are you anti-intellectual? (Japanese, looking, celebrate, issues)
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.
As to my post I think people are reacting defensively to some perceived anti Americanism or pro-Russian sentiment which was not there on my part. I was trying to convey something far broader, apparently I failed. Or.....
As to my post I think people are reacting defensively to some perceived anti Americanism or pro-Russian sentiment which was not there on my part. I was trying to convey something far broader, apparently I failed. Or.....
Nothing defensive about it. If you point at a pair of pants that are blue, and say, "Why look at the nice orange pants," then we're going to point out that there's a perception issue.
I think that's a very misleading standard. (By the way, I disagree with you about Rand. I don't think she epitomizes intellectualism any more than Lysenko epitomizes excellence in scientific thought, but that's besides the point; to each his own.) Anyway, what if you were to compare literacy rates, instead? Would you come to the same conclusion? And -- any book written before the 1900's, really? Are you sure? Lots of stupid trash was being printed in the 18th and 19th centuries. This was the time when the dime novel genre originated and thrived. In fact, great writers of those eras make references to dime novels in their works all the time. (Just check out Madame Bovary, for example.) Just because all these fly-by-night books didn't make it into the Library of Congress doesn't mean they didn't exist at one time. In fact, they still exist. Check out vintage books sales sometime, you'll be surprised. The Days of Yore were not all Shakespeare and Byron, you know.
Perhaps more trashy books are being printed today, but it's not necessarily because society today is "dumber" than before the 1900's. There are other factors to consider. For one, the literacy rate is greater today, so there is a greater demand for printed material, including pulp fiction. So the million-dollar question you have to ask yourself is this: Which kind of society is more intellectual -- the one where 30% of the population is illiterate and doesn't read anything at all, and another 20% reads trash on a regular basis, or the one where almost everyone can read, and 50% of the population reads trash? Other factors affecting the proliferation of trashy books: expanding population and lower printing costs.
Redisca, I fully understand your point and you bring up some very interesting points.
In regards to literacy rates, well, 100+ years ago it was not much of a requirement as it is today. People worked on farms and grew there own food but irrespective of that fact, (that many were illiterate) they were still very well rounded and knew lots of general things.
For example they could make there own clothes, build or add an extension to there own house; and raise, kill and prepare there own livestock to eat. How many "literate" people do you know can do that today; you know, live on there own?
As a matter of fact, we are more depended on Government and big business more then ever before for our basic needs and I guarantee you if the semi trucks stop running despite the fact that most of us are "literate" thousands of "literate" people will starve or freeze to death.
I could go further and agruge that most people don't utilize there ability to read because if they did read the average person would read more then one book per year, they would be a lot more healthier because they would read there food labels, and they would not take mass flu/h1n1 inoculations because they would read about what the vaccine is composed of.
Secondly, the issue should not about how many people in the general populous can read but about the quality of the education and the quality of the material they are reading.
Today's educational system lacks quality along with the fact that is grossly out of date and now that (like another poster said) big pharm is pushing mind altering drugs to little children the issue will only get worse.
In regards to literacy rates, well, 100+ years ago it was not much of a requirement as it is today. People worked on farms and grew there own food but irrespective of that fact, (that many were illiterate) they were still very well rounded and knew lots of general things. For example they could make there own clothes, build or add an extension to there own house; and raise, kill and prepare there own livestock to eat. How many "literate" people do you know can do that today; you know, live on there own?
Those are admirable skills to have, but having them does not make one an intellectual. Intellectualism refers to the scholastic pursuit of advanced academic disciplines. Farming is not, usually, an intellectual endeavor. Also, increased literacy, required or not, explains at least in part the increased number of "trashy" books being in print.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morphous01
As a matter of fact, we are more depended on Government and big business more then ever before for our basic needs and I guarantee you if the semi trucks stop running despite the fact that most of us are "literate" thousands of "literate" people will starve or freeze to death.
Our basic needs have become rather upgraded, too. As to whether or not we "need" intellectuals in order to merely survive (as that seems to be the point of what you are saying) -- I'll grant you that familiarity with quantum physics probably will not enable one to survive out in the wilderness. But then, so what? We are an advanced, wealthy, industrialized society that can look for fulfillment beyond mere survival. Is that a bad thing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morphous01
I could go further and agruge that most people don't utilize there ability to read because if they did read the average person would read more then one book per year, they would be a lot more healthier because they would read there food labels, and they would not take mass flu/h1n1 inoculations because they would read about what the vaccine is composed of.
