Intellectualism

[robinsuesanders]

<p>

I hate to say it, but intellectualism has a bad conotation with me. That’s because I only know one couple who describe themselves as intellectuals. They don’t let their son read Harry Potter books. They say they’re pop literature and have no value.

</p>

<p>Again—I think this example is best described as * pseudo-intellectual*.</p>

<p>

IMO, you have to be open minded to be intellectual. Forbidding books one has never read is very close-minded to me. Bad conotation.

</p>

<p>I strongly agree with this statement. And I also think an intellectual needs to be very open to the idea that others can and will find value in things you may not. [In my case, it’s rap music that I can’t stand, but I have to admit others find very significant value in it.]</p>

[JHS]

<p>“Intellectual” isn’t synonymous with “good”, nor “unintellectual” with “evil”. There are lots of things in the world for which it’s much more important that they be handled with skill than that they be thought about deeply. Regardless of political views, I think most of us believe that the profoundly un- or even anti-intellectual Ronald Reagan was a more effective President than the quite intellectual Jimmy Carter. (When intellectual and executive skills are combined in someone like Lincoln, though, we like that a lot.) Few great artists are intellectuals. Shakespeare, for example, who is second only to God for providing fuel for intellectual discourse, left very little evidence of personal intellectualism. He wrote plays that engaged and entertained people, and that drew well at the box office. I don’t know whether Edison was an intellectual, and I don’t think I care.</p>

[astrodeb]

<p>I would define anti-intellectualism as suspicion about those who enjoy learning for learning’s sake. This often takes the form of “sour grapes” about people who are more educated than the anti-intellectual individual, starting with making fun of “nerds” or “eggheads” at the grade school level and evolving to insulting phrases like “ivory tower”, etc. at the adult level. My grandfather, who never graduated from high school, often said that he was smarter than any college graduate because he had “common sense” rather than “book learning”. It wasn’t true, but it made him feel better about himself. Those with an anti-intellectual attitude often rationalize obtaining education, which they fundamentally distrust, by associating it with something pragmatic, like career success and higher salary. They fear that their children will be taught what to think by some professor, when the greatest gift of a good college is being taught how to think critically. Disagreement is welcomed among intellectuals if you can back up your point of view factually and not fall back on emotion. True education does not exist in an anti-intellectual climate, as the poor record of scientific and engineering achievement from regions of the world where science is regarded with suspicion attests. Those who cannot reconcile themselves to the idea that others who have studied a subject more than themselves may be more knowledgeable about the subject marginalize themselves and their progeny in a technological society. As long as technology and knowledge are “magic” to these folks, they will be dependent on intermediaries to make sense of it for them, with all the associated dangers of abuse and control. Critical thinking and knowledge is freedom IMHO. Don’t get me started on the need for everyone to understand both basic physics and humanities classics…;)</p>

[robinsuesanders]

<p>@astrodeb:

I would define anti-intellectualism as suspicion about those who enjoy learning for learning’s sake. This often takes the form of “sour grapes” about people who are more educated than the anti-intellectual individual, starting with making fun of “nerds” or “eggheads” at the grade school level and evolving to insulting phrases like “ivory tower”, etc. at the adult level.

</p>

<p>THANK YOU! My mind was drawing a blank when I was trying to describe the difference between anti-intellectualism and non-intellectualism. You’ve said what I should and meant to have said in an earlier post.</p>

[gadad]

<p>Very, very well put Astrodeb! BTW, I live in a part of the country in which successful candidates for political office often run on the basis of anti-intellectualism. They claim to have “good, old-fashioned common sense” which is codetalk for not having been tainted by the intellectual thoughts of learned people (who for some reason now seem to be synonymous with “socialists” here in the red states - a “socialist” apparently defined as anyone that a purveyor of good, old-fashioned common sense doesn’t like). :)</p>

[pugmadkate]

<p>Lots of interesting posts in this thread. </p>

<p>

To me, an atomsphere is ‘unintellectual’ to the extent that there is a greater value placed on instrumental goals such as salary, job training, practice, solving real life problems, pre-professionalism or an emphasis on rote learning, memorization, regurgitation…

</p>

<p>I disagree with this, especially the part about solving real life problems. It can be precisely the limitations of real life that drive the most creative thinking. Rote memorization is simply required in some fields to be able to move onto higher levels. I simply do not see the things you list as being in conflict with intellectualism.</p>

<p>Rather, I see the enemy of intellectualism as rooted in the idea that students or the public should be protected from ideas, books or the people espousing them. Intellectualism requires a leap of faith; it requires believing that an educated population only need be taught how to think, not what to think.</p>

<p>I also associate anti-intellectualism with the “folksy” politicians who either pretend or truly believe that “common sense” or “tradition” is a sound basis for the vast majority of policy.</p>