What I Have Learned About Intellectuals
Nearly all of them are Elitist. They exist within ivory tower circles, and those who are not part of the academy, long to be part of the academy. This cultural atmosphere puts the autodidact (the non-institutional-intellectual) at a serious disadvantage, precisely because he believes he must reach up to the academy in order to 1) be considered a real intellectual and 2) be a practitioner of serious cultural work. These presumptions are false, but they are maintained and propagated by institutional intellectuals, as well as those who support the unconditional authority of the institution. For my part, when I look at thought, I do not think about the cultural status of the person who is thus speaking, I pay attention to the content of what is being said! In my life as a thinker I have found that most thinkers do the opposite.
This has serious consequences when it comes to the reality of class oppression. Here the analysis takes us into tragic places, systemic poverty has a negative outcome on the positive development of our species. When we begin to analyze this in terms of class, we learn that those who should be most helping the species, are often adding to their oppression.
This is not to say that every intellectual or every academic is Elitist. Some are aware of these things. Some, through wisdom, do actually give heed to substance as opposed to form, and these are the ones who make a difference.
I see this as a serious problem because the intellectuals have begun to function as a new ruling class.
Bibliography: History and Class Consciousness, György Lukács
This has serious consequences when it comes to the reality of class oppression. Here the analysis takes us into tragic places, systemic poverty has a negative outcome on the positive development of our species. When we begin to analyze this in terms of class, we learn that those who should be most helping the species, are often adding to their oppression.
This is not to say that every intellectual or every academic is Elitist. Some are aware of these things. Some, through wisdom, do actually give heed to substance as opposed to form, and these are the ones who make a difference.
I see this as a serious problem because the intellectuals have begun to function as a new ruling class.
Bibliography: History and Class Consciousness, György Lukács
Comments (65)
Who are them? "Intellectuals" is a vague concept. If you don't indentify the target of your invective, it loses whatever bite you think it has.
This is false. Such a criteria will rob you of much general wisdom.
Translation: where reality is negative there I bury my head in the sand.
Reminds me of an earlier thread here about the Trial of Socrates. He was sentenced to death or exile I think. He chose one or the other but made some remark (or maybe someone here did) about "if he says he knows nothing how can he know wherever he would go people would drive him out?" My reply was it's simple, people don't like having their core beliefs challenged or otherwise proven wrong. They will get nasty and turn on you in a second, often violently. And it's true. Even here sometimes lol
Quoting JerseyFlight
First, I doubt it. Second, Oh the horror. Let's just get my nephew's son who plays in a garage band to be responsible for the lives of hundreds of millions if not billions of people. Really? lol
While I mostly agree with your opening paragraph, this paragraph is problematic. What I have learnt ios that if you want to mix it with the 'intellectuals, you need to be rigorous.. and it is not so hard for a serious thinker. But this paragraph makes broad generalisations and sweeping conclusions that are, presumably, based on your own experiences of a specific locality and culture. It is not philosophical.
Strange that one would see this as an objection. My only concern is what takes place in terms of life and its concretion, I could care less about the abstract world of forms -- that is, until idealism starts distorting reality. Then it is necessary to intercede on behalf of intelligence.
As example, imagine an academic writing a series of articles challenging the current mad panic consensus for diversity. Imagine your head on a pike, a pink slip in your hand, while you fill out an application for a delivery driver job. :-) Nah, too scary, better just salute the flag and keep your head down.
Reality in this context is little more than an environment that follows scientific laws. It's about how we- instead of being restricted by these confines- use them to our advantage to create a better society and civilization as a whole. We can either embrace something like idealism (or positive change) or succumb to something like cynicism (or stagnation). Which all points considered makes the latter seem like little more than just being lazy. People confuse circumstance for reality quite often. Here's an example of both.