Vaccines are full of awful stuff, I agree. Doesn't matter, though. Even if you can read the label, you still have to have you kid vaccinated, it's the law. That's what you get when you allow pharmaceutical companies to lobby the legislature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morphous01
Secondly, the issue should not about how many people in the general populous can read but about the quality of the education and the quality of the material they are reading.
Those are admirable skills to have, but having them does not make one an intellectual. Intellectualism refers to the scholastic pursuit of advanced academic disciplines. Farming is not, usually, an intellectual endeavor.
If that's the case, then explain to me why farming is taught at a regular collages?
Regardless, farming is an intellectual (it's a science just like baking) endeavor; it's called agriculture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
Our basic needs have become rather upgraded, too. As to whether or not we "need" intellectuals in order to merely survive (as that seems to be the point of what you are saying) -- I'll grant you that familiarity with quantum physics probably will not enable one to survive out in the wilderness. But then, so what? We are an advanced, wealthy, industrialized society that can look for fulfillment beyond mere survival. Is that a bad thing?
Just because people live above there means and have striped toothpaste and cell phones does not make them an "advanced" society.
Out of 6 billion people alive it's really only a relatively small amount of people who get to take advantage of all this wealth. What, it's some 10% of the population that controls all the wealth?
As a matter of fact, because of our lack of regard for others and because we have become overly industrialized the world is now on a fast track to self destruction via pollution, wars and selective mass genocide (e.g. Aids).
If you want to talk about advanced cultures lets go back to the pre dynastic period of ancient Kemet (Greeks called it Egypt) which was the beacon light for the world.
For example, have you studied the Egyptian megalithic architecture? They are astronomically aligned perfectly with the stars in the sky! Furthermore, to this day, we still can not figure out how they moved these extremely heavy stones to there pinpoint accurate positions! It's simply amazing.
So my point is, we are not advanced; we are living in whats called civilized barbarism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
Vaccines are full of awful stuff, I agree. Doesn't matter, though. Even if you can read the label, you still have to have you kid vaccinated, it's the law. That's what you get when you allow pharmaceutical companies to lobby the legislature.
I don't understand your logic Redisca? You say, "Vaccines are full of awful stuff" but yet it does not matter? Huh?
This is not an attack at you Redisca, but No, I don't haft to have my child (if I had one) vaccinated nor will I take any vaccines! I'm not livestock or a piece of meat that gets poked and injected with foreign microbes and various neurotoxins!
Secondly, laws are always passed irrespective of what "the people" say and anybody with a brain knows that. Voting, running for office, and all the other stuff that goes along with it is just a ploy to make people think they have power but they really don't.
I remember there was a overwhelming cry from "the people" to not pass the bail out for wall street but they did it anyway!
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” -Joseph Stalin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
Any education is better than no education at all.
If we are talking about physical fitness then you would be right, but we are talking about knowledge which is different because people make decisions that effect there own lives and others based on the current knowledge they have.
So in other words, we are all walking computers, and we all use downloaded programs to navigate though life.
So with that being said, regardless of the amount of education a person has they could be walking around with the wrong program (education).
Last edited by Morphous01; 08-28-2009 at 09:24 PM..
Perhaps the people groan when she speaks because they know it will bore them as they can't understand her message. Most News Papers will write to a sixth grade reading level because they know anything more than that will lose readers.
I personally think of my self as well read and having a pretty good vocabulary but, I did have one manager that was so verbose with his erudite vocabulary that I really had to strain to pick up his message and it was a waste of my time to listen. Everyone else had the same opinion.
Really, this was a "rule" I dumped in .03 seconds when I became the editor of a small family of newspapers. I was trained as an educator (English), and I categorically refuse to dumb anything down. When the literary quality of our publications went up noticeably, so did our subscriptions and readership. So did our reader participation, in terms of letters and dialogue. We began to win regional and state press association awards, which in turn induced more people to subscribe, which in turn induced more people to advertise. This created a situation where a small community paper was doing incredibly well, which is certainly a point of pride given that our paper individually was doing much better than the industry overall.
