Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess we can assume, by your statement, that you didn't attend college (too much scary information there) and are thus anti-intellectual because you're afraid you might hear something you don't agree with?
I would suggest to you that you wouldn't be able to drive your car, work with a computer, have cable/satellite tv, etc if it weren't for those "theoretical" thinkers out there trying to make your life easier.
Exactly where do you think doctors, lawyers, scientists, politicians, accountants, etc come from? If it weren't for those teachers you so easily belittle (I'm just wondering if your children are home schooled, scary) your life wouldn't be half as interesting or easy as it is.
You and I don't have the same definition of intellectual and yes I am a college graduate. Intellectuals are people who can't make the jump from thinking to doing. None of the jobs you mentioned would qualify an individual as an intellectual under my definition unless they just ruminated on their subject matter rather than practiced their profession.
I don't have children...and c'mon, an accountant intellectual? That's a first.
In my mind, there is much overlap, but not completely, in these two terms. Intellectuals, to me, are those folks who recognize a contentious problem or question, and attempt to disect and examine it by means of intelligent questioning. ....
Okay, but then what do they do when they are done dissecting and examining by means of intelligent questioning? To me, if they apply their knowledge, we call them a title (inventor, scientist, entrepreneur, etc.) held in higher esteem than intellectual.
I believe that if you ask most people who are anti-intellectual for their definition of intellectual, they would not categorize all intelligent people/book smart people as intellectuals. They would limit that intellectual title to intelligent people who can't get past the thinking stage and apply their knowledge.
I never thought of any of those people as intellectuals. Intellectuals to me are people who can't/dont apply their knowledge. They are people who can pontificate/criticize/ponder on shoes but can't tie their shoelaces.
Seems more like this is a description of a helpless person, not an intellectual.
I anticipated some anti-intellectual sentiment on this thread, along with the applause. Because anti-intellectualism is popular. In our society, intellectuals are (and always have been) often scoffed, scorned and discredited by what Nietzsche referred to as "the herd". Most people desire to remain in the median; not dumb, but not too smart either. The herd will assign negative characteristics to intellectuals. Probably because intellectuals do not want to be part of the herd.
There are many examples where authoritarian regimes have harassed and arrested intellectuals. Their critical ideas were seen as a threat to those in power.
We might recall that, at the turn of the last century, the media and many people were busy making various lists naming the top 100 for the 20th Century, such as movie stars, movies, singers, songs, TV shows, sports stars, sports events, etc. Most people would have had a problem reducing their lists to 100. I wondered, how much of a problem these people would have just to name five well known intellectuals.
Without a doubt, there are many intellectuals in the fields of computer science, law, business, technology, history, medicine, etc. But how about the creative fields, such as authors, musicians, artists, and film makers.
Seems more like this is a description of a helpless person, not an intellectual.
Yes, there seems to be more than one impression of what an intellectual is out there. One among them is the idea of pure book-learners, absorbed in an almost monkish manner in their conceptuals and theoreticals while cloistered away within the protective cocoon of ivory towers and ivy-covered walls. There are some such. But they are very few and far between. The remainder of all intellectuals tend to chafe under such an environment and are simply the products of a higher level and degree of education, some formal and some self-directed, which has exposed them to broader and deeper perspectives, analyses, and experiences than what others will typically have had either the time for or interest in undertaking. Much of this extra education is entirely practical in nature, and there is no established reason for assuming that the paths toward acquisition of knowledge somehow close off any of the pathways toward wisdom.
But it is very much toward that repugnant caricature of the disconnected and ineffective thinker that the disinformation media wish to direct us. Can't tie their own shoelaces. Those who can do, those who can't teach. Where the rubber meets the road. All of these are references to a carefully constructed straw-man built primarily to create a gap of mistrust and discredit between voters and actual expert opinion. And into the void thus created rushes -- the disinformation media itself, armed with its own version of the way things really are! It is no coincidence that one of the first acts undertaken by the right-wing following their so-called Revolution of 1994 was to defund the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Here was an independent, non-partisan body of experts whose mission was to provide the current consensus of experts on technical and scientific matters pertinent to pending legislation. Couldn't have it. Had to be done away with. All they needed for that was a 50%+1 majority on Capitol Hill. Accomplishing the same mission in the larger world has required more effort, but make no mistake about it -- the broad anti-scientific and anti-intellectual initiatives undertaken by this administration and its supporters have been carefully and purposely designed to keep the average Joe out of the sphere of influence of the average intellectual, and to far too large a degree, those intitatives have been successful. Knowledge is power. It says something about a group when one of its prime objectives is to keep the average Joe away from knowledge.
