Anti-intelectualism.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4532427]

Anti-intelectualism.

Intentional conspiracy with goals in mind?
Or just happenstantial social shortcomings with small scale contributors acting for their own short term goals?

I see a lot of complaining along these lines, but instead of posting this question in any of those threads, I throw it out here.

[Anonymous No.4532432]

>>4532427
>Anti-intelectualism

please

[Anonymous No.4532448]

"Intentional" has a blurry meaning.

That anti-intellectualism serves to defend certain ideologies, I have no doubt about it. But that doesn't mean it is a conscious effort. And that doesn't mean it is a bad thing in itself. Intelectualism can also inflate to awful measures and anti-intellectualism is there to counter it.

Anti-intellectualism and intellectualism are both evidence of the (maybe undeserving) importance ascribed to the intellect.

[Anonymous No.4532455]

well, what does it actually achieve? anyone will only believe it until they take it to its logical conclusion of opposing itself.

I'm not really stupid enough to sympathize but it seems like there would be really easy ways to deal with the consequences unless it's infecting absolutely everyone.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4532457]

Should have posted this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKUZ42T9diU

>>4532448
I agree that it's unintentional (too /x/) but I do not see how more intelligence in society can be a bad thing.
I do see civility from a more intelligent society though. Do people see elitism as a sphere of intellect? I don't.

[Anonymous No.4532482]

>>4532427
Somewhere in between your two questions.

If people are less intellectual they are less likely to question things, become more suggestible and easier to control. The extent to which those in power attempt to manipulate this for their own benefit is uncertain however.

Turn on the television and flip around the channels for a while and you'll understand it. Dumb consumers spend more so it stands to reason that powerful capitalists would anti-intellectuals. Do they want you to pick up a book, create art or engage in political discourse or do they want you to watch The biggest loser and get the urge to buy a Chevy, god to McDonald's for for breakfast and tune in next week?

[Anonymous No.4532483]

>>4532457
>I agree that it's unintentional
I didn't really say that. I think that discussing on whether it is intentional or not is irrelevant and it would derail the whole thing. Is our ideology "intentional"? Not the best way to put this problem, I think.

>but I do not see how more intelligence in society can be a bad thing.
It's not that there is anything wrong with an intelligent society. Perhaps just that we should stay alert not to create an excessive society. That is, by definition, one that has more than the necessary of something, unbalanced. A society that values, for example, the idea of intelligence rather than its use, that seeks to certificate intelligence over putting to work. Or even, a society that holds a value like this with such strenght that it begins to exclude all others.

I think anti-intellectualism and intellectualism tries to balance each other out. It's not only that you have bloated egos in academia that are mocked and dismissed by anti-intellectuals, but you have people mocking and dismissing anti-intellectuals to feel superior as well.

I don't think elitism is necessarily in the sphere of the intellect, though it could be. Elitism only needs an excuse, any excuse works.

[Anonymous No.4532496]

I fucking hate people who refer to middle ages as the dark ages

Clueless fucking shits

[Anonymous No.4532536]

I think "intellectual" has become a confusing term.

I have a friend who's a well respected Icthyologist and biogeographer, who has had some of his poems published, accused of being anti-intellectual because he finds a lot of literary criticism to be too esoteirc and lacking in practical value.

I mean, he, by ant definition, is an intellectual, and while the writer of the criticism (John Updike) is certainly a more famous intellectual, this is hardly the same thing as peasants with pitchforks marching on an ivory tower.

I mean, Deepak Chopra is considered and Intellectual, Al Gore, for god's sake. Am I anti-intellectual because I consider them froauds and posers?

[Anonymous No.4532539]

>>4532427
I was in a New York deli recently reading a book and a bunch of curly haired guys with cold hands or eczema or something were eyeing me funny. Soon enough some blonde gorilla knocks the book out of my hand and calls me a snob. He returns to the now giggling sallow dudes and receives a tenner. So I'm thinking we're going to war with people who struggled with algebra soon enough. A few snotty comments about the importance of popular sports should be enough to set it off.

Seriously though, the average person is not an intellectual, and acting like an intellectual communicates intelligence. It's a subtle form of bragging. When a guy threads his conversation with references to how big his dick is, or his wealth, or his awesome job, it's natural to react negatively. Same thing with a guy who's splashing his knowledge all over the place.

Another thing is, for people who aren't interested in 'intellectual' topics, it highlights differences between the smartass and them. Distances them. Intellectuals may seem strange or foolish also by being so concerned with things that seem to have no consequence for the non-int.

It's a natural reaction to an air of superiority, or social miscue. Like calling OP a faggot.

[Anonymous No.4532550]

Anti-intellectualism is philosophy's answer to science. Some philosophers never wanted to accept the fact that science made philosophy obsolete. In their blind rage against science they went full anti-intellectual and started denying logic, the scientific method and even their own subjective experience, while regressing to kindergarten level emotional attacks and low quality rhetorical fallacies.

[Anonymous No.4532561]

>>4532550
>A cunning troll enters the thread
Let's see how many fall for it.

[Anonymous No.4532564]

>>4532550
don't be an anti-intellectual anon

[Anonymous No.4532571]

>>4532550
Testify, brother. Testify...

[Anonymous No.4532587]

>>4532550
Do you even fucking read analytic philosophy you plebeian piece of shit?

[Anonymous No.4532597]

>>4532550

>people falling for this bait

[Anonymous No.4532602]

People think that reading James Joyce and middle aged european philosophers makes them intellectual, So you gotta define your terms better.

[Anonymous No.4532612]

>>4532602
Intellectuals are people who think about stuff. Scientists, Historians, Economists, Philosophers, some writers and poets, some musicians and artists. Anyone whose profession requires analysis, synthesis, debate and experimentation, cogitation, any mentally creative and research related occupation.

I guess a really well-read person maybe, but that might just be a self-applied title.

[Anonymous No.4532618]

>>4532587
Analytic, continental, metaphysical... who cares? Philosophy has been superseded by science. There is nothing more to be gleaned from those hoary tomes of ramshackle prose and unclear thought. Science is the wooden stake being pressed into the vampiric heart of philosophy.

Philosophy, if not already entirely dead, is moribund, headed inexorably for extinction. Plato? Aristotle? Heidegger? Derrida