"People won't read it unless it's dumbed down" is a fallacy. Dumb people don't read newspapers no matter how remedially written they are. The bulk of newspaper readership is by literate people who actually enjoy when the publication isn't written at elementary grade level. Your publication does better when it's better-written. It does worse when it's more poorly written. End of story.
I don't work in publishing or journalism anymore, I returned to education. I STILL don't patronize people by modifying the way I speak and dumbing it down. If my students don't understand something I'm saying, I TEACH it to them, and then they understand (I teach disabled students, students who MOST people talk down to, and I refuse to do that). Learning a new word never hurt anybody. I believed that when I worked in newspapers, and it served me fine. I definitely believe it now, working in education.
The thing that's most vomit-worthy and appalling is how many EDUCATORS will look to a well-spoken person and not have a clue what that person is talking about (and, cringe-worthily enough, mock the person for daring to sound educated and intelligent). Scary.
Really, this was a "rule" I dumped in .03 seconds when I became the editor of a small family of newspapers. I was trained as an educator (English), and I categorically refuse to dumb anything down. When the literary quality of our publications went up noticeably, so did our subscriptions and readership. So did our reader participation, in terms of letters and dialogue. We began to win regional and state press association awards, which in turn induced more people to subscribe, which in turn induced more people to advertise. This created a situation where a small community paper was doing incredibly well, which is certainly a point of pride given that our paper individually was doing much better than the industry overall.
"People won't read it unless it's dumbed down" is a fallacy. Dumb people don't read newspapers no matter how remedially written they are. The bulk of newspaper readership is by literate people who actually enjoy when the publication isn't written at elementary grade level. Your publication does better when it's better-written. It does worse when it's more poorly written. End of story.
I don't work in publishing or journalism anymore, I returned to education. I STILL don't patronize people by modifying the way I speak and dumbing it down. If my students don't understand something I'm saying, I TEACH it to them, and then they understand (I teach disabled students, students who MOST people talk down to, and I refuse to do that). Learning a new word never hurt anybody. I believed that when I worked in newspapers, and it served me fine. I definitely believe it now, working in education.
The thing that's most vomit-worthy and appalling is how many EDUCATORS will look to a well-spoken person and not have a clue what that person is talking about (and, cringe-worthily enough, mock the person for daring to sound educated and intelligent). Scary.
Wow! I like the way you write. I wish you were my teacher.
In recent times, American culture mistakenly equates being uneducated and/or unintelligent with being "humble". Somehow a person who has any knowledge of anything and dares to express it is deemed arrogant or a know-it-all. It's really scary how acting dumb is considered "cute" and "charming". The airhead and meathead are celebrated because they are entertaining. Somehow this is seen as "down to earth".
Of course, intellectual pursuits have almost always been associated with being nerdy and/or elitist. There's definitely people who have an elitist attitude and feel they are superior for all their intellectualism, but the distaste for these types has spread to the rejection of anyone who ventures to discuss anything out of the realm of reality TV, sports, and he-said she-said talk. I guess thinking ruins all the fun .
There's also an obsession with practicality above the abstract, theoretical and conceptual. There's much value to the latter as it involves analysis and broadening your perspective, but because it bores many people and isn't directly related to material and social success and isn't immediately practical, it's rejected as a waste of time. Everything has to be so simple and linear or it's invalidated as irrelevant.
Anti-intellectualism is basically a reverse snobbery.
I've been "insulted" with the term "book smart". The idea is that I know a lot of facts, how to work with numbers, how to put words together well, but I don't have much skill in the application side. I can tell you all about HOW a motor runs, but I can't tear one apart and put it back together. I can give you the basic rundown on what a plant needs to grow, but it doesn't mean I can grow my own.
Knowing just for the sake of knowing isn't enough--you have to know how to DO something useful with that knowledge.
I live in a building full of ordinary, uneducated, ignorant people who really got ticked at me for reading in the sun on the patio, instead of sitting with them to gossip and swap recipes. That passed finally and I automatically dumb down when talking to them because it saves time not having to explain everything. I can appreciate their good points and they can appreciate mine. We now leave intellect out of it.
I still read on the patio, by the way.
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.
