Jump to content

Anti- Intellectualism


oldtimer

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

When we think of Plato, Aristotle and Socrates, we don't conjure up pictures of all the smut and brothels that surrounded them as a functioning part of ancient Greek society.  It's because those other things are, indeed, trivial and not very noteworthy in terms of history.  Same here.  We have some very great things going on as we speak.  These things will make the history books.  The Kardashians will not.  

But wouldn't you say those ancient cultures ultimately ended up failing?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, oldtimer said:

I'm cool with that, but still see a problem with the general culture.  Great societies collapse when cultural aspects become trivial and ignored.  We remember great civilizations by what they leave behind---art, ideas, architecture.  Business  and money can help foster these things, but on their own, as the only pursuits of the people, civilizations will still collapse.  Greed may be good, but it's not that good.

If there is greater greatness to be had, then why not shout louder than the rest about that greater greatness? Art, ideas, and architecture don't seem to be very interesting to most people.....even after exposure to it. The Kardashians gotta have something that people want (despite all the crap that comes along with it). What is it about the Kardashians that other greater aspects of culture are lacking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RT FAN said:

I would agree with the esteemed Isaac Asimov's comment regarding the cult of ignorance in America. To support my assertion I offer as proof the Kardashians. A family so loathsome, that the mother prostituted her daughters in exchange for fame & cash. How is it that these vulgar people are held up as cultural icons in our society? They represent everything wrong in our society and have profited handsomely from it.

  I read somewhere that Kylie crushed the stock price of Snapchat by posting that she doesn't use the platform anymore and that her 25 million social media followers took note. From what I read Snapchat immediately signed her to a contract to use the Snapchat App.

 

 This brought several thoughts ot the forefront.

1.)  How is it possible that 25 million people give a damn about what Kylie says or does? Do they have nothing else in their lives that matters?

 2.) The head of Snapchat must need to keep the price of his stock up to keep his lovely wfe, Miranda Kerr, in dresses, as there is no way she would give him the time of day if he wasn't a 14 standing on his wallet.

 3.) Was this just a clever ploy by momager Kris Jenner to extort a contract out of Snapchat and add to the clan's growing pile of cash? Is she the smartest person in the room, beating a social platform CEO at his own game all the while exploiting the masses for their own benefit?

 

 It saddens me that I even bothered to post this here and perhaps confirmed my own anti-intellectualism. I think I will go listen to my Klipsch speakers.

It saddens me that you had to post this too. It saddens me even more that I read it. You do have some good points, but I hope for humanity's sake that you numbers are exaggerated. I am afraid to google the 25 million stat for fear you are right! I am going to put my head back in the sand now or better yet, follow your lead and crank my Belles

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RT FAN said:

I would agree with the esteemed Isaac Asimov's comment regarding the cult of ignorance in America. To support my assertion I offer as proof the Kardashians. A family so loathsome, that the mother prostituted her daughters in exchange for fame & cash. How is it that these vulgar people are held up as cultural icons in our society? They represent everything wrong in our society and have profited handsomely from it.

  I read somewhere that Kylie crushed the stock price of Snapchat by posting that she doesn't use the platform anymore and that her 25 million social media followers took note. From what I read Snapchat immediately signed her to a contract to use the Snapchat App.

 

 This brought several thoughts ot the forefront.

1.)  How is it possible that 25 million people give a damn about what Kylie says or does? Do they have nothing else in their lives that matters?

 2.) The head of Snapchat must need to keep the price of his stock up to keep his lovely wfe, Miranda Kerr, in dresses, as there is no way she would give him the time of day if he wasn't a 14 standing on his wallet.

 3.) Was this just a clever ploy by momager Kris Jenner to extort a contract out of Snapchat and add to the clan's growing pile of cash? Is she the smartest person in the room, beating a social platform CEO at his own game all the while exploiting the masses for their own benefit?

 

 It saddens me that I even bothered to post this here and perhaps confirmed my own anti-intellectualism. I think I will go listen to my Klipsch speakers.

You are so absolutely correct.  Perfectly stated, thank you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2018 at 2:59 PM, oldtimer said:

It seems we used to have intellectuals on all sides, and they were respected for their thoughts whether agreed or disagreed with.

 

I just happened on this long thread, so others may have raised these points ....

 

I agree with your statement above.  I'm getting the impression we are a bit short of public intellectuals today, and they get precious little respect from people who write in the the comments sections, and sometimes less respect from critics and colleagues who disagree with them.

 

Who -- what kinds of people -- are we considering to be intellectual?    In the brief list below are thinkers, scientists and writers, rather than politicians, etc., although it is possible to be a person of letters and a politician, rare though they are.

 

How many intellectuals do we have on all sides?   Do some sides have just a few?  If a few disappear, would the "side" vanish? 

 

Here are a few who are/were alive in my lifetime, who are/were respected by most of their colleagues, those in the public who were familiar with their work, and also have/had respect for the thoughts of people they disagreed with.  It's no accident that there are so few still living.   I won't characterize the sides, but they should be pretty apparent, and, of course, there are overlaps.