Ancient Rome. The pinnacle of Western society at one point. The envy of the world. Running water ensuring healthy citizens along with representative government ensuring happy ones as well. Exquisite bathhouses that are still replicated to this very day! Not the least greatest feature of these being indoor toilets. Did you know Romans would often discuss life, politics, and even conduct business deals... while on the toilet. So you got two guys (or hey why not several) all together in a room with their pants down just casually defecating talking about life, trading some grain, shoot maybe even discussing philosophy as we are now! That was the life then and it was embraced by society. Now suppose one day, while again publicly defecating someone came up with the notion of... bathroom stalls or even in-home toilets and decided to mention it to... again the man just casually doing the same right beside him. What if what I quoted was his reply? What if nobody improved the first cellular phone or television set. Or airplane or even just brushed any and all notions of these inventions we take for granted aside because "it's idealism run amok" or "a distortion of reality"? They weren't feasible at the time. Some were even impossible. And yet. Think about it...
Quoting JerseyFlight
Well that didn't take long now did it lol. Looks like we're all a bit elitist deep down.
This must certainly factor into the equation. Non-conformity nearly always seems to come at a social price. The thinking subject is really only making progress at the point where he becomes aware of the social conditions that determine and undermine his quality. This is the awareness that really matters.
Embrace idealism or cynicism? I think not. Resistance is a matter of dialectical intelligence, it is not, a matter of succumbing to the false authority of Aristotelian categories. All quality is dialectical!
Human being tend to move in herds. It seems the most valid role for a philosopher is to serve as a kind of court jester who continually tests and challenges the herd group consensus. Kind of hard to do that when the herd is paying your mortgage.
Think it through. How could one even define "social" except to the degree that individuals are in some kind of conformity?
Collections don't have to be made of things that are all the same. Indeed, they have to be all different - at least as instances of something - otherwise their could be no "collection" as such.
But to be a collection, we are saying the differences don't make a difference. The degree of non-conformity is acceptable, within bounds, for the purposes of that particular collection.
So the social price of non-conformity is that you are free to do anything you want, so long as it doesn't break that constraint of collectivity. At worst, society is going to be indifferent to your difference.
If instead you disrupt the conformity of the society in a way that appears to improve its functioning at that collective level, then you will be celebrated. Your non-conformity will become part of a new conformity. The collective can learn and adapt its own definition.
There is a natural dynamics to groups. Complaining about it at a general level ain't going to change it. Instead it is up to you to get heard - and risk that indifference. Or if you make too much of a pointless ruckus, the club might physically move to eject you of course.
Even indifference has its limits. Being anti-social is different from merely being non-conformist in an open society.
With all due respect, this merely tells me that you have not thought very deeply about social resistance and its ramifications. You are probably an American, which means you are part of a young political system, but most of all, you manifest a complete ignorance of any form of class awareness in your consciousness. This is a problem if you are indeed striving to be an intellectual. It literally means you cannot have (make contact) with adult conversations, it means you live in a kind of cultural Matrix without any distinction... perhaps worst of all, it renders you the ignorant victim of idealism.
I will not debate this with you because I have more important things to do with my time, but what I will do is discuss Lukács, History and Class Consciousness, if you are serious. (That means you need to read the book).
I agree with sophisticat, Aprokrisis and Seagull. You are making way too many generalizations. It's as if you have some sort of ax to grind, without sufficient justification.
Consider a thesis where you have a definitions index as part of your blueprint, or architectural engineering documents with a definitions page on the drawings. Consider defining:
1.The Elitist
2. The Intellect
3. The Intellectual
4. The Socio-political
5. Academia
What's more, I realize you're new here but unfortunately you've already set some alarming groundwork. You said: " I pay attention to the content of what is being said! In my life as a thinker I have found that most thinkers do the opposite."
Are you sure about that? For instance, because you didn't provide the proper context for what it means to comprehend information or any novel concept as something that might be communicated or taught in say academia, you're suggesting that the student in that case should ignore the Intellectualist teacher since they're "ivory tower".
Are you just purging something?
Wrong.
Quoting JerseyFlight
Absolutely wrong.
Quoting JerseyFlight
Sadly also absolutely wrong.
Quoting JerseyFlight
Screamingly, laughably wrong.
Quoting JerseyFlight
Like being wrong every time you make a claim?
