Disdain for Intellectuals
 

Someone mentioned in another thread that there has been a lot of disdain for intellectuals since the beginning of the Bush administration. Being a pseudo-up-and-coming-intellectual, I've sort of noticed it myself to a small extent. But can you guys come up with some examples of some? Why do you think this small level of hate has arisen?

I, for one, have a theory but it has to do with religious radicalism and 1984 style propaganda, but I'm not sure whether its paranoia or just my dislike for some of Bush's other policies talking there.

There are many different types of intellectuals. Right now there's may be a perception that 'intellectual' is synonymous with 'liberal'. If this is an accurrate summary of an existing perception, it's not difficult to understand why the current leadership has led the disdain if, in fact, it has.

It depends on who you are including in the general "intelligencia." Personally, I greatly loath when, say, a Calculus professor at my University decides that it is his place to rant for entire class periods about how horrible Bush is. First of all, since math is his field of specialty, there is not reason to assume he has any greater insight into the matter than normal people. Secondly, he is wasting time that I, as a student, am paying for in order to get an education.

However, if the intelligencia is experiencing a decline in general opinion, then it is about time. Really, no group that proposes (let alone accepts) "Postmodernism" can long hold a good public opinion. Postmodernism is itself just a single instance of the general decline in the quality of the intelligencia. Rather than heated discourse between opposing factions, which sharpens the mind, there has been too much conformity and so as a new ideological opposition arises, the intelligencia finds itself not presently up to the task of effectively countering it.

Could you give examples of how the intelligentsia is stagnating, Thought?
I'm willing to listen to your argument, but the only evidence you gave for the intelligentsia's supposed decline was their supposed belief in a concept you did nothing to disprove.

My opinion is probably biased as I'm in high school currently, but I've been maligned for using the word "euphemism."

I'm aware that's it's much worse with adolescents, who'll project their insecurities on anything and anyone.
But I've watched people in their sixties ostracize my parents for referencing works of literature.
Regardless, if Kerry(who I'm not fond of, anyway), who's choice of career entails diplomacy, can be maligned for knowing French, we maybe in trouble.

I think the people who voted for Bush simply because he seemed less intelligent and thus, in their minds more down to earth than some well educated smooth talker who stood against him, especially Kerry - are symptomatic of a general misconception.

The misconception falls in that intelligent people don't understand the problems facing the "normal folk", that they are high up in citadels of power and influence which seperate them from people working 9-5. This may or may not be accurate depending on the individual but the image is in the collective unconcious now.

well I can think of examples I don't have any of the specifics on me, thus I won't discuss them.

You know, I looked at this, and I said to myself: "Myself," I said, "Postmodernism really makes no sense in any of the sentences it's been used in." So I thought to myself: "Myself," I thought, "Maybe we only THINK we know what postmodernism means. Perhaps it's more than merely a philosophy, both agreed and disagreed with, by varying intellectuals of varying levels." So I took myself and I looked up postmodernism, only to find that I was correct about its meaning. That it IS merely an art and philosophy movement.

So I took myself aside, and I said, "But, surely Thought wouldn't use words without knowing what they mean. Perhaps intelligencia doesn't mean intellectuals?" Now, I didn't think this was very likely in the first place, because, if it didn't, well that entire post would be off topic, and, really, who writes that much and uses that many big words just to spam?

No one, right?

Well, I went ahead and I looked up intelligencia, to find that it means, as I strongly suspected, "The educated intellectual elite." In other words, the intellectuals. Those who are intelligent.

So, at this point I was confused.

I thought to myself: "Myself," I thought, "This makes no sense. It's merely a collection of buzz words aligned in such a way as to demonize the intellectual by assuming that all people with an IQ over 140 ascribe to postmodernism, while, at the same time, that the common man, in this case anyone with an IQ under 110, could never ascribe to such a view."

I would like very much for you to either prove me wrong or not make posts made up entirely of political buzz words with no meaning behind them. I get enough of that on the evening news. On the rare occassion that I watch.

Disdain OF intellectuals very may well be a symptom of disdain FROM intellectuals.

As an up-and-coming-intellectual, be wary of thinking or saying "I am smarter then you, i know better then you how to live your life"

And since you happen to link this Disdain of Intellectuals to the Bush Administration, don't blame Bush for the left continually saying he is stupid, and don't blame Bush for headlines like "how can 59 million people be so STUPID".

Call me stupid, I won't respect you. For a bunch of intellectuals, this shouldn't be hard to understand.

Let me get this straight

People from the (American) left = The (American) Intellectuals = People who make the (nasty against DarthZeth) headlines (in America).

Right. There's really no irrational disdain there.

[Edit] But from what I can gather from the distance I'm at, the whole "disdain for the intellectuals" thing goes back well before Junior came to power. Putting this on the intellectuals' fault is really just buying into it, though. It's just that defining it has so recent (as part of the Bushite movement) is sensationalist.

