XX Factor

Re: Are Intellectuals Mean?

Zarasophist — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:04:56 GMT

Nice, you know what you are talking about.

I like to put it this way: "Just because I am more educated than you doesn't necessarily mean I am not as smart as you; in fact some might argue the very opposite."

Re: Are Intellectuals Mean?

Issywise — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:52:50 GMT

Well crap!

"passionate devotion to ideas-- someone who values them for their own sake and puts them at the center of his or her life."

I'm sorry, I missed that definition as the only one we were allowed to use. By that EXTREME definition, no intellectual--nobody who is passionately devoted to ideas, nobody who puts ideas at the CENTER of his or her life has ever been, ever will be or ever should be president.

In fact, that definition would rule out Isaac Newton, who in addition to his intellectual pursuits put religion at the center of his life and held public offices for long period of time--forcing his intellectual (as you define it) activities in the background. Not only would Washington not be an intellectual, nor would Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, Voltaire, John Maynard Keynes, John Kenneth Galbraith, Milton Friedman--all men who cannot be said to have put ideas at the center of their lives.

Yet, every one of those men (except perhaps Washington who failed to pander to the prejudice of academic historian who insist writing is a necessary proof of intellectual depth) would be regarded as an intellectual by nearly all informed observers--both men of action and intellectuals. One test of a definition is to see how it applies to examples in nature--or history in the case of human endeavors.

I made an argument based on a less restrictive definition--let me formulate if for you: an intellectual is a person who tries to use his or her intelligence and analytical thinking either in their profession or for the benefit of personal pursuits.

Lincoln posed as an backwoods hick, but his writing reveals him to be a widely and deeply studied man. Hell, he studied Euclid for fun. By your definition and the blinders it imposes on your viewpoint, any success Lincoln had was not a result of judgment based on intellectual preparation but by......what? Luck? God's guidance? Untrained intuition? Gut feeling? Raw unfounded judgment?

It that the stuff of presidential virtue?

By your definition, all of the examples I gave in the above post are not intellectuals because acting is mutually exclusive to intellectualizing. I suggest that when action is framed in sensibilities developed by intellectual application they might be a further expression of that application rather than a denial of it.

I also suggest that a failure to make that application will tell in the actions taken. When a president is devoid of intellectual capital or even interest (as was the case with LBJ and foreign policy) then and only then it is indeed necessary for a president to resort to research before acting, unless he's cocksure enough to act on mere unsupported hunches.

I agree with you and go further to say that nobody whose main focus is ideas for ideas sake should get anywhere near public power. Where we apparently differ is on the role of intellectualism in the preparation of leaders. I hold it indispensable. When we've elected leaders who are not thoughtful and studied, their judgment has been shallow and destructive.

Would you like a short list of recent examples?

Can you name one successful leader who didn't intellectually prepare him or herself for the role?

Re: Are Intellectuals Mean?

Bondsman — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:55:14 GMT

The definition of intellectual on this thread was:

Surely "intellectual," in everyday speech, simply describes a person with a passionate devotion to ideas--- someone who values them for their own sake and puts them at the center of his or her life.

This does NOT apply to Washington anticipating future needs, unless farmers and people who buy health insurance are also intellectuals by definition.

Lincoln had to ACT. Either TO support slavery or NOT to support it. He didn't have to mull it over on an abstract basis or appreciate the potential for slavery in a theoretical abstract utopia. I don't see how his action makes him any more of an intellectual than Bush's invasion of Iraq makes him an intellectual.

FDR tried to practically apply prior experience! Again, this is NOT intellectual by definition, as it is NOT "ideas for ideas' sake", is it? It's trying to apply prior knowledge towards a tangible goal.

Truman, your intellectual is the first and only President to use nuclear weapons on a sovereign nation. History might end up being more kind to Bush than Truman, and in any event, if that's the best intellectual you can come up with, it kind of proves my point. His intellectualism led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

You then say:

Being intellectual should be a condition precedent to holding that office. Nobody should see it as a disqualifier.

I never said it was a disqualifier, and don't believe that. I also do not believe it's an ESSENTIAL quality in a President, and you have yet to prove it is. As an example, say a Pentagon official rushes into the oval office and says they've detected missles coming towards the U.S. from China. Would you want the President to DO something - communications have failed, shouldn't he at least make a decision to respond or not? Or would you rather have him say, "Chinese missiles, huh? Why don't you look up what type of fuel they are using, and compare it to our rocket fuel to see which is more cost effective that would be interesting.

Nope, I'm actually leaning against it a bit now. if your main focus in life is ideas for ideas' sake, you probably aren't going to make a great President.

Re: Are Intellectuals Mean?

Issywise — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:44:04 GMT

"Someone who was a profound intellectual, but who couldn't come to a decision on what to do and what not to - would make a poor President." Undoubtedly.