Quoting JerseyFlight
That would be a better plan on your part. Why not put forward a sensible OP based on your reading of that and see who wants to engage - be a member of your intellectual club.
But so far your ranting doesn't inspire hope.
We're confused, what is a "culturally responsible intellectual" a teacher? If it is, and since you denounce academia, it seems to be a contradictory statement from your thesis.
This is an appropriate question and an important one. A culturally responsible intellectual is an intellectual that uses their mind, not merely to advance themselves in culture, but to impact culture in the direction of social quality for the broadest possible amount of people. Intellectual responsibility is not a matter of being good at playing philosophical games, it's largely a matter of focus, courage and concern for the well being of the species.
Intellectual responsibility is missing from our time. It is no surprise, therefore, that barbarism has proliferated itself. Whether the intellectual knows it or not, he cannot afford to remain neutral. Fascism is a threat to intelligence in general, this is because it doesn't use words to resolve contradictions, it regresses to primitive violence. Intellectuals have to learn to unite against barbarism and fascism, in this sense we are all in the same boat, for barbarism has many times wiped out the advancing world, and it is again on the rise. No intellectual is safe from it.
Tragically this is not the concern of institutional intellectuals in general. Many of them are not resisting the destruction of democratic culture, they are standing back and allowing it to take place. They are quite fond of simply thinking themselves to be above the struggle, arrogantly superior to it, they cannot be bothered to defend the uneducated man from fascist propaganda.
We could perhaps separate out "intellectuals" (autodidacts or degreed and paid, whatever) from the the institutions that are in business to produce more knowledge and more knowledge producers, as well as 'think tanks' that hire intellectual types to produce policy and influence. Also, let's set aside corporate and governmental agencies that hire intellectuals, and put them to further their various and sundry interests.
Thinking is generally a friendly activity; running institutions may be, but isn't always, friendly.
An intellectual may contribute to greater class consciousness, if he or she is so inclined. But he or she may also opt to help suppress class consciousness, In both cases, this will generally be from a post within some institution. And, of course, many intellectuals--llike other people--have no class consciousness to speak of.
Not as I understand it through the lens of the strongest thinkers: Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx. In this sense thinking is a painful and consequential activity. High level thinking is about negativity, if you don't know that then you don't know thinking.
Nonsense. Intellectual responsibility isn't missing any more now than in the past. As for barbarians -- they have been running things for millennia.
Quoting JerseyFlight
Consequential, certainly. Painful? Let's say, 'difficult'.
Quoting JerseyFlight
Can you expand a bit about that? Why is high level thinking about 'negativity'?
Have you read a lot of their stuff? I confess: I have not, though of the three I've read and enjoyed Marx most.
You may be interested in this thread, which is making a similar point.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8990/are-philosophers-qualified-to-determine-what-quality-content-is
It's strange that this assumption repeatedly surfaces as I have discussed this topic throughout the years. The assumption seems to be that my objection is based on a negative experience of rejection. But rejection has not been my experience, the incompetence and immaturity of intellectuals has been my experience. Further, I do not long to be a part of the Elite academy. Here's an anomaly friend, I'm a true believer! What I am after is getting intellectuals to engage culture precisely to make human existence better. I don't attack intellectuals because I have been psychologically burned by them, but because I see the loss of so much valuable energy wasted, unfocused, misplaced. But I also see cowardice and a serious lack of responsibility. To try to make my position more clear, intellectuals like Chomsky, Bregman and Reich are all examples of intellectuals that have run toward their cultural responsibility.
Yes. But not just them, I am steeped in the entire dialectic movement of thought, which began with Hegel.
Ok, but it can be said that the need is greater now. You know, modern civilization can now be destroyed, perhaps by mistake, in just a few minutes.
In the thread I linked to above, I'm making a case related to, but different than, intellectual responsibility. I sense the problem is that intellectual elites lack the ability to focus on what matters. And so they get sucked in to the intellectual games which Jersey referred to.
