That is why people have little regard for them as a group. They see themselves as very important and therefore in short supply (read Christopher Hitchens for any doubt on this topic). But to most fly over state Americans, and for that matter anyone I can think of, intellectuals are pretty mch useless. They are the idle hands that are the devil's plaything. Do they grow food, fix a water leak, change a bandage, repair a spinal cord, even cure cancer? Nope. Not to say the people who do these things are not smart. Of course they are. They just don't fancy that being smart is their main occupation in life. In most of America that would be considered egotistical. So the question is, how many useless egotists do we need to run this country and tis economy?

Damn straight, who needs technological and social advances when we can produce corn!

Re: Technological advances. Do you think the average scientist over 30 years old considers him/herself an intellectual? Is Bill Gates the world's greatest intellectual?

Re: Social advances. Uh, please name one "social advances brought to us courtesy of "intellectuals". Please name one social advance of any kind so I can determine what you consider a social advance.

I will grant that there is a role for a very good intellectual, like Ellie Weisel for example. But the university system is pushing out a far great supply than there is demand, and the quality is frankly inferior. I'm sure you've heard the joke that the university system is like Amway.

Yes, most scientists over 30 would call themselves intellectuals.

Bill Gates didn't advance technology personally, he started a business based off taking existing technology and popularizing it.

The Enlightenment was a fairly significant social advance. Unless you consider shifting from religious mysticism to popular faith in science and human self-determination to be of no benefit to society.

Is this sufficient?

Hmmm, so is that what we are doing here, arguing the Enlightenment? You may have a point there. Secular Humanism which derived from the Enlightenment is part of the issue many Christians have with "intellectuals". I would argue that those humanist ideals are under attack far more ferociously by groups that liberals embrace, like Muslim terrorists, than they are by avearge Americans who have pretty much internalized all of it through the value system we inherited in our constitution. This value system is a mix of secular humanist ideals and religious doctrine and was created by people who were farmers, merchants, businessmen, politicians, and intellectuals.

Contemporary examples of this mix can be seen in the Human Genome project:

<link>

The Founder, Frances Collins is an Evangelical Christian.

<link>

Liberals do not embrace Muslim terrorists, they recogize that Muslim does not equal terrorist. That is a huge distinction.

And your whole arguement seems based on the also flawed assumption that 'intellectuals' have lots of idle time, hence not producing anything of value, and causing problems.

So let's take a scientist working on the cure for cancer. Do you either consider that highly educated scientist not an intellectual? Or do you consider curing diseases as unproductive?

Reread your OP, so I guess you consider hte scientist as not an intellectual. So what do you consider an intellectual then if not an intelligent person who performs some sort of white-collar work?

Hmmm, so you are saying a backhoe driver with a PHD who has written letters to editor printed in the NY Times about the decay of American education system is not an intellectual? You are saying that if you are paid to use your brain you are an intellectual? How much do you have to be paid to qualify. Who judges the quality of your work? Do you have to be written up in Nature? What if you are rejected by Nature? What if you don't consider yourself an intellectual but you use your higher ed. degree to the betterment of mankind? Are you still an intellectual? Many questions......

No, YOU were the one who said a backhoe driver with the phd was not an intellectual. He's doing something 'useful' and you claim intellectuals never produce anything.

I'm saying how does being an educated white-collar worker, like a researcher for a cancer cure, not meet your definition of intellectual?

This is my definition of intellectuals: 1.They do nothing but think and write so that others may see their thoughts in writing. 2. It must be a self description (as in Susan Sonntag). 3. if not a self description then it must be something someone says about you in a biography, most often after you are dead(as in , "Lenin and other intellectuals of his time..."). 4. the golden age of intellectuals in the US was the 1950's, when housing was cheap in New York city and there was an influx of European and ex pat American intellectuals fleeing the aftermath of WWII (though apparently unable to stop it from happening, as always).

Lubbesuh seems to define intellectual so that it doesn't include anyone who does something useful. He can then accuse intellectuals of being useless. It doesn't make sense but it's hard to argue with, which is the point.

of the itinerant college professor are 2 signs that these intellectuals are in over supply. And the numerous philosophy majors who are bagging groceries at the local superstore are a further sign of the disposable intellectual. Isn't the left always complaining that we don't make anything anymore in America? Aren't they arguing for more engineers and fewer psych majors?

Good point, O&O&F. lubbesuh's "definition" of intellectual is so narrow that it requires a seperate listing in any current English dictionary: The Definition of Intellectual by The Fray's lubbesuh.

In your (lubesuh's) OP, you seem to be equating "intellectual" with "academic," in it's stereotypical and usally perjorative sense. You know, the guys who major in 15th century French literature, and stand around at cocktail parties in tweed jackets with elbow patches, smoking pipes and looking down their noses at one another, as well as at anyone without a university degree. The guys (and girls) who basically never want to grow up, and throw themselves in the world of academia in order to avoid the "real world," and then turn around and use the results of their fear to feel superior to other people. People who fit that particular mold are indeed "intellectuals" who could be said to "produce nothing useful to society." They are also jackasses, but they aren't jackasses because they're intellectuals. They would be jackasses no matter how many books they read, what kind of job they had or what kind of parties they went to. Fortunately, not all true intellectuals are like that.

I agree with O&O&F. When you basically define Intellectual as 'one who does absolutely nothing but think' of course intellectuals are useless.

But most of the people I know, and I'm quite sure most self described intellectuals, generally would include doctors, scientists, and engineers as intellectuals as well. Generally people do not pick a profession that requires thinking and wirting as part of their job unless they like thinking and writing.

The lack of direct practical applications for degrees like medieval lit. is an entirely different subject. And most would still agree even if you never directly use your knowledge of Chaucer in day to day activities, you are still better off having had the experience and exposure, whether you are an intellectual or just someone who wanted the easier route through a parental enforced college stay.

You have a very narrow view of intellectuals. Intellectual people aren't just one thing. There ARE intellectuals who farm, fix plumbing, apply bandages, etc. Of course there are. They even raise kids. My family is what most people would call intellectual. We read; we are curious; we have interests that we study; we respect science; we try to let facts control our opinions rather than prejudice; we have conversations about things like philosophy and literature. Some of us went to college and some didn't. I'm the only one who is in education. My brother is in heating/air conditioning, and is just as engaged in these things as the rest of us. I say that for YOUR benefit, not because I think it's anything amazing.

My question has always been: why do people turn off their brains once they leave school? I've never understood that. And I've never understood the attitude of those who think it's better to do so. I've never understood anybody who thought that if you have one quality (intellectualism) you can't have others, that everything you do is oriented around that one thing. Their occupation in life? Everybody should value using the brain they have, at every opportunity they get. Without that, we have nothing but prejudice and superstition.