All of these are references to a carefully constructed straw-man built primarily to create a gap of mistrust and discredit between voters and actual expert opinion. And into the void thus created rushes -- the disinformation media itself, armed with its own version of the way things really are! It is no coincidence that one of the first acts undertaken by the right-wing following their so-called Revolution of 1994 was to defund the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Here was an independent, non-partisan body of experts whose mission was to provide the current consensus of experts on technical and scientific matters pertinent to pending legislation. Couldn't have it. Had to be done away with. All they needed for that was a 50%+1 majority on Capitol Hill. Accomplishing the same mission in the larger world has required more effort, but make no mistake about it -- the broad anti-scientific and anti-intellectual initiatives undertaken by this administration and its supporters have been carefully and purposely designed to keep the average Joe out of the sphere of influence of the average intellectual, and to far too large a degree, those intitatives have been successful. Knowledge is power. It says something about a group when one of its prime objectives is to keep the average Joe away from knowledge.
You assume that the "average Joe" seeks this knowledge, will acknowledge it's value, and factor in into an evaluative decision making process. I generally disagree with you on this issue.
I think much of the view of political directions and resource allocations is emotionally based, and additional "expert" information would not sway opinions nor votes. Look at global warming as a specific issue with a scientific basis. Much is available for all to sift through to determine legitimacy, potential contributory causes and paths for future actions. Ever read the polling data or postings in this forum on the topic of global warming?
This goes to all issues, including medical and discovery. Ever see much interest from the general public on the Human Genome Project?
Many folks would view this information from intellectual sources as manipulative.
Yes, people that think are a threat to the Bush administration, and thus are a threat to our great nation. The right wing pundits like to dismiss "thinkers" as not having "common sense". Better to rely on emotions, babble about out freedom, patriotism, and blindly march along to the band. So the more ignorant your are, the more common sense you have. Seems strange to me, but there I go thinking again.
You assume that the "average Joe" seeks this knowledge, will acknowledge it's value, and factor in into an evaluative decision making process. I generally disagree with you on this issue.
Not many people like to answer 'I don't know' to a polling question. No one says the average Joe invests what spare time he might have in pulling up scientific abstracts off the internet, but people do want to appear informed and familiar on newsworthy events and issues at work, after church, or out on the golf course. They do want to be able to say something. A thrust of the disinformation media has been to drown out, close off, and generally discredit actually honest sources, making themselves instead the 'sphere if influence' that shapes opinion on Main Street. The disinformation media don't really care that their propaganda is easily deconstructed by informed people. Those are not the target. They don't care so much how their arguments might play out in Ann Arbor. They do care how they play out in Peoria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA
I think much of the view of political directions and resource allocations is emotionally based, and additional "expert" information would not sway opinions nor votes.
Appeal to emotion is one of the classic means for avoiding intellectual responsibility. Make the world and all that goes on therein into an Al Bundy high school football game. Name the good guys (us) and name the bad guys (them), then run around waving your pom-poms. Absent the soap opera drama of this orchestrated hoopla (and there was a time when it didn't exist), information that is NOT primarily spin and emotion enters the information pool and gains currency within it. That is not good news for the neocons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA
Look at global warming as a specific issue with a scientific basis. Much is available for all to sift through to determine legitimacy, potential contributory causes and paths for future actions. Ever read the polling data or postings in this forum on the topic of global warming?
Sure. Not too many I-don't-know's. People do want to have an opinion. But listen to the stuff that the deniers put up. What is their evidence? Where did they get it from? Who are their sources? With virtually the entire informed community in agreement on the central issues of climate change, how do this many come to a contrary conclusion? Answer: They've been bamboozled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA
This goes to all issues, including medical and discovery. Ever see much interest from the general public on the Human Genome Project?