 

Paul Goodman

Noam Chomsky

Eric Fromm

Rollo May

Erik Erikson

Abraham Maslow

A. J. Muste

Michael Harrington

Arthur M. Schlesinger

Betty Friedan

Gloria Steinem

Maya Angelou

Ursula Le Guin 

Richard Feynman

Stephen Hawking

Albert Einstein

William F. Buckley

George Will

Milton Friedman

John Kenneth Galbraith

Martin Buber

Karl Bath

Joseph Campbell

Paul Tillich

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, garyrc said:

Paul Goodman

Noam Chomsky

Eric Fromm

Rollo May

Erik Erikson

Abraham Maslow

A. J. Muste

Michael Harrington

Arthur M. Schlesinger

Betty Friedan

Gloria Steinem

Maya Angelou

Ursula Le Guin 

Richard Feynman

Stephen Hawking

Albert Einstein

William F. Buckley

George Will

Milton Friedman

John Kenneth Galbraith

Martin Buber

Karl Bath

Joseph Campbell

Paul Tillich

 

 I wonder how many of these people owned an Echo, or equivalent ?

 

  Keith

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few factors: Americans have had a long history of what might be termed anti-intellectualism, though I think the term is not quite accurate. Independence of thought and action as well as a mistrust of anything approximating  a class system (as is the underlying structure in Europe), has been a defining characteristic of American culture. There is an ingrained common sense aspect at play.  This temperament along with the very obvious incorrectness and failure of various intellectuals over the years, has maintained a natural skepticism towards such things, more-so than anywhere else in my opinion.

The modern trend to downplay or delegitimize classical western philosophers while at the same time promoting some pretty wobbly political extremist thought that runs counter to what we can see with our own eyes has not helped. For example the 300 “genders” or whatever the figure is up to this week. Popular culture is just that and is nothing new really. It just seems more so. At one point of time those who were interested in such things (intellectual pursuits),  lived and worked with others of a similar bent. With social media and a more mobile lifestyle we encounter more and different people than we would have a few decades ago when people were more likely to remain in one area. Final thought, many philosophers over the centuries have pondered the human condition; as someone once said there is nothing new under the sun.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, YK Thom said:

The modern trend to downplay or delegitimize classical western philosophers while at the same time promoting some pretty wobbly political extremist thought that runs counter to what we can see with our own eyes has not helped.

Absolutely.  It's obvious on far right and far left.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes indeed, the more extreme the view the more extreme the intellectual rationalization to try and back it up or lend credibility. Most people can either straight up see this or at the very least intuit it.

” There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them”

George Orwell

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, yet it is not the intellectuals believing the complete and total crap of today.   It is people even here on this forum, without the curiosity to even cursorily investigate a statement.  As long as it confirms what they already believe, it's good enough.  That's why while I agree with Asimov, I still feel a stronger trend today than say 40 years ago.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I started this thread I thought maybe there were some who already had ideas on the subject.  Instead I was attacked as somehow being "insincere" or not attacked but probed to see what I thought first.  What does that say?  That people need to be led?  Are they the same people who criticize others for not being leaders?  Was Morrison more correct than even he might have believed, that they are all a bunch of sheep?  As I stated before, I have no answers, but questions can help lead to them, much as cincymat suggests.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

When I started this thread I thought maybe there were some who already had ideas on the subject.  Instead I was attacked as somehow being "insincere" or not attacked but probed to see what I thought first.  What does that say?  That people need to be led?  Are they the same people who criticize others for not being leaders?  Was Morrison more correct than even he might have believed, that they are all a bunch of sheep?  As I stated before, I have no answers, but questions can help lead to them, much as cincymat suggests.

Somehow, I am supposed to take from the above that the current situation, as you describe it, is not good and is getting worse.  Let's just suppose people are sheep, as Morrison believed (if he did; I take your word without researching it).  What's wrong with needing to be led?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Somehow, I am supposed to take from the above that the current situation, as you describe it, is not good and is getting worse.  Let's just suppose people are sheep, as Morrison believed (if he did; I take your word without researching it).  What's wrong with needing to be led?

Nothing is wrong with it.  What is wrong is criticizing it when it occurs, then slinking back.  Those that attack without substance, then provide little or nothing to fill the gap are worse than sheep.  They are sheep in wolve's clothing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although you addressed Oldtimer, My view is that nothing has changed, or ever will for that matter. Human nature is human nature. We evolved from and continue as a hierarchical  species. The greatest advancement in free societies is that one’s role is earned ( if desired), rather than inherited as in some cultures both past and present. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, YK Thom said:

The greatest advancement in free societies is that one’s role is earned ( if desired), rather than inherited as in some cultures both past and present. 

Yeah, I think so, too.  The Age of Enlightenment couldn't have come at a better time - namely, juxtaposed to the scientific revolution and industrialization.  I wonder if the latter had anything to do with the transition into "Enlightenment."

 

4 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

I value your comments Jeff, and happy birthday to you a little early too.

Thanks, oldie!  The feeling is mutual.  And, yeah, I'm going to be 50.  Kind of odd, but I don't feel old (I just know I am).

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...