This is a super important question and I don't have time to explain it in detail, to do it the justice it deserves. What I recommend is that you get a copy of Adorno's lectures on Negative Dialectics. Get the lectures not the book, though the book is superior, it will be rough going. Adorno was a master of philosophy, studying Kant with Siegfried Kracauer at the age of 16. The reason negativity is so important, is essentially, to speak in high philosophical terms, because it is the surest path to the comprehension of essence --- not a dead image of reality, to use Hegel's terms, but a comprehension of reality itself in all its movement.
In the referenced thread I defined philosophy as "the application of disciplined thought to the enhancement of human welfare". This is apparently judged to be a low quality proposal, so they moved the thread to the lounge. Wouldn't be surprised to meet you there soon. :-)
Quoting JerseyFlight
Yes, that's it, a tragic waste of a valuable resource. The thing is though, attacking intellectuals accomplishes nothing. They have their salaries, positions and offices, and are content with that, so they'll just ignore inconvenient challenges.
If this was the reason your thread was moved, that is disappointing. Adorno was a hundred times the philosopher anyone on this forum is, and he basically held the same position. For that matter so did Hannah Arendt. This is what happens when idealism dominates philosophy, thinkers locate value in the wrong place, that is, in the abstract as opposed to the concrete.
I understand the sentiment. Our social bonding is a double edged sword. Social bonding allows us to create societies...but also exclude others.
Your understanding of "intellectuals" can be applied to any group of people. "Jocks", "Hipsters", etc. This is because in the formulation of groups, "status", comes about. And status is a rare and limited resource. As such, there are barriers to it. Those who have obtained it have worked much harder and had greater skill than those around them. It is difficulty to tell such people, "Give us the respect you earned, without us having to earn it," when it is more work and cost to themselves to do so.
As much as we would like other people to behave better for ours and other's benefit, it cannot be done by appeal, but by example. We must be the one's to do the work to ensure "those beneath our stature" are treated as equals.
And that is all we can do. When we have shouldered that burden and made something out of it, then people can see and decide for themselves if they want to as well. But complaining about others when we are not doing the hard work ourselves will never change any social situation of life.
http://jerseyflight.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-point-of-thought-is-to-change-world.html
Status and authority are most often accumulated by those with a talent for accumulating status and authority. This talent may have little to nothing to do with the performance of their duties. Case in point, Donald Trump.
Not a big deal, just a friendly warning, this thread may meet the same fate. If this thread vanishes from the home page listings, that will probably be why. If that happens, you can probably find the thread in The Lounge section.
I think there is much truth to this. The responsible intellectual walks a hard road. However, I do not accept the one-sided nature of your position. Instruction and example are both important, there are many other factors as well.
If intellectuals are irresponsible as you claim, and/or inept as I claim, what is the argument for engaging them? Before we consider such engagement to be productive action, don't we need some evidence that it will be successful in reaching some of the goals you have outlined?
While I generally agree with the thrust of your comments, I would suspect the tone will need some refinement if you are to be persuasive with your target audience. Not that I'm anyone to lecture others about tone. :-) Your points are valuable, but the tone is infected with a good bit of ego posturing which will likely trigger the same in your audience.
This was exactly Adorno's position, that we need to be able to calculate, in one form or another, that our revolutionary action will have some relevant level of effectiveness. What I would point out here is that such awareness is already light years ahead of average intellectual concerns. Most activists never even get to this level, they just assume that action is itself the wisest thing to do. Adorno takes it back to theory, allows it to pass through thought in order to increase its power.
So how did he calculate the opportunity for effectiveness?
It seems there are two factors for success. One, we must have something worth sharing. Two, the audience, whoever they are, must be both capable and willing to hear it. Can you provide evidence that such conditions exist?
I don't think Adorno ever did, keep in mind I have criticized critical theory for getting lost in itself. Nevertheless, the question is exceedingly important. I think one thing that stands out is that thought must know how to select the right emphasis. The way I have calculated is by reverse engineering culture through an analysis of effective historical action. However, we have much more than this. We have cultural psychology and social psychology, which help to guide the process. The answer is through a multi-disciplinary comprehension of the social sciences.
