Anti-intellectualism

[gamenaught]

I am not a habitual Bush-basher but anti-intellectualism coming from a head of state worries me. Especially when it attacks the branch of government with the responsibility of protecting constitutional rights and could undermine our system of checks and balances:

"Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such importance, the people's voice must be heard.

"If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."

That quote from Bush's State of the Union address sounds like something former-Alabama judge Roy Moore would say.

On the other hand, maybe I've been watching too many Hitler documentaries on the History Channel.

[Whaleboy]

I might have missed it (probably), but how exactly have you been victimized? Recently I mean, (I'm not talking about school yard bullies, though I have no idea of your age).

Just get stick from people in my classes, particularly when I get involved in a lesson or a class debate, and people hassling me in the college canteen when I'm on my own.

Do you think you may have been guilty of straying over the line that separates "intelligent" from "ball-achingly pretentious"?

Not entirely sure what you mean, but no, not really. I am different, I have been attacked because of it. I don't rub it in peoples faces that I read and write a lot. I don't advertise the fact that I like thinking. Nor do I communicate a feeling of superiority. People, however, know of my activites. Can someone explain how this is not anti-intellectualism?

Why are people seemingly so determined to propose that this does not exist, or is not a problem?

[Whaleboy]

gamenaught:

I'll spare you the DL dance for that

[BeBMan]

Well, we don´t understand that you complain when most of your friends - you said - are women/girls

[Shi Huangdi]

Whaleboy, aren't you the one who said liberalism was something for the intellectual elite, but yet doomed as the great majority of stupid people find it to hard to comprehend, or something like that?

[gamenaught]

Another example of worrisome anti-intellectualism is faith-based social and political agendas. Assuming things on blind faith – despite all evidence and all logic to the contrary – is, by definition, anti-intellectualism.

[Whaleboy]

Well, we don´t understand that you complain when most of your friends - you said - are women/girls

Conflicting timetables result in me spending much time on my lonesome.

Whaleboy, aren't you the one who said liberalism was something for the intellectual elite, but yet doomed as the great majority of stupid people find it to hard to comprehend, or something like that?

Wrong way round. I said that intellectuals were more likely to be liberals, not liberals are more likely to intellectual. And yes, those without an education in certain philosophical or political principles are going to find elements of liberalism, particularly pacifism and libertarianism, hard to understand. It's so nice to be unhindered by political correctness.

Another example of worrisome anti-intellectualism is faith-based social and political agendas. Assuming things on blind faith – despite all evidence and all logic to the contrary – is, by definition, anti-intellectualism.

I'd say non-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism is a specific objection to intellectuals.

[Solly]

The fact is "intellectuals" tend to be stuck talking about IQ and their little theories, rather than looking at what works in practice. Ideologies and intellect can only figure so much - and only then when they themselves affect practice.

And of course there is the general arrogance and aloofness.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Just get stick from people in my classes, particularly when I get involved in a lesson or a class debate, and people hassling me in the college canteen when I'm on my own.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't think that has anything to do with intellectualism or similar notions. They probably don't even consider you to be an intellectual, I certainly didn't consider anyone I was in class with to be an intellectual, I just considered them to be other students. That is not to say I wasn't impressed with some's knowledge, but the notion of elevating a 20 year old to a loftier state due to class contribution is a bit... farcical. And frankly, I found some of the people that did speak all the time to be more annoying than intellectual, perhaps that is your problem. Remember, no one likes a teacher's pet, even fewer like someone who pretends to be an expert in an undergrad (or beyond) class. Its great to contribute to class, but if you're not careful, you're likely to come off as a blowhard, which should not be confused with being anti-intellectual. I think that's more likely to be the case, they just don't like your in-class personality.

And again, I don't mean that to be rude, because I've run across similar types myself (usually it is just jealousy for grades or some such silly notion, not that they thought I was more intellectual than them. just bitterness because I put in the effort they didn't, the difference in my case)

[Whaleboy]

The fact is "intellectuals" tend to be stuck talking about IQ and their little theories, rather than looking at what works in practice. Ideologies and intellect can only figure so much - and only then when they themselves affect practice.

