Question: Does human intellect prompt only what is good, or does it also prompt what is evil? Karl Marx’s followers argue that "human intellect is everything; any other belief is futile." College students are very keen to learn about this. Please explain.
- Zulaiha, Dharmapuram, Karaikal
Answer: There is no doubt that human intellect is magnificent. Intellect correctly identifies many things. Yet, there are instances where intellect errs.
Even though intellect correctly identifies many matters, no one can deny the existence of another force within a human being—one that can trample upon the intellect's findings and drag the person in a different direction.
If you ask a smoker whether smoking is beneficial, he will explain its harmful effects in greater detail than we could. Yet, why does he continue to smoke even after his intellect has judged it to be wrong? Why is he unable to quit the moment he realizes it is harmful? Reflecting on this reveals that intellect does not hold absolute sway.
For those immersed in various vices—such as thieves, alcoholics, or murderers—their intellects do indeed signal that these actions are wrong. However, beyond merely signaling this, their intellects are powerless to do anything else. Humans treat this counsel much like the sound of a conch blown into a deaf person's ear—it goes unheeded.
The difference between a schoolteacher and the dictator of an authoritarian nation is vast; yet, the difference between human intellect and the other force that drives a person is even greater.
A schoolteacher instructs students on what is right and wrong, but lacks the power to compel them to follow that path. In contrast, a dictator directs people through commands.
In this sense, human intellect occupies a pitiable position—akin to a schoolteacher who possesses no real authority. Human intellect identifies many things as beneficial, yet man often fails to act upon them. While intellect can discern what is good, it lacks the power to guide man along that path.
Even if Karl Marx was unaware of this, it is glaringly obvious to the rest of us; indeed, we treat our own intellect in precisely this manner.
To lead man along the path dictated by intellect, one must place faith in a force greater than intellect itself. Respect for intellect is secured only through the belief that one will be punished for committing acts known to be wrong or harmful.
That is the first point. As for whether intellect can identify good and evil in every instance—one can emphatically say no.
Two intellectuals may hold conflicting views on whether a particular matter is harmful. Clearly, the intellect of one of them has led to an erroneous conclusion. Neither those who argue that the New Economic Policy is beneficial nor those who argue it is harmful are fools; it is brilliant minds who put forward these opposing arguments.
Both views cannot be true simultaneously; only one can be correct. It follows, then, that the intellect of the intellectuals on one side failed to reveal the correct conclusion.
Both Karl Marx—who argued that usury is an act of oppression—and those who maintain that usury is merely a form of commerce were intellectuals. Regardless of which of these conflicting views is deemed correct, it is certain that the intellect of one group failed to discern the truth.
There are countless issues on which intellectuals hold divergent opinions. This reveals the true nature of human intellect.
The notion that intellect is everything is an illusion. Why did Russia, which followed Marx’s path, eventually sideline him? Why did those who came after him deem incorrect what Marx himself considered right? Reflecting in this manner allows one to shed intellectual arrogance and realize the necessity of refining oneself through the spiritual path.