Earth to intellectuals

Parent Cafe
41

<p>Intellectual or anti-intellectual, I don’t have a lot of patience for people who repeat lies about those they consider to be “the other side” without bothering to check whether they’re true or not, even when they’ve been repeatedly and publicly debunked. FountainSiren, the internet was the product of government (i.e. taxpayer-funded) research projects authorized by Congress. This is what Al Gore said about it:

See anything there about “inventing the internet?” …hmm, hmmm, no? No. The scientists who did invent the key components of the internet do credit Gore with pushing the project in Congress. Yeah, he’s blowing his own horn, like every politician ever born. But Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet and your repetition of that well-debunked cheap shot does not ennoble you.</p>

42

<p>Mstee,
Thanks for speaking up! Your thoughts are appreciated.</p>

43

<p>“anti-intellectual” is the catchphrase to show a contempt for book-learning or other reality-based constructs. Bush is downright proud that he doesn’t read books and keeps people who disagree with him out of his bubble. The s.o.b. is so thin-skinned that he seldom makes appearances anywhere the audience is unlikely to be friendly or pre-screened.</p>

44

<p>Kluge,</p>

<p>I don’t doubt that your chivalrous defense of Al Gore was heartfelt. I was almost moved. It’s good to know that there are still those who stand up for the little guy, the underdog and, of course, the pontificating blowhard. I don’t expect that you will be turning these skills upon the stretching of the truth perpetrated here by your intellectual accomplices and fellow travelers when directed in the other, leeward, direction. This is perhaps an ability possessed by intellectuals that most of us dull-normals simply lack… to be so discriminating.</p>

<p>Al Gore is a pontificating blowhard—he’s not to be faulted for what he can’t help. I therefore offer my laughing condolences. </p>

<p>something else I learned in this thread:
clearly an intellectual has no use for the sense of humor employed by the common rabble.</p>

45

<p>The internet was invented and developed by DARPA. All of the key components were developed in the 1960s and the first major demonstration, including email, took place in 1972. By 1985, the internet was in wide spread use by many different communities including federal labs, universities, and many corporations. </p>

<p>Al Gore was elected to Congress in 1976. In 1988, a National Research Council committee, chaired by Kleinrock and with Kahn and Clark as members, produced a report commissioned by NSF titled “Towards a National Research Network”. This report was influential on then Senator Al Gore, and ushered in high speed networks that laid the networking foundation for the future information superhighway.</p>

<p>I see nothing in this where Al Gore “took the initiative in creating the Internet.”</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml[/url]”>http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

46

<p>Ahh…what a warm thread this is! I for one was not aware that common rabble had descended on an Ivy League institution, nor that they had appointed a singular spokeperson to enlighten the masses on the undue burden that is rational thinking. Then again, I suppose some might prefer to frolic in the playground of demagogy, outside the surly shackles of reality. What matters is hearing the answer you want to hear, not getting bogged down in silly technicalities like what Al Gore might have actually said :P.</p>

<p>I remember once, long ago, conservatives used to deplore “class warfare.” I guess that went the way of fiscal responsibility, small government, and sanity in the GOP.</p>

<p>And a linky for bandit<em>TX: <a href=“http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5”>http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;10/wiggins/&lt;a href=“I%20hope%20it%20wasn’t%20done%20by%20an%20intellectual,%20but%20meaningless%20pejoratives%20are%20tad%20difficult%20to%20verify.”>/url</a></p>

47

<p>TheDad, </p>

<p>I think Harries has a point here. The ‘intellectuals’ that he is referring to are probably the western talking heads, mostly leftists, who are too stuck up on discussing fashionable talking point ideas (Bush, WMD, Guantanamo, gay priesthood, environment), and too intimidated to talk about root causes.</p>

<p>As Habermas has lamented - the discourse is too much all about the superstructure, and too little about the underlying foundational issues.</p>

48

<p>

</p>

<p>I take back what I said about intellectuals lacking a sense of humor; I’ve been proved wrong.—it’s all linguistic! </p>

<p>BP, that one was a real tuck and roll…so says the rabble.</p>

<p>Although, I do wonder if this means I’ll have to indulge the “technicalities” of what you wrote—‘cause gettin’ all intellectual would kinda kill the best part of your joke</p>

<p>…………ha!ha! I just read it again without the technical analysis—it’s still d a m n funny BP! </p>

<p>EDIT:
[ouch! that reference to Habermas just killed my buzz. Talk about the Theory of Communitive [in]Action is a real buzz-kill in these parts. If anybody else mentions Derrida, Foucault or Adorno I think I’ll never laugh again]</p>

49

<p>

</p>

<p>Unless “intellectuals” are something completely different from intellectuals, I fail to see how Washington’s decison to relinquish power separated him from the “intellectuals.”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Most, if not all, of those people were undoubtedly intellectuals, whether self-described or not. It is entirely irrelevant to the nature of their ideas that they considered themselves intellectuals (whether or not they did, I do not know). Nietzsche was no friend of the scholarly tradition. Your assessment of their relative quality as contributors to society does not say anything about intellectuals as a whole.</p>

<p>Some of the ‘good’ people you mentioned were undoubtedly intellectuals, regardless of their or your opinion of that label. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Scientists, poets, philosophers, and artists are all generally grouped within the category of intellectuals. “intellectual-philosopher” is as reduntant as “human-man.” I can demonstrate my preferences with any terminology. I can assert that a painting is not good enough to be art or that a body of ideas is not profound enough to be a philosophy. So it is with the term ‘intellectual.’</p>

