world were at least partially meaningful.”
One might think that after this trenchant diagnosis of the radical dualism in human thinking, Huxley would urge us to take truth seriously and lean against any way in which we may be tempted to rationalize our needs—as Plato and Aristotle would have recommended.
Instead, bizarrely, he goes on to take the very approach he was attacking. He freely admits that he “took it for granted” that the world had no meaning, but he did not discover it, he decided it. “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption.”
His philosophy of meaninglessness was far from disinterested. And the reason? “We objected to morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”
Os Guinness, Fool’s Talk:
From Digital Anvil.
Final Comments:
The concluding sentence above is a tell all.
It exposes the overall work of many who use revisionist language in the pursuit of their own agenda/worldview/belief system.
The mark of the rationalising intellectual is that concealment of their true objective by the reworking and twisting of terms and subtle use of words to inculcate the listener without alerting him/her to the true nature of their nefarious breach with reality whilst proclaiming their "truth."
Via persistent repetition, emotive terms and consistently singular objectives in discourse with print, radio, podcast, social media and other media aligning throughout. The interfering Intellectual gains freedom while restraining step- by -step the overall freedoms of the common woman and man. For example, Hitler's charismatic speeches. Contrast Winston Churchill's Radio Broadcasts during WW2 ? If still available, listen and watch on Youtube.
Democracy is the ultimate solution coupled with the Judeo- Christian Framework. Truth with Compassion. Truth with Love. Truth absolutely not relativistic truths. Truth without Fear. Truth without condemnation.
As always, drop a comment whether you agree or not.
Wednesday, 9 September 2026
Beware Intellectuals!:
"Beware Intellectuals!”
Paul Johnson’s stunning summary of a study of Western intellectuals runs counter to what many people think, or at least once used to think.
If truth is not the Holy Grail ( the Summa Grande ) for intellectuals, what is?
Truth surely is the reason why intellectuals think passionately, read voraciously, pursue research tirelessly and argue about anything and everything interminably.
Almost at the dawn of the Western intellectual tradition, Plato described philosophers in the Republic as those with “no taste for falsehood; that is, they are completely unwilling to admit what’s false but hate it, while cherishing the truth.” Similarly, Aristotle wrote in his Ethics that the person who loves truth for the very sake of truth when nothing is at stake will still be the more truthful when someday everything is at stake.
But that was then. To be sure, there have always been people who were skeptical about anyone who knew more than they did. How could they ever find out whether the other person was trustworthy?
But now we have many people for whom mistrust is the badge they wear proudly to show their schooling in postmodern suspicion, so that “mistrust intellectuals” and “question authority” go hand in hand. After all, Nietzsche and his postmodern disciples have surely won for the moment. Truth is dead, and everything is relative at best and at worst a matter of the will to power.
Nothing is what it appears to be.
If truth was once the stated goal of intellectuals, it is now easy to read between their scholarly lines and see the petty egos and the dirty ambitions behind the lofty aspirations for truth. Truth is finally undecidable, as the postmodern philosophers express it...
At best, truth is simply the compliment you pay to sentences that you happen to agree with.
However you explain the record, what are undeniable are the facts about the story of intellectuals, and the embarrassing evidence long precedes postmodernism. Many of the celebrated makers of the modern world have been shown up for their devious handling of truth in some aspect of their thinking or their lives—including Rousseau, Shelley, Marx, Ibsen, Tolstoy, Hemingway, Brecht, Bertrand Russell, Sartre, Margaret Mead and others.
Yet these are the men and women of ideas who have risen up to overthrow the guardians of traditional Western society, and who on the basis of the brilliance of their minds are now trusted to diagnose our ills, prescribe our remedies and direct the future for our children and for the world.
My Final Thought:
Given the veracity of the books: The Intellectuals and Fool's Talk...
...We are left with suspicion on our minds, disagreeable taste on our intellectual palate and a world divided and polarised by the ideas trickled down a savage mountain side filled with twisted debris, spewed muck and silent venom. From men and women who declared their lot with intelligent banter, fiction producing worldly friction endued with relative nonsense masquerading as wisdom for the common man and woman.
Denying the truth and as some proclaimed that even telling us that they were NOT telling the truth but their thought-ful version of reality.
Recommended Sources:
Os Guinness, Fool’s Talk:
Paul Johnson, The Intellectuals.
R.C. Sproul, Consequences of Ideas.
(From and By Digital Anvil)
As usual , if you disagree or..... then drop a comment as you drop by.
( Essay based largely on Os Guinness, Fool’s Talk: )
Tuesday, 8 September 2026
The Art of Discernment:
Monday, 7 September 2026
Pursue God's Purpose for Your Life:
Sunday, 6 September 2026
The Significant Role of Dads:
Boys: A Rescue Plan.
Boys, A Rescue Plan: Moving Beyond the Politics of Masculinity to Healthy Male Development , by Michael Gurian and Sean Kullman , with a fo...
-
Coffee Buddies: I love to watch people interacting in public spaces like cafes, coffee shops and restaurants. While enjoying a solo meal or...
-
Life: The Risky Journey ? Mis-takes are stepping stones to suc- cess. How can we ever grow, how can we ever learn, without taking risk...
-
Step by Step: A Song. Tap or click on link for video/audio. Listen to the Song For personal clarity,I long for a return to this message...