Elmer, first I should clarify that my post was largely antidotal. That aside, by stagnation I am referring to exactly what Thomas Kuhn specified in his "The Structures of the Scientific Revolutions." Kuhn proposed that as long as the majority of given professionals in a given field subscribed to the primary paradigm (a paradigm being vaguely similar to a "perspective" or "point of view" in regards to the philosophy behind a discipline) then there will be very little development in terms of defining that paradigm. However, prior to, during, and after a paradigm shift the group will actively be attempting to define itself.

Additionally, I am working under the assumption that the majority of the intelligentsia are "liberal." This is a result of personal experience, rather than objective data, hence if you aren't going to take my word for it then I can only advise you wait till you yourself have experienced college.

Thus the general intelligentsia has been working under a liberal paradigm. Paradigms themselves can really only be judged in how useful they are, not in how noble or objectively accurate. Thus, when a group, such as the intelligentsia, is undergoing a paradigm shift it may not be for the better (or it may be). Regardless, a competing paradigm (a conservative one) has been gaining strength and thereby is capable of challenging liberal paradigm dogma that had been unquestioned for quite a while. As for why I have come to this conclusion, again it is antidotal. Through personal experience, I have had professors claim that Bush is responsible for the "poor" economy. I merely ask my professors, in turn, "wasn't the unemployment rate at the beginning of Bush's 2nd term 0.2% lower than at the beginning of Clinton's 2nd term?" Or, and slightly out of date now, if they were talking about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth I ask them what there opinion was on Kerry's illegal use of their own images (when Kerry showed pictures of his Vietnam days they often contained the images of members of SBVT, or so they claimed). Not in a single instance did a professor have any rebuttal to such offhanded remarks. Simply put, none of my professors was accustomed to having a student disagree. But as I said, this is antidotal.

Krylo, surely you know what the word "modern" means, right? And, similarly, you must know what the suffix "post" means, correct? So, I ask you, what sort of group would allow one of their ideologies to be named "after the present?" I have nothing wrong with the philosophy behind postmodernism (other than the fact that it is self negating), but regardless, in pragmatic terms, postmodernism is an oxymoron. Hence the reason postmodernism was in quotes. As a term, it does not need quotes, so it might seem to some that by putting it in quotes I was implying that I wasn't talking about the philosophy (or that I might have been implying sarcasm, though I wasn't, which is what makes the written language so curious). My disdain for the use of the word comes from its philological roots.

And I do believe that the common man would never subscribe to the postmodernism philosophy. They tend to be too practical.

Oh, another quick note, Krylo: Postmodernism means different things depending on the context. Postmodernism in history will mean something quite different than postmodernism in art, for example. As such, a dictionary definition may be useful, but it is modified by the field it is used in.

I actually read a two or three page essay on it by a PhD from Brown college. I didn't use a dictionary. I'm quite aware of how lacking dictionaries are in giving one true understanding of any subject material. It's nice if you're looking for the definition of a verb or simple noun, but for a philosophical idea one has to go a bit deeper.

Doesn't saying that the intellectuals, or intelligentsia (as you are fond of using that word), are, in the majority, liberal denote that liberalism is the 'correct' choice.

(This is also partially directed toward DZ as well) What I find amusing about the move against intellectuals is that, by definition, intellectuals ARE smarter than the common person. They are better educated. They have better comprehension skills. They have better math skills. They can think faster and more glibly. Their plans have a higher chance of succeeding because they're capable of greater thought processes.

When republicans, or Bushites (as we seem to be fond of using buzz-words now), try to demonize intellectuals, they're doing more than demonizing the liberal intellegsia. They're calling themselves stupid. By saying that their opponents are intelligent and they are different than their opponents they are admitting to the world that their intellectual capacities are lesser. That they don't know what they're doing. That they are NOT fit for the job.

It reminds me of a guy at work whose constantly talking about how having a penis over six inches is unneeded and how most girls he's talked to prefer smaller penises, etc. etc.

I don't think he realizes it, but everyone there now knows he has a small penis. If he didn't, he wouldn't try to make large penises seem pointless and/or bad ("Most women I talk to say anything over 6 [or 7, sometimes he says 7] inches is painful!")

The republicans are doing the same thing here.

It makes me giggle.

Now, I know that this is not the case. That there are intelligent republicans. Plenty of them, even. They're merely trying to look stupid so the public will associate with them better.

In doing so they're not only calling themselves stupid but also telling the public that THEY'RE stupid.

Please don't tell me I'm the only one who sees a problem with this? That not only are they calling the public stupid, but that the public is eating it up?

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that the word "informed" was the most important part of, "Democracy relies upon a willing and informed electorate." Maybe I'm the only one who believes that our government is better served by people with IQs that ARE greater than the average person's making decisions.

Or, maybe we should just elect a monkey. If we don't want intelligent people, why not just put up that ape that knows sign language for president? At least it'd be kinda cute, and it certainly wouldn't be so intelligent as to be disingenious toward us.