But is being an intellectual and being a "person of action" mutually exclusive?

LBJ was a dynamo of action, who--according to John Connelly, never read a book in his adult life. Dubya is undoubtedly a man of action, but spent the years when he might have been developing intellectual capital for the task ahead boozing it up and snorting coke.

Moreover, I think your definition of the job is wrong. You say, "the President's main responsibility it is to decide and act when necessary." That definition makes the office holder a reactionary--only acting when necessary. The best of our presidents were guided in their actions by intellectual anticipation of the need the country that reached way beyond the immediate necessities.

Lincoln could have put-off the conflict over slavery indefinitely by simply accepting succession or the various plans that would have brought the South back into the Union with assurance that Slavery would be respected. Washington was a virtual engine of anticipating future needs--conducting his performance in office as continuing sequence of precidents for future guidance. Teddy Roosevelt's injection of the federal power into the dominant Herbert Spenser economics of the time was founded in his intellectualism as was his environmentalism.

FDR, the supposedly second-class mind, spent the WWI years observing first-hand policy being made at the highest level and tried in his role as the day-to-day operator of the Navy. He then spent the years between the wars thinking about the lessons taught by the WWI experience. It was his intellectual preparation that paid premiums during WWII, not his gut.

Nearly every sure-footed step that Truman seemed to take on an ad hoc basis was rooted in decades of serious intellectual reading. He was the most historically informed participant in every policy decision made by his administration. All of these presidents seriously prepared their intellects for leadership. All of them acted within horizons broadened by their own intellectualism.

Sure a impotent nerd would suck as a president, but so do primitives who come to the office relying on revealed wisdom from God, self-important vanity or faith in their untrained intuition. Being intellectual should be a condition precedent to holding that office. Nobody should see it as a disqualifier.

Millions of Americans are currently suffering from delusion. They believe that we can pick our leaders by the Excalibur method: some unwashed primitive can come out of the ignorant wilderness to grab the sword of office through an electoral victory and rule us as the wise chosen- of -God. It is a mythology that has cost and will cost this nation dearly if we keep embracing it.

I think if we smell anti-intellectualism on any candidate, we should immediately cast them aside. Leadership takes preparation and intellectual preparation at that.

Re: Are Intellectuals Mean?

Bondsman — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:05:14 GMT

The real trouble comes when someone tries to assert that being an intellectual is a GOOD trait in a President, when that's not necessarily true. Not to say being anti-intellectual is good either, but the President's main responsibility is to *decide and act* when necessary. Someone who was a profound intellectual, but who couldn't come to a decision on what to do and what not to - would make a poor President.

Re: Are Intellectuals Mean?

Issywise — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:27:39 GMT

YOU THINK intellectuals responded that way. It is YOUR projection on intellectuals that is bigotry.

If somebody, intellectual or not, dismissed the border problems by reducing it to a matter of prejudice they were they were, at the time, engaging in an anti-intellectual process which requires acquisition of facts and application of the human capacity of reason to it.

However, this is not to say that some of the immigration debate wasn't driven by unvarnished bigotry. You could hear it in the activists and politicians who defined America is bigoted ways.

I think you should give intellectuals a break. Idiots dismissing the issue as wholly bigotry should open their eyes to the facts. All of us should notice the bigotry that was present in the immigration debate. All of it distracts from a reasoned approach to a policy solution.

Policy shouldn't be determined by a tug-of-war between groups that engage in contests of mutual hate. Reason ought to guide.

By the way, you don't have to be white collar to be an intellectual.

Re: Are Intellectuals Mean?

Issywise — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:20:36 GMT

The Athenian democracy killed Socrates for corrupting the morals of the young....

And it should be noted that the last librarian of Alexandria Hypatia was murdered by a mob of fundamentalist Christians. It is ironic that modern science has revealed that Archimedes developed calculus fifteen hundred years before Newton and Leibniz. That evidence was found on paper that had been bleached in the 10th Century to allow for its "better use" as a Bible.

There is no dishonor in being a non-intellectual, but anti-intellectualism is a horrible thing. Those who would impose an orthodoxy on thought, particularly those who find such orthodoxy in supposedly divine ancient writings, are activists for ignorance. They should be scorned for the destructive influences they are. Human progress has been most often limited and restrained by only one human characteristic--self-righteous, self-serving anti-intellectualism.

Let's call them what they are--Luddites.

Crime

degsme — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 17:34:26 GMT

yes there is crime along the border. Getting rid of undocumented residents won't change that, because most of that crime is associated with drug-running. Conflating the two is exactly what the anti-intellectual (and blue collar folks can be intellectuals) approach would be.

Re: Are Intellectuals Mean?

