"Intellectuals"

Post Reply New Topic

Murray seems to conflate the "upper class" with the liberal intelligentsia. The "liberal elites" of Cambridge and Palo Alto, Hollywood and the Upper West Side of Manhattan certainly exist; however are hardly typical of wealthy Americans as a whole, most of whom are Republican and are far more likely to be businessmen than intellectuals.

David Frum really demolishes Murray ("social science minus the science"):

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... eview.html

According to the "degree in something useful" theory, this guy is an intellectual:

http://www.examiner.com/article/anti-ab ... n-abortion

I never understood why the "right" uses intellectual as an insult, as if being smart is a bad thing.

Being smart is fine if one becomes something "useful" like an engineer or physician. But as to becoming a philosopher, social scientist or theoretical physicist - as Ronald Reagan said: "Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?"

So philosophers and social scientists aren't useful?

I'm more shocked at "the theoretical physicist" part... Apparently, scientific titans like Newton, Maxwell, Planck, Curie, Einstein, Born, Bohr (Danish ), Schrödinger, Fermi, Heisenberg, Feynman, the Mann.. and the 1st Baron Kelvin himself! have made no useful contributions to humanity??? ... and now I'm just mentioning the ones likely to be known to the public...

I'd be inclined to agree with him on certain parts of the social "sciences" but philosophers such as Kant, Paine, Hobbes, Nietzsche, Plato, Aristotle, and so on have made quite significant contributions to not only systems of government but they laid the foundation for modern morality. They also cut swats through religion which helped enable us to grow out from the dark ages.

Plus, Reagan seriously? Could no less intellectual man be found, his presidential accomplishments can be summed up as being zoloft for a depressed American people, and coming up with the brilliant idea of using a credit card to pay for everything. I swear to a non-existing god, some people should be beaten with a copy of "The Rights of Man".

Maxwell, Curie, and Newton were also experimental physicists. In the modern era, theoretical physicists are the only famous physicists. I can't even name a single experimental physicist. But even the general public knows of guys like Hawking, Feynman, Kaku, Einstein, etc.. all theoretical. But theoretical physics seems to be bogged down now by things like String Theory, and now experimental physics is becoming more relevant again with things like the LHC, WMAP, etc.. Theoretical physics is kind of stalled out right now and needs experimental physics to back it up.

i cant wait for the extreme light infrastructure to be completed.

How about this gal? I consider her a serious candidate for a future Nobel prize... Her work is seriously in the WTF??? category...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lene_Hau

Yeah, they still win Nobel Prizes quite often, but they are rarely in the public eye for some reason. I mean, even totally unaccomplished theoretical guys like De Grasse Tyson are some of the most famous scientists, and the average Joe thinks of him as elite. While Nobel winning experimental guys and girls are nobody and nobody is interested in them. I think the theorists are better at selling themselves and have more "personality".

Apparently there is a confusion here. I am myself not making these comments about "useless" degrees - but rather talking about anti-intellectualism on the political right that is for education only for a direct practical application.

That kind of anti-intellectualism - that certain subjects, such as philosophy, serve no practical purpose - can also be found amongst people of a more liberal or socialist persuasion, such as my parents and various Irish relatives. However, there is a further kind of anti-intellectualism, which I believe will grow more prevalent during these economic times. I have noticed that, on forums that evince conspiracy theories (such as David Icke Forums), social-activist message boards and newspapers with a more, let's say, "irascible" audience (i.e. the Daily Mail), there is a grave but not entirely unjustified suspicion of prominent intellectuals. Notable philosophers, scientists, journalists and writers (etc.) are perceived to be representatives of an oppressive elite who scorn, villify and patronize the ordinary peoples. This assessment is usually made by virtue of their patrician ancestry - although, even if they come from a working-class background, like Roger Scruton does, they are assumed to be "born into the purple" regardless, especially if they have a posh accent - and/or where they were educated (e.g. if they went to private school and Oxbridge). Sometimes, but only sometimes, they are criticized by virtue of what they actually say about the general populace, such as the case of Eric J. Hobsbawm. But if they are not criticized in that particular matter, they are often seen as overly-pedantic fuddy-duddies who stand aloof from the "real" problems of the world, or cerebral cloud-dwellers who are incapable of expressing themselves in an earthly manner. Often, I will see a remark on the internet such as "They don't know what it's like to have a real job", "They have no experience of real life" or "They don't know what it's like for the rest of us!". These are not impertinent criticisms (see the tale of the death of Thales or try to read any works by Adorno) and I have utilized them on occassion, since I am not completely divorced from scepticism towards certain intellectuals (and I do not exclude myself from such criticisms either).