The success that the disinformation media has had in discrediting intellectuals and promoting anti-intellectualism is not much of an argument against the facts of its operations, nor against the idea that the average Joe would like to know what's going on. Label and smear complex truths, while wrapping partisan pabulum in the mantle of God and country, and away you go. As for the Human Genome Project, there is no controversy over it. Everyone agreed that it should go forward via one means or another, but only the professionals have been sitting around reading the decoding of each sequence as if they were going through the football box scores on an autumn Monday morning. Where you will see controversy out of it is in every instance where evidence uncovered tends to undermine an element of right-wing orthodoxy. Then it will be attacked and discredited. The honest man adapts his ideas based upon the obvious implications of the data. The dishonest man seeks to throw out the data that do not conform to his pre-existing ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA
Many folks would view this information from intellectual sources as manipulative.
Manipulative? If so, it would demonstrate only the rather astonishing degree to which these 'many folks' have been manipulated already.
The average person has been discouraged to think for themselves for centuries, as the political "Elite" has always tended to prevent the people from having too many ideas which could lead to them realising the "emperor's new clothes" were never there in the first place. Keeping the populace intellectually deprived has historically been a way to control them and prevent "revolutionary" thinking. The Catholic Church for example was deeply opposed to the publication of the Bible in "native" languages rather than Latin as it meant people could start thinking for themselves and disputing doctrine. Governments have always been deeply suspicious of intellectuals as they challenge pre-conceived ideas and notions that have been fed to us. Government has to be "exclusive" if it wants a compliant and docile population and independent thought is seen as a threat. Hence nowadays the manipulation of the media and the hype and spin surrounding politics. Politicians prefer to feed you their own ideas rather than let you formulate your own. In my opinion as Saganista stated Elite and Elitist are two different things though. I find it sad that intellectuals are perceived as people who "don't do" anything. Thinking in a logical manner and challenging established notions is an essential part of our humanity and should be encouraged. Progress is not just about physical action but requires a mental and intellectual leap first. Most revolutions , social or economic may not be fought by intellectuals in the streets ( though plenty of intellectuals lost their lives fighting) as such but the ideology behind them comes from thinkers who are brave enough to try challenging political and cultural established patterns. We need intellectuals as much as we need "workers" not that these are mutually exclusive at all. Not following the herd and being able to dissect, study and dispute already existing mechanisms is crucial for the well being of our society and advancement of our civilisation. Being able to think rationally and always to push for more knowledge and comprehension of our world is what makes us so unique in the Animal kingdom.
The average person has been discouraged to think for themselves for centuries, as the political "Elite" has always tended to prevent the people from having too many ideas which could lead to them realising the "emperor's new clothes" were never there in the first place.
But the US was originally conceived and has since been perceived as operating quite purposefully on something of the reverse principle. Rights here are not granted by govenments to citizens, but instead powers are granted by citizens to the government to the extent necessary for effective governance. What the right-wing in essence has been doing is seeking to acquire and consolidate political power by reviving some of the worst habits of popes and kings. Whether one calls them Straussian or Machiavellian, these efforts run entirely counter to what this country is supposed to be all about.
Perhaps some of you should read the definition. It's starting to sound like another label created by the haters in this country to identify anyone smarter than they. It also sounds like a leftist tag for anyone who attempts to express individuality or superiority from the masses through education or learned opinion. (Notice there is no use of the word "elitist" in the definition)
Also, if #8 is really true, count me as an intellectual.
in·tel·lec·tu·al / Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-tl-ek-choo-uhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. appealing to or engaging the intellect: intellectual pursuits.
2. of or pertaining to the intellect or its use: intellectual powers.
3. possessing or showing intellect or mental capacity, esp. to a high degree: an intellectual person.
4. guided or developed by or relying on the intellect rather than upon emotions or feelings; rational.
5. characterized by or suggesting a predominance of intellect: an intellectual way of speaking.
–noun 6. a person of superior intellect.
7. a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, esp. on an abstract and general level.
8. an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings.
9. a person professionally engaged in mental labor, as a writer or teacher.
10. intellectuals, Archaic. a. the mental faculties.
b. things pertaining to the intellect
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
