Truth and Desire

This is an essay I wrote. Hope you like it!!

“There are ultimately two alternatives in the intellectual life: either one conforms desire to the truth or one conforms truth to desire.” – E. Michael Jones


It seems the most obvious parallel that one could make, but it never gets mentioned at all: that there is interplay between what you want and what you get ultimately, and that the human being is an integral system of intellect and will. Now, I have absolutely no illusions about why that fact is. In this modern era, there is an idea that captivates the modern mind, and permeates through society at large. That idea is that we can make whatever we want out of the human being; however, this is contrary to our nature. We cannot be made malleable unless we want deny our very nature. Of course, for my purposes in this paper I am not going to go into an explication on this idea. Why the new Summum Bonum is nothing less then to move man into a technocratic society in which he becomes a machine-of-his-own-making is not my cause. Though it suits my purpose to introduce a reason why there seems to be an obscuring of basic truths. It is because most often people who end up making the textbooks have conveniently forgotten about human nature; indeed, some make a point to repudiate this idea with out so much thought as to why or if they should. Let me reiterate an old platitude: there is a relation between things of the will (desire) and things of the mind (intellect). For it is my contention that moral degradation causes nothing less than intellectual dishonesty.
Now let us look philosophically at the basis for this thesis, and then I shall move on to a more concrete example. Why is it so hard to see the connection? Well, first, it looks a bit like rhetorical trickery until you follow the logic, and, second, because today we are taught not to think about the relation between the two distinguished aspects of our nature. They are left compartmentalized, hermetically sealed off from each other. Let us glance for a moment at our desires, which follow from that part of human nature that wills. If we desire something, we strive to get our hands on it, sometimes without thought of the consequence. The will will get its way. It is naïve to think that this does not have any effect on our nature. That leaves us with a will that doesn’t necessarily will that which is good for us, and that could come to include the truth, truth being the end for which the intellect is made. Now, do you begin to see that clash of forces? If we want something contrary to the truth, and we desire it at a fundamental level, then it follows that the scope of the person is limited when the will is perverted before they began their pursuit of truth. Unless there is a sincere desire for truth, then there will be a sincere desire that truth is what you want it to be. Thus, as E. Michael Jones states in his Magnum Opus Degenerate Moderns: either one conforms his desires to the truth or one conforms truth to his desires.
For the concrete example of this notion in play, I will refer to another instance in the book by E. Michael Jones. In it he takes a look at the work of Margaret Mead who is the writer of that bible of anthropology, Coming of Age in Samoa. Mead professed that she was interested in getting an “objective” look at what other cultures were like. She went to study in Samoa where she reported some interesting findings. What was it that came out in this revolutionary book? A revelation that swept the nation; Mead had found that the cultural mores of the Samoan people in regards to sex where astoundingly uninhibited. Adultery, multiple partners, and group dynamics were the norm there. The norms and cultural constructs didn’t seem to matter anymore. In America, it was received with great pleasure and heralded as the new revolution in science. There was just one little problem. It wasn’t true!!! What had paraded around as scientific data turned out to be skewed. It was nothing more than a fanciful interpretation, which stemmed from Meads own desire to deny cultural mores for her sexual lifestyle. She had an agenda before she even had gone to Samoa. This it would seem a most unscientific impulse though it would seem that the public was keen on the conclusions that Mead had come out with, regardless of their objectivity. In fact, even though Derek Freeman has discredited Meads’ claims, devotees of Mead still crop up in anthropology classes. This illustrates the cultural norm of the modern era rather then objective science. We want a way to rationalize our desires and make the truth conform to them. What ends up happening is that we usually have to lie to get our way.
You might be thinking why this matters. What does it matter if most people are allowed to do their own thing? Well, I would have to say that the person who could not see the disturbing effect this could have is blind. If we are allowed to stray away from objective value, and put in its place whatever disordered will or feeling we happen to have, it will mean the disintegration of all value except those desires that we are battling to keep at bay. That should be extremely frightening for the rational mind. For anyone who cares about the solidarity of Truth it is crucial for us to protect from false motives, so that we may better follow her banner.