Thus, the reputation of subjects such as science, psychology and philosophy, or any other intellectual pursuit, suffer because of their association with "elite" figureheads. It's not a rational appraisal by any means but it seems that measuring truth (or value) by association, and not by virtue of pertinent qualities, is proving to be a popular past-time amongst those who are casually interested in the world's affairs. Reductio ad Hitlerum arguments are an excellent example of this.

And as the economies grow worse, society will become increasingly fissiparous: resentment towards the amoral elite classes grows stronger and, consequently, the promotion of "ordinary values", so-called "common sense" and "right sentiment" also gains further potency, all of which are placed in direct opposition to the "intellectual" values and subjects associated with the oppressors. There will be a greater affirmation of a dichotomy between an "elite" and the "ordinary peoples", each with their respective values and subjects of interest.

Here is an example of what I've been talking about. Recently, A. N. Wilson wrote an article (click here) in the Daily Mail about Eric J. Hobsbawm. The crime committed by the latter was that he once expressed his contempt for the "suburban petty bourgeosie", which Wilson equates with a hatred of "ordinary people". Anyway, having succeeded in kindling the already incendiary fire, Wilson's article acted as the catalyst for certain comments that clearly demonstrate the kind of 'anti-intellectualism' - including the resentment of the 'elite' and the advocation of 'ordinary values' - that I was talking about (as well as the subsidary notion that England would be better off with 'down-to-earth' Northerners running the country):











If I found the time, I would pull out comments from other articles. I realise that these are Daily Mail readers and not wholly indicative of the attitudes of the entire nation, but it is a popular newspaper after all and the above comments seem to be approved by hundreds of people who 'vote' on them. It is not folly to suggest that this is indicative of a growing "folk philosophy"; at the very least, the language quite clearly conveys a firm dichotomy in minds of the authors: the "elite" and the "ordinary" people. Just so you know that I have not confined my efforts to one paper, I have found a lot of similar comments on the Guardian website and also in the Telegraph. Even in papers with opposing ideologies, you will find a common world-view - at its most basic level - amongst their readers (i.e. oppressors vs. subjugated masses), a matter I will touch on another time.

Of course, this is not to mention the innumerable conspiracy forums who believe that every prominent intellectual (even Richard Dawkins and Neil Armstrong) is either a pedophile and/or a Freemason, and that practices such as numerology are viable ways of interpreting the world. I even saw one poster (called Anders) say: "There is no such thing as coincidences", which is rather convenient for those who like to "connect-the-dots" (a fashionable phrase on such forums) without the burden of giving solid proof. And I confess that I've engaged with people on forums such as Stormfront and David Icke, and it is rather telling how quite a number of members - I remember the very same "Anders" making acerbic remarks on this matter - are vehement against those who ask for "proof": that cornerstone of the scientific method. In such surroundings, even methodology falls under suspicion. Other remarkable comments that I've found on White Nationalist forums are those who opine on grave injustices, such as the restriction placed on publically generalizing about entire groups. Generalization is fine, as long as one acknowledges it to be an evolutionary instinct, but it is not a viable way of understanding the world. One member said, "We should have the freedom to generalize" and then said person accused me of "Jew logic" when I said otherwise. This can also be seen as a form of "anti-intellectualism" because it displays a creeping anatagonism towards a fundamental principle of intellectual pursuit: do not brazenly generalize, even if your findings are based on observation and direct experience! Scientists once declared "All swans are white!" until they discovered black swans. But I suspect that their frustration towards certain intellectual methods and principles is that they frustrate their efforts when trying to promote their theories. I also think they are employing truth (and value) by association again. I would lay my argument for this in a formal manner, but I am too sleepy now.

There is a more venerable tradition of anti-intellectualism, which can be found in the East, but I will go into that in another post. I am currently tired and I need my sleep.

Last edited by NolleProsequi on 02 Nov 2012, 1:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think it was quite common for British left-liberal intellectuals to refer to Margaret Thatcher (disparagingly) as the grocer's daughter.

Yes anti-intellectualism can be found all over society and across the political spectrum, though it's more common among parties of the right than among centrist, left or socialist parties generally.

You're right about the conspiracy theorists like David Icke who are a weird mixture of far left and far right. Conspiracy theorists are almost by definition anti-intellectual. Having a degree or expertise makes one suspect - and training merely makes you a mouthpiece for the Powers That Be. Of course these people heap scorn on experts and intellectuals because they overwhelmingly disagree with them - but at the same tie they want to be recognized and the rare "dissident" is cited as proof of their correctness, whether it be an engineer who questions the 9/11 official story, a scientist who denies the HIV/AIDS link, etc.

This is true, but the most infuriating thing about these dopes is that they think they are the the intellectuals and we are the non introspective sheep. Like they are the only ones intelligent and capable enough of seeing through the lies. The rest of us just have an uninquisitive nature and are too stupid, and too loyal to an evil authority that has us brainwashed, to get it.