Thevail — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 16:38:24 GMT

question?:
The problem is that many "intellectuals" resond the same way to those blue collar people they hate. Take the immigration debate. There is a a lot of crime along the border and the people living with it were asking for help. The intellectual response was "you are a bigot" No they had a very real problem with crime and their safey was at stake. You dismissed them. Why should they trust or respect you?

What's up with the phrase "you" responded?

You have no idea how "I" responded to that.

But once again, the anti-intellectual tendency to "conflate" idea, or to "pigeonhole" people seems to rear its ugly head.

Intellectuals generally have fairly informed and reasoned opinions on things, we rather pride ourselves on looking at things from more than one point of view and weighing the evidence etc.

BUT OUR OPINIONS DO NOT NECESSARILY AGREE WITH EACH OTHER'S.

Trying to get any 6 "intellectuals" to agree on something is like herding three legged cats on ice. Generally any group of 6 intellectuals has 9 different opinions on almost anything.

About the immigration issue....my actual opinion was that they should much better arm local law enforcement..and do a damn thorough background check to make sure that the police officers were above reproach on the grounds of racism, drugs, and fraud.

Re: Are Intellectuals Mean?

question? — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:51:03 GMT

The problem is that many "intellectuals" resond the same way to those blue collar people they hate. Take the immigration debate. There is a a lot of crime along the border and the people living with it were asking for help. The intellectual response was "you are a bigot" No they had a very real problem with crime and their safey was at stake. You dismissed them. Why should they trust or respect you?

Are Intellectuals Mean?--- The Sequel

Malone — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:48:28 GMT

First of all, I'd like to thank all of you who responded so favorably to this post. I'm very gratified that you found it interesting, and I appreciate all of the kind words.

Secondly, as the question was raised several times, let me confess that I am an XYer, not an XXer--- though I like to think that I am in close contact with my feminine side.

Thirdly, I'm very flattered that anyone would think I'm qualified to write for Slate. I love this site and many of the writers who post here--- Fred Kaplan, Dana Stevens, and John Dickerson being special favorites of mine. (And of the course the magisterial Michael Kinsley.) I can't hold a candle to these folks, BUT--- I'm always willing to entertain any offers that the Slate editors might want to make. (I won't hold my breath.)

To respond to a few points raised in your replies:

Jack Cerf: Your claim that anti-intellectuals are often motivated by a belief in the dangers of intellectuality is certainly correct. One imagines that this argument goes back at least as far as Aristophanes, who pilloried Socrates in "The Clouds," then finds its canonical expression in Burke's attacks on the philosophes. In our own time, Lionel Trilling's notion of the "adversary culture" has been put to just such a use by the cruder minds in the neoconservative cult. (A use Trilling would surely have deplored.) But I didn't think it appropriate to embed this idea in the definition of "anti-intellectual" because it isn't a universal feature of the tribe. While many anti-intellectuals endorse it, just as many (in my humble opinion) don't; their anti-intellectualism derives more from a sense of the sheer absurdity of intellectual life. They are more inclined to see it as impractical and irrelevant than dangerous. (As my former mother-in-law once put it to me, "Why would you spend your time doing that???") Because it's connection with anti-intellectualism is a contingent one, I thought it proper not to bless it with definitional status. As the logicians say, it's more denotative than connotative.

Hopefulcynic: I too was a bit surprised by Ms. Redmond's implication that my post was overtly political. I tried very hard to avoid this, but perhaps I didn't try hard enough.

And now..... back to The Fray!!!

Re: Are Intellectuals Mean?

HopefulCynic — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:27:20 GMT

I don't know how Moira Redmond (in Fraywatch) came to the conclusion that those agreeing with you are mostly those who agree with you politically -- indeed, your only explicitly political statement is that you think Bush & Palin are anti-intellectuals, surely something a conservative OR liberal COULD think, so either MR did some advance research or is making an 'ass' out of herself and 'umption' -- but either way, I commend you. I think even those who disagree with you mildly or stridently would have to (if being intellectually honest) admit at least that you make a reasoned and well-thought-out case.

Like many have suggested -- is there any way we can get YOU writing for XXFactor? Or Slate? What you wrote far surpasses anything I've read by paid Slate authors in days, if not weeks.

Re: Are Intellectuals Mean?

firefly1 — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:06:28 GMT

I, too, would give the OP two recommendations if I could. Excellent, excellent post! Similar to a post I made in another thread, but much more articulate than I probably could ever be.

Re: Are Intellectuals Mean?

LastManOnEarth — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:20:10 GMT

Extremely well put.

>

This one sentence is worth more than the entire original discussion.

LMoE

Re: Are Intellectuals Mean?

tubbs — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:53:36 GMT

Great OP. Well written and well thought out.