The ANTI-INTELLECTUAL: a Menace and a Hypocrite. [Part III.]

Let's return now to this boring question of the "function" of the "intellectual", as represented by an intellectual who seems to hate his fellows:


"Those whose careers are built on the creation and dissemination of ideas — the intellectuals — have played a role in many societies out of all proportion to their numbers. Whether that role has, on balance, made those around them better off or worse off is one of the key questions of our times.


The quick answer is that intellectuals have done both. But certainly, during the 20th century, it is hard to escape the conclusion that intellectuals have on balance made the world a worse and more dangerous place. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the 20th century was without his supporters, admirers, or apologists among the leading intellectuals — not only within his own country, but in foreign democracies, where intellectuals were free to say whatever they wanted.

... intellectuals are people whose end products are intangible ideas, and they are usually judged by whether those ideas sound good to other intellectuals or resonate with the public. Whether their ideas turn out to work — whether they make life better or worse for others — is another question entirely."
So: who are YOU to decide that to be true?

How best to deconstruct this? Let's begin here with the obvious: "Whether their ideas turn out to work — whether they make life better or worse for others — is another question entirely."

Yet who here will determine what is "better"? Who'll determine what is "worse"? By whose assessment? Aristotle's? Nietzsche's? Sartre's? Camus's? Perhaps it's that belonging to the writer, Sowell. *That* would seem to be preliminary as a question to that "other question", if we're to be clear in the evaluation. Yet is it "entirely" another question? Not at all, for, clearly, if we're to *determine* whether something "works" within the realm of *intellect*, the question which we seek to answer is not separate from those "intangible ideas" nor their "sound" before those "other intellectuals" or with "the public". Only if we might *assume* that Sowell is himself "anointed" to determine what the Good Life is -- an age-old question in itself -- can we subordinate *all thought*, including that of "intellectuals" and members of "the public", to *his* standards.

It's because the CONCEPT of "somebody else's" money is the fabrication of an ego, and you cannot *earn* things with the sole intent of "keeping" them, since that invalidates the virtue of your having *earned* them. This is *why*, if you do not live *up* to that ideal, it must be *taken from you*. (Just how old ARE you?)

Who'd support him? Clearly *not* a "libertarian" who feels entitled to express his views without much consequence to his own brand or person. Yet should Sowell think to *parrot* such a "libertarian's" ideals, perhaps that "libertarian" would be convinced that, truly, this is not another "concept" in the realm of Intellect *but rather* Truth Itself, so much so that a witch-hunt against "intellectuals" (and intellect itself, I am afraid) would feel appropriate.

Regarding "danger": Has the World become more dangerous? Perhaps, though not by way of intellect alone, and "danger" in itself is not an evil necessarily. Yet "Better"? If, in order for it to be "better", we should lose the right to question "better" or to call upon the wisdom of those elders who *have* questioned it, then this is surely the philosophy of those same dictatorial apologists whom Sowell would "oppose". By his own definition, *he's* the danger, and to read his book would be a big mistake, a question of I.Q., like baiting someone who believes himself to be a genius by painting doors upon a wall and saying that the smartest man alive will be the one to open it.

**[({R.G.)}]**


**This Page has been Optimized for Discord.**

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

First Response to Hazmat: Absolutist Ethics.

Image
Yes: I value the opinions of others, insofar as I can vouch for their integrity. Yet that requires that they fervently believe that what they say is true, that they can stand beside it, put it into practice, and uphold it as a sacred principle, as though it were a Higher Power which compelled them. It thus follows that, so long as an opinion is valid, one must validate it not by merely practicing that view within one’s own life, but by holding others to it. One cannot impose morality on anyone, because morality is binding on us all, in equal measure, and one’s only burden is to fathom it, to the extent one can, and to uphold it. That is not an imposition; it’s an obligation, and, without it, we have nothing. You once asked me: “At what point is it an evil to impose one’s views of righteousness on someone else?” I’ll answer with the obvious: at no point, whatsoever, since it is impossible. Where Righteousness is what’s at stake, one can’t “impose on someone else”, as though one posed a
Read more

Justice for R. Kelly: a Reflection on the State of Eros. (Dedicated to the Lady Jerri.)

  I've been reading, recently, about the life of Robert Kelly, whom you'd recognize from *Space Jam*'s soundtrack, the "Ignition" remix, and his many other hits, such as "Trapped in the Closet". It just breaks my heart to see how he was treated, not just as a child who had to grow up much too fast, but also as an adult, even after having given us such heartfelt, soulful music. I could never reconcile those sweet and sentimental, loving, sometimes mystifying tones with the entire image of a sex offender; he was a Don Juan, but not Don Giovanni.   Clearly, that same mainstream media that made him famous had betrayed him, while the legal system, which was never there for him when he himself most needed and deserved it, in the tenderness of youth, went well beyond its obligations in defence of "children". The hypocrisy is not the part which angers me, as it is so ironic that it's laughable, and that alleviates some of the sadness of this gr
Read more

The Early Death of Any Future Peace:

  The biggest problem with the issue of abortion seems, at first, to be that no one wants to talk about it *as* a controversial issue. All the major arguments which either “side” reiterates have been around for roughly half a century at least, and we have made no progress in resolving them in the last forty years. This does not stop idealogues from acting like the matter’s settled and that *their* side won, however.   Yet beyond the moderate, “politically correct” and “civil” surface of the issue lies the deeper issue: Hardly anybody wants to talk about abortion *in itself*, and those who advocate for “choice” (and, by extension, for abortion, as it has to be a choice) are those least willing to discuss *the act itself* and whether it is good or evil to commit.   Instead, we hear from advocates for “choice” a slew of beautiful ideals, impassioned speeches, and redundant platitudes: -    the value of one’s bodily autonomy, -    the need for women to receive protection in a m
Read more