True. When I wrote skill, I considered skill both in obtaining status, and skills that other people find useful for their status, and will promote you as well for.
Quoting JerseyFlight
This suggestion, advice, actually an injunction, is to be found in every basic course in logic: focus on the argument, not on the person. Not doing so will lead to hurt, hurt for both the perpetrator violating this rational principle, for his peers, other intellectuals, will waste no time in faulting him/her on it and the victim on the receiving end for obvious reasons.
Do you think engaging intellectuals can be useful? If yes, why?
Indeed it does friend, but it's tragic that our psychological structure is so emotionally set against it, that even those who teach it still fall prey to it. I have seen it happen repeatedly. Even though this may be taught throughout the world my experience tells me that it's exceedingly rare. The problem is that it takes a different form in our own psyche, one we cannot detect. We don't even realize we're doing it.
Yeah. On the one hand we have this mental image of the ideal debate and on the other hand we have reality.
If someone solely focuses on a single aspect of a certain way of thinking/thought subscription such as intellectual then they will loose sight of other important aspects that we can interpret about the environment as a whole. Specialization definitely has its upsides, pointing towards precision. With how rapidly this precision and specialization is increasing, along with the rate of technology, is increasingly separatist and eventually leads to stagnation. This tends to happen when you jump down a rabbit hole headfirst without having any idea what is below. But we just keep throwing people down these holes just because they are there and that it is for the "benefit of humanity" to explore them. The specialization isn't a bad thing but without proper knowledge of what that may bring can be devastating. We need people who study the intellectuals and convene on what they have observed about them being in their specialization and how their attitude is to other disciplines. Also intellectuals should not continue themselves to limit themselves to a singular discipline in order to diversify thinking and problem solving. A person that is only good at one thing is bound to make a mistake, maybe not even know it, and continue with everyone thinking they are a god in their field. Current educational systems are flawed in the same way many governments are, egoism and separatist tactics.
Yes. Most certainly. You and I are both intellectuals. The problem is not that one is an intellectual, but that intellectualism has become of kind of culture phenomena, thereby draining it of its authentic power and reducing it to a caricature of itself. Most assuredly intellectuals are important, they do matter, thought directs culture past the emphasis of stupidity. Thought can continue to change the world, but only very slowly, possibly even too late, if it's confined to the seclusion of the Ivory Tower.
I agree. :)
The assumption keeps surfacing, one might suppose, because you keep "sounding" like you are peeved. But I'm glad you are not peeved. I, on the other hand, am profoundly peeved, so maybe I read peevishness into your phrasing.
Quoting JerseyFlight
At this point in my life, I think I'll skip negative dialectics. The time remaining is short and there are other avenues I wish to pursue.
Friend, I am not dogmatic. Not all intellectuals bear the same burden, context matters, social conditions matter. In my opinion, it is intelligence that regulates action from the basis of context. If one had five years left to live, I certainly would not argue that they should spend it learning Negative Dialectics.
Indeed. You're right. Our capacity to destroy is much greater than in the past (nuclear weapons) and our willingness to change our energy consumption levels and form of energy seems insufficient to save us from our ecological doom. Another thing that's true about these days (as opposed to the 13th century, say) is that a handful of people are in a position to launch the nuclear-tipped missiles, or to effectively block sound ecological policy. It doesn't take many irresponsible people to fuck everyone en masse.
What reality? For all I know, those "intellectuals" are strawmen, a figment of your imagination. You ranted a bunch, but didn't identify the target of your rant. Why should I care?
There's a good book, written around the 1980's, Paul Johnson Intellectuals. Read it years ago, can't remember much of it, but remember thinking it was great at the time. Goes more into their biographical details and fleshes out some of the factors that influenced their thinking from that perspective.
Incidentally, my knowledge of 'negative dialectics' is limited to encyclopedia entries, but I have come to notice the so-called 'critical theory' advocated by Adorno and Horkheimer in respect of their criticism of the Enlightenment, and agree with a good deal of it. See for instance this entry, which actually picks up on some of the themes we discussed in another thread.