IQ's are irrelevant we can ignore that. "Little theories" are important because they can be interpreted by others who then impliment them. In other words, it is like the relationship between a headlight and a driver. A car can function with neither on a dark road.

What you are doing is presenting a method of judging something subjectively. You are saying that the worthiness of a concept is related to its ease of application. You are suggesting that this external relationship and subjective judge is really an innate property and an objective measure of validity. You're not going to be able to pull that one off .

And of course there is the general arrogance and aloofness.

Yes Park Avenue, there is the general arrogance and aloofness.

[Solly]

See.

[Solly]

Intellectuals also seem to ignore human emotions and feelings with their pursuit for absolute rationality. Well guess what, we aren't rational creatures.

Just because it is difficult to express why people take a particular position (ie, provide a "logical" sequence or whatever) does not mean their position is any less valid.

Why do I lift weights..because I like the feeling it gives. Why do I dislike ***s..because I dislike being around them and what they say.

You could argue that it's the intellectuals who are just not in touch with their feelings and that.

[Whaleboy]

I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't think that has anything to do with intellectualism or similar notions. They probably don't even consider you to be an intellectual, I certainly didn't consider anyone I was in class with to be an intellectual, I just considered them to be other students. That is not to say I wasn't impressed with some's knowledge, but the notion of elevating a 20 year old to a loftier state due to class contribution is a bit... farcical. And frankly, I found some of the people that did speak all the time to be more annoying than intellectual, perhaps that is your problem. Remember, no one likes a teacher's pet, even fewer like someone who pretends to be an expert in an undergrad (or beyond) class. Its great to contribute to class, but if you're not careful, you're likely to come off as a blowhard, which should not be confused with being anti-intellectual. I think that's more likely to be the case, they just don't like your in-class personality.

A reasonable statement, however I do my best not to come off as a blowhard, I dont make as many statements in class, particularly avoid very contentious ones and ask questions instead. In class, unlike real world, I'm there to complete a course. Incidentally, the situation you describe is an example of anti-intellectualism.

And again, I don't mean that to be rude, because I've run across similar types myself (usually it is just jealousy for grades or some such silly notion, not that they thought I was more intellectual than them. just bitterness because I put in the effort they didn't, the difference in my case)

As I said before.

[Whaleboy]

Intellectuals also seem to ignore human emotions and feelings with their pursuit for absolute rationality. Well guess what, we aren't rational creatures.

Easy there Monsieur Velocitie. You are vastly generalising intellectualism. Not all intellectuals are logicians. Look at my ideas properly and you will see that is not the case with me either. What about certain emotional theories in philosophy, like Schopenhaur's, or maybe even a basic like emotivism? Have you even read Plato's Republic?

Just because it is difficult to express why people take a particular position (ie, provide a "logical" sequence or whatever) does not mean their position is any less valid

That sounds familiar!! All that relativism means however is that we cannot impose one view upon another. However, we can attack the strength of the logic used to back it up. A debate will never destroy a point of view, or render it inherently invalid, nothing can do that. All we can do is critique the logical basis that precludes the conclusion.

Why do I lift weights..because I like the feeling it gives. Why do I dislike ***s..because I dislike being around them and what they say.

***s?? What are ***s?

You could argue that it's the intellectuals who are just not in touch with their feelings and that.

You could argue that. You would also be shot down in flames. It is a grossly over generalised position. You have provided very little reason for that, and the only reasons you have provided were easily refuted. Try again.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Wrong way round. I said that intellectuals were more likely to be liberals, not liberals are more likely to intellectual. And yes, those without an education in certain philosophical or political principles are going to find elements of liberalism, particularly pacifism and libertarianism, hard to understand."

There you go. You show your arrogance right there. Perhaps you could try being a little more humble?