Kelly,
Or a beginner-philosopher, perhaps.
From what I read, he was one of the first scientists to run studies on populations to find out whether intelligence is hereditary from family gene pools, and whether certain communities/races are less likely to be intellectuals. He was basically a biologist/psychologist of the highest order, as he tackled questions with courage that most individuals wouldn’t even fathom tackling. I would call that a philosopher. Not to mention, that he single handedly invented most of the methods of statistical analysis that we use today. I wouldn’t call him a full blown enlightened sage, although he was cousins with Darwin, and the two had many debates and discussions on morality. Regardless, he had a certain courage, a drive to explore things that most people wouldn’t consider for various reasons rooted in fear. Anyone who goes down that road in any capacity, I tend to have certain respect for.
Yes, I think there's a lot to be said for genetics. People are animalistic because that's the kind of men that women go for: soldiers, politicians, salesmen, criminals, and bullies. But still, a virtuous man can have fools for children, so genetics isn't everything.
The problem is that you have recessive genes that are not expressed, and you are combining the man’s genes with the woman’s, so the result is a hybrid of sorts. Scientists will probably discover the probability of an intellectual father giving birth to an intellectual son, and how to increase that probability based on the most essential factors. Once that is discovered, men and women will not be needed at all, only their sex gametes will need to be extracted.
Nevertheless, there is still a huge genealogy. If you've ever read Hakuin, you'll know of all the monks in the Zen koans, and the lists of Dharma fathers. There were also many Hindu sages, from as far back as 4000 B.C. responsible for the Vedic literature, like the Bhagavad-Gita.
The problem I see with eastern philosophy is that it strips the mind, and leaves it with nothing other than a value of wisdom, which is often preached here. To me, this is incomplete. Life/reality are complicated, and even if one becomes wise, there is still the problem of how to live ones life. Moreover, if you simply value wisdom, and wisdom alone, then these individuals end up retreating into a temple, becoming a monk, being isolated, denouncing civilization and trying to teach from afar. However, it takes just as much courage to stay within civilization, and try to improve it through empirical means, and through the promotion of wisdom. That is why the western tradition has proved to be more pragmatic to civilization and the technological advancement of the species, it encourages logic, but also how to solve practical problems within society, and that is why the western tradition gave birth to most scientific principles we use today, invention, technology and modern democracy. And the Asian nations such as China, India and so on are now trying to play catchup, and are left with huge problems that were never properly addressed. To me, a long history of eastern philosophy is partly to blame, it made the culture as a whole far too passive, which allowed dictators and colonization to take control and keep control .
Notice too, that most sages would not have bred. Yet sages still appeared. What does that make of the argument for genetics, eh?
As I have stated, a male only gives half of his genetic information, and the female the other half, and these chromosomes combine randomly making some traits recessive and some dominant. That is why a son is like the father in some ways, and like the mother in other ways. We need to understand what factors largely determine an intellectual, and control the combination of chromosomes making it less random, and open to variation. Variation will still exist, but if you can control the variation that predicates an intellectual, and everything else such as face symmetry and hair colour are superficial anyway.
Nick,
Personally I think that if the public school system made logic, philosophy, and compassion a part of the core curriculum alongside language, math, science, and social studies we would churn out a much higher number of individuals who show great interest in those things you mentioned.
I doubt it, children show very unique hardwired interests from a young age, and are incapable of learning things that are over their heads. I have had two young males in my life. One is a born intellectual, and the other is not. And there is no changing that, it is hardwired. One shows a curious interest in science, nature and the universe, and the other blocks it out. Couldn’t care less, he is too busy trying to show off and impress the local girls. He will be a successful alpha male probably, but there isn’t an ounce of intellectual curiosity in him, and no matter how hard I have tried, and how I will try into the future, my suspicion is that all my attempts will be futile.
Still, most people are never really exposed to what proper thinking at it's core truly is, and if they were it would likely override any genetic predispositions. That's not to say that every single person would end up becoming a perfect Buddha, but we would surely have a much more thoughtful, compassionate, and wiser human race.
You are very optimistic, I am far less when comes to using the educational apparatus to produce wise intellectuals. Only because I have attempted to try to work with children, I have volunteered, worked with many children, children who even looked up to me, and attempted to teach them basic logic, and my attempts failed. The problem is that the brain structure of these children cannot even handle the information coming in, they cannot process it, cannot fathom it. It is like trying to run windows 7 on a Pentium 2 machine.
I was once heading down the road to be a teacher in the public school system, and my direction changed upon volunteer work with children. I was even accepted into a local Bachelor of Education program, but I realized that all my efforts would be futile. A waste of my time. I would end up being a babysitter, a referee. If schools were segregated with intellectual kids on one class, and the average ones, and misfits in another, then I would have considered teaching the exceptional ones, but the educational system will probably never do anything like that, because no parent wants to accept the fact that their child maybe average or even below average. Parents need their delusions.