Instrumentality is one of the main dangers of reason. Hard it is to get those born into slavery to see the error of slavery. It is no different when it comes to the culturation of intellectuals. Nietzsche repeatedly warned of the danger of scholars. It is no surprise that we cannot separate ourselves from our culture, but that is the very thing that is required of high level thinkers.
It's a servitor role I think. I'm assuming that intellectual = professional researcher. If you meant something different by it, I dunno what you mean. Hitchens, Krauss, Deepak Chopra, Krishnamurti etc. aren't really ruling class - they have cultural significance but no hands on institutional levers of power.
You have to be able to generate funding for your research. To my knowledge that either comes from technology applications (this research will help deacidify the sea!), funds for social initiatives (this research will help the mentally ill!), or the very rare carte-blanche researcher grants (this academic has a personal brand the institute wants to acquire) + humanitarian/public interest grants (funding for a problem that isn't immediately relevant by a grant institution).
To the extent you define your own research problems, you are mostly separate from state political power. You only have to be able to get funding from the above means. In that situation, you work in obscure research projects and small teams. Alternatively, you are a research leader for an institution already, so your research decrees are aligned with institutional interest by the job title.
To the extent your research problems are defined by others, you are trying to answer questions given to you by other institutions or line managers in the above position. You are part of a command chain larger than the research group or the command chain of the research group. If you're a consultant, you're given a dataset and a problem, your job is to produce a solution and sell confidence in it (at the same time as evaluating risks). Or alternatively your job is to make the problem addressable through data.
There's a real job filter for technical competence nowadays. You simply can't be hired for many jobs nowadays without it. But effectively you become a member of the civil service for a corporation or you're working for an institution to analyze whether it's meeting its goals. You will not set the goals.
Though I believe there is a "division of learning in society" (as spelled out in "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism") - it's a question of who can use the data and for what ends. As a researcher, it isn't your job to define the ends of research. It's your job to be the means of technical problem solving and troubleshooting concepts that aid in that problem solving.
You bring up many important points. The intellectual is not free from the institution, economic coercion regulates his original action, forcing him to conform. It's a bad situation where one cannot speak out for fear of economic retribution. This is a kind of violence we never hear about, Libertarians are fond of pretending like it doesn't exist. Coercion is not freedom no matter how you leverage it. Once theory has grasped the situation it must work its way toward praxis, but this is woefully lacking in intellectual culture. Fascinating that so many roads lead back to Marx. American thinkers only know him through false characterizations, I seldom meet an intellectual who has actually read him. He is the thinker that is most discriminated against in the world. It is all poisoning of the well and no substance.
He is free if he doesn't confuse philosophy with business. No thinker is required to turn their thinking in to a money generating operation.
If we are not contained within social structures we are free to explore ideas where ever they may lead. But if we are not contained within social structures we will have no cultural authority. So even if our freedom leads us to discover "The Truth" it won't really matter, because nobody will listen to us.
My guess is that the best thinkers in human history quietly passed from the scene without anybody noticing they were ever here.
A point of supreme importance. Who is being listened to and why? No one asks the question, "who should I listen to and why?" Not all thinkers are equal, most practice a futile and self-serving emphasis. Philosophy needs to be liberated from the culture of its commercialization. Philosophy has become one of the surest ways to forfeit one's life to the irrelevant emphasis of abstraction. Thinkers cannot see it because they are after something other than what philosophy has to deliver, namely social validation. But thought is the antithesis of conformity.
The serious thinker must put the question to himself: how do I make my thought serious; how do I become a practitioner of serious thought? Once he has solved this dilemma then he must proceed to the problem faced early on by Nietzsche, "how do I..." no doubt Nietzsche cracked the riddle. I leave off the answer and speak somewhat cryptically, because this is not the kind of conversation one simply throws out to starving philosophers. Those who don't merely want to become calculating machines, will have to find a path beyond the error that presupposes itself to be the highest form of intellectual relevance. You are likely correct: Quoting Hippyhead
Like it!
Because they are much smarter than the average population. Hence they are called "intellectuals".