<p>The article contrasts weak, conformist ‘intellectuals’ with such heroes as Eisenhower and Orwell. Either the latter two were part of the ignorant rabble so hatefully scorned by the occupants of ivory towers, or the term ‘intellectual’ is used merely as a label for all who present a viewpoint unfavorable to that of the author.</p>

50

<p>So then, all poets are intellectuals? I could pop off a good dozen or so who would find this insulting. Artists too. Hey, this one might ring a bell: “Art, isn’t that a man’s name”. </p>

<p>Nice try, though.</p>

<p>Oh yeah, “conformist intellectuals”, those huh?</p>

51

<p>HEdson, I don’t know which “root causes” you are referring to but the swaggering “intellectual” analysis of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et alia of that ilk is akin to analysis extracted from a poorly drawn cartoon that uses stick figures.</p>

<p>That group understands the Rubik’s Cube of religion, ethnicity, economics, and politics virtually not at all and shut out even their own people who could have told them a thing or three. Instead, they look at the world as a mapboard upon which they can move around their cardboard chits representing military units with smug satisfaction.</p>

<p>If Evil is the absence of knowledge, that crew has a good start.</p>

52

<p>Thanks for the history lesson BlackPenguin. I was a beta tester for most of the technology from the mid 1970’s through current technology.</p>

53

<p>I don’t know that I’ve ever found anyone who’s called themselves an “intellectual” all that interesting, engaging, or intelligent. It’s normally the people who would be embarrassed to slap such an arrogant label on themselves who are the real gems.</p>

54

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, I assert that all poets are intellectuals. They use thought and reflection in producing their work. If monkeys on typewriters reproduced Shakespeare, I would not consider that legitimate poetry. You seem to be using a far more constrained defenition for the word ‘intellectual,’ though. There is a difference between people who are educated and intelligent and those who are elitist and pedantic. Apparently, use reserve that label only for the latter category.</p>

55

<p>

That’s because only someone in the later category uses such an ostentatious gloss to decorate their reputation—caking on the rouge and lipstick of erudition…each and everyone an unabashed rococo Brahmin. That’s why there is only one category of “intellectuals” worth the spanking: the cackling, cosmetic kind. </p>

<p>

Bad example:</p>

<p>Shakespeare was quite the opposite and was called an anti-intellectual, repeatedly, by the other more “erudite” playwrights of his day, like the Oxford educated Robert Greene and Thomas Nashe who repeatedly referred to Shakespeare as “unlearned” and “the most unlearned of all.” Greene derisively labeled Shakespeare a “countrey-Author.”</p>

<p>You see, Shakespeare was not a member of the smart-guy-intellectual club. He just wrote great poems and plays. So much the worse for the greatest writer in the English language.</p>

56

<p>

</p>

<p>I believe that there is a term for such people: pseudo-intellectuals. Self-promotion is not a trait inherent to intellectualism. And although I do not like self-promotion, if Einstein had called himself brilliant, he would have been justified. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The opinions of Shakespeare’s contemporaries are irrelevant. It is undenaible that he was, indeed, a learned, intelligent man. That’s an intellectual. Whether one is or is not an intellectual does not depend upon his self-importance or his popularity among others.</p>

57

<p>FountainSIren- being an intellectual yourself, why do you find the term so deragotory</p>

<p>And even if you don’t call yourself an intellectual, your posts show otherwise</p>

<p>And do a little research on Shakespeare. If he was not a learned man, how in the world would he have made the references he did, the allusions to history, figures, etc.</p>

<p>Why the problem with the being an intellectual, as if study, observation, making connections, dreaming, having vision, not just taking what if told to one as fact, why the fear of knowledge</p>

<p>FS- as one who loves learning, knowledge, research, etc, you seem want to put down others that do as well</p>

<p>Why are you so interested in demonzing the word “intellectual” as if learning is bad</p>

<p>I could say the same for the word liberal, Christian, Homosexual-Gay, etc</p>

<p>Calling me an Intellectual does not offend me, as much as FS would like the word to be offensive, calling me Liberal does not either</p>

<p>I find them compliments</p>

58

<p>

This thread seems to argue otherwise.</p>

<p>

So is it an “ism” then? </p>

<p>

Shakespeare lived in a day when most established writers either attended Oxford or Cambridge, Shakespeare did not. He had a good education as a boy in Stratford (through 15) but beyond that he learned on his own—in the world, not in the academy. Those happy to call themselves intellectuals in his own day wasted a great deal of their energy reminding Shakespeare that he was no intellectual, both in print and in the backrooms (think, internet). I believe Shakespeare was happy enough to be William Shakespeare–he likely saw such Oxbridge intellectuals, raving on about their intellects and educations, as blowhards…I believe I would have felt the same way. Moving along into the 21st century…nothing has changed: blowhards still.</p>

59

<p>Like FS, I’m gonna step out on a limb and decry arrogance, pomposity, and selfishness. In fact, I’m gonna go further and take a stand against all things bad and off-putting. Of course, to the extent that FS believes that everyone in the academy exhibits these qualities, I’ll have to withdraw my support, since, as I said, I hate arrgoance and pomposity, which are at the core of such dismissive generalizations.</p>

60

<p>What I am getting from Fountainsiren is that she (he?) equates intellectualism with arrogance, building oneself up and putting others down. Am I right Fountainsiren? Is Fountainsiren willing to allow that many do not define intellectuals/intellectualism in such a way?</p>