<p>Hopefully great politicians and presidents are guided both by their “emotion and experience” as well as their intellect. </p>
<p>George Bush is not one of them.</p>
<p>Someone who is a true intellectual reflects seriously on the world, respectfully questions authority, and humbly realizes no one can be an expert in everything. Most of the smartest people I know are never to admit when they don’t have any answer. At the same time, they can speak up when they do have more authority and knowledge than other people in an area.</p>
<p>Liz,</p>
<p>You are undoubtedly familiar with the Socratic Method. In its original incarnation it was used for the purpose of debunking “intellectuals” otherwise known as “wise-guys”. Socrates interlocutors in the dialogues, and accusers at his trial, consider themselves intellectuals, one and all. Certainly we can agree on that.
If not, the following will go a long way in clarifying the issue:
<a href=“http://www.jewishmag.com/83mag/socrates/socrates.htm[/url]”>http://www.jewishmag.com/83mag/socrates/socrates.htm</a></p>
<p>My addition to this rogues gallery of self described intellectuals:
- Marx
- Nietzsche
- Marquis de Sade
- Leopold von Sacher-Masoch
- Francis Galton (Darwins beloved cousin and the founder of Eugenics)
- Freud
- Wilson
- Mao Tse-Tung
- Jacques Derrida
- Al Gore (self described “intellectual” and inventor of this very internetin which while using it we all honor him)</p>
<p>However, some very bright men and women were loathe to tolerate the vilification of having being described as an intellectual, lesser men and women like:</p>
<p>Emerson,
Thoreau,
Melville,
Moses,
Jesus,
The Buddha,
Lao Tzu,
Muhammad,
Rabia
Rumi,
Dante,
Theresa
Aquinas,
Chaucer,
Luther,
Calvin,
Wesley,
Shakespeare,
Montaingne,
Descarte,
Goethe,
George Fox,
Elliot,
Rilke,
T. Roosevelt,
Edison,
H. Ford,
Karol Wojtyla,
M Thatcher,
R. Regan. </p>
<p> …of course, none of them ever did anything so significant as to earn such an illustrious sobriquet; like, say, inventing the internet only to go on to be defeated in an election by a c student.</p>
<p>I feel the same way about certain wannabes who wi s t f u lly describe themselves as “hot” 
like Paris Hilton, or…</p>
<p>Regardless of whether they considered themselves to be intellectual, I would consider most of them so, according to the dictionary description. </p>
<p>Your list seems divided along lines of whom you see as good and bad. Being an intellectual doesn’t preclude someone from using their brain for harm. And Ronald Reagan - I don’t think so.</p>
<p>There are scientists, poets, philosophers, artists etc.as above. </p>
<p>Adding the sobriquet “intellectual” to any one of them adds nothing of any substance. We do not distinguish a difference between a “philosopher” and an “intellectual-philosopher” other than to express our pedantic approval of one over another. </p>
<p>In the words of William James, there must be a difference that makes a difference for there to be an actual distinction of “difference.” Clearly, there is nothing added to “scientist” or “Artist” by coupling the disciplines and crafts with the meaningless social distinction of “intellectual.” Unless you believe that by doing so this makes them a member of your exclusive and preferred ideology, which makes them a distinguished member of a club that would have someone like you as a member. </p>
<p>No person of great intellect would differentiate themselves as belonging to a class distinguished by nothing so much as pedantic arrogance.</p>
<p>Fountainsiren’s quote from way up thar,
"I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 members of the Harvard faculty.
William F. Buckley</p>
<p>Ironic that many in the Bush administration are Ivy league educated - It kind of debunks the right wing myth that east coast intellectuals are all liberals. </p>
<p>But that is how the Right Wing noise machine works. Put up a president that looks like the common man and flys in the face of east coast liberals by getting a “C” at Yale while the real men in power, the Ivy league educated intellectuals do all the heavy lifting behind the scenes, invisible to the common man, who would rather listen to Rush Limbaugh than read a real newspaper. </p>
<p>Republicans are banking on a confused and misinformed public to stay in power. They bolster it by attacking the corporately owned media and attacking liberal intellectuals. How else does a presidential approval rating rise in two weeks from a 35 to 40.</p>
<p>What a diabolical plot you seem to have uncovered. Good thing to; the Americans of middling intellect (the majority) could learn a lot from the big brained intellectuals of the Left. Richard Hofstader would be soo proud; like you, he was very put off by this teeming land of Anti-intellectuals (his description of America) and so fond of those cute and cuddly European pontificators.;)</p>
<p>No diabolical plot - just politics as usual in the age of Karl Rove. </p>
<p>What I’m put off by is Your Anti- intellectualism, the anti- intellectualism of the cited article and the Republican manipulation of the majority through disinformation and outright lies.</p>
<p>LOL. Moses, Jesus, the Buddha, Goethe and R. Regan. (We are talking about Ronnie Reagan here? Or did I misunderstand?)</p>
<p>Top of my list for rogues (though it wasn’t entirely his fault) was Adam Smith. He analyzed a unique set of conditions in a small section of northern England from 1750-1776, and because they fit with what he considered to be his “noble sentiments”, ascribed them to the universal economic character of the human race. The funny thing is that the nail was driven into the “free market” even while he was still alive, when George III bought the first cannons from Quaker iron foundries to fight the colonials. The noble “self-interest” of the free market quickly gave way to the “self-interest” of controlling governmental institutions, ensuring that the free market would never be able to operate anywhere in the world ever again. (Just look at what happened to the Indian textile industry under the “free market” if you want the quickest illustration.)</p>
<p>It is now considered bad form (and in some countries illegal) to deny the Holocaust. But denying the two centuries of depradation in the third world - and the hundreds of millions resulting deaths - in the name of the “free market” is now considered de rigeur. </p>
<p>Poor Adam - I don’t think he would have approved.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Simplify, simplify: call it what you claim it is, disinformation and outright lies no sense in gilding that lily with a self satisfied anti-intellectual other than to imply that you and yours are somehow smarter and more finespun than the hoi polloi. </p>
<p>Heard by the night janitor through a closed door deep in the catacombs of the DNC: besides, even if those *^#@> knuckle-dragging Republicans won the election were still the party of intellectuals, g-damit yeah!</p>
<p> [of course they are: my betters are thinking for me] the janitor is now smirking while mopping.</p>
<p>I have no idea what you are saying Fountain Siren.</p>
<p>I would agree that there are some intellectuals who are so caught up in words and theory that they miss the big picture or fail to predict it: they are out of touch with real life experience. I’m sure we can find these individuals on either side of the political spectrum. It’s hypocritical to assume the Democratic party has a corner on out of touch intellectuals but as I said before the Republican party happily reinforces this myth through loud mouthed Rush and Bill.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Liz, thanks for the re-up, I never grow tired of that one.</p>
<p>Fatal loophole-If he’s a scholar, how do we know that the entire premise of his argument isn’t a byproduct of the propensity to be wrong that all intellectuals share? If he’s an intellectual, how can he be right about the fact that intellectuals are wrong?</p>
<p>o person of great intellect would differentiate themselves as belonging to a class distinguished by nothing so much as pedantic arrogance." Fountain Siren</p>
<p>And yet, the label is given to those that think outside of the box, I do not find the word intellectual to be an insult, and in fact, I am proud to be called an intellectual. </p>
<p>There is a differenece between an intellectual and a “knowledge show off” - that is someone who tries to one-up others by throwing around history and names without really thinking through what they are presenting</p>
<p>At least “intellectuals” think, rather than react with fear, at least they look to the future, not just to the moment, at least they generally think of others in their ruminations</p>
<p>Intellectuals have imagination, without that, we are lost</p>
<p>I would rather be led by people with vision and positiveness, rather than fear and intimidation.</p>
<p>Bush- no vision and governs by fear</p>
<p>Kennedy- a man of vision and imagination</p>
<p>I was with you until you tried to turn this into another liberal drumming of Bush and shrine to JFK.</p>
<p>If something is done well, it is not better because the one who did it considers themselves to be an intellectual. If it is done poorly, it is not improved upon its having been pronounced to have been done by an intellectual. </p>
<p>It adds nothing, in real terms, to anything one way or another beyond bloviating pomposity. What it does do is to make someone, as you said of yourself CGM, feel proud to be called an intellectual. The term, to my mind, operates as something of a bait and switch; it is intended to make something, or someone seem more authoritative or keen than they in fact are based on the outcome of their supposed bulging intellects spewing forth the latest academic fashion. It is the term most often applied to the new clergy, who pronounce upon things as intellectuals, not as mere mortals, artisans and grifters. I figure it places you at about the level of Bishop in the new and ephemeral secular clergy however, without tenure such praise raises no particular smarty-pants above the level of deacon. Sorry.</p>
<p>
And what grand body bestowed that honor upon you?</p>
<p>Hey Fountain Siren, thanks for the word of the day “bloviating.” Great word that I was unacquainted with up to now. </p>
<p>Anyway, when I think of strong anti-intellectual sentiment, I can’t help but think worst case scenario, Russia not so very long ago, and China not so very long ago. Very scary thing to be promoting, this anti-intellectualism IMO. However, I think I can get behind the anti-bloviating pompous blowhard movement. Though one person’s bloviating pompous blowhard is another’s hero. So difficult to get a consensus on this. . .</p>
<p>Now, I am outtahere! Shouldn’t have wondered into this thread in the first place. You guys are vicious!</p>