You people need to start out with your arguments, not conclusions. For now, most of the feedback has been wholly arbitrary or irrelevant to the given text.
I can say all I want how God does not exist, or Darwin's theory is superior to creationism, or whatever point I want to make, but this is all substanceless unless some good reasoning preceeds such claims.
Yea, I realize that I started offtopic but what got me there was that your arguement was made via proof of assertion, I didn't feel anchored down to the subject because there was no evidence presented. When you go on about cognitive processes it seems that you're knowledgable but you've stated before that you don't use the classic typology (I think you said this somewhere), which throws some of us offguard. Right now, you have an Idea, that you need to find evidence for, even if the idea seems like it makes sense to you it has 0 merit.
For example: "It is clear that among us, some are more like the evolved species, and some are more reminiscent of our predecessors. Some of us are 'better made' for action like apes and other animals out of which we have evolved, yet others are better made for contemplation and more intellectual endeavors."
In an argument you Never say "it is clear", you need to Prove Why "it is clear". You stated that some people are more physically adapted and others are more mentally adapted but there is no reason to believe that someone can't be both.
Also: "The human race could be divided into 2 classes."
That sentence utterly confused be because of the word Classes which inferes a choice between "you're either in this class or the other", atleast to me this is how it comes off.
Here is also what confused me: "At this point man's environment is much conducive to reflection..."
Social Darwinism, Not actual evolution. The intellectual is more fit for the business world, I Agree with that. However, throw an Intellectual in the forest, with no clothes, food, water, or shelter, and he's likely not going to survive, this "evolution" into "intellectual" can only make sense in modern business society.
Oh of course. Its not a dichotomy. It is a continuum. Some of us are very passionate and hardly intellectual. Some of us are very intellectual and hardly passionate. Some of us are a lot more passionate than intellectual and vice versa. And some of us are close to being as passionate as intellectual.
Your continuum can use alot of improvement, if you added a Y axis with a given trait to the X axis of Passionate-Intellectual you'll find youself with a much more accurate grid. I can't think of a good thing to place at the Y axis at the moment but hey its your continuum. I think that is constructive criticism at least.
I think you'll find this post much easier to read and much more enlightening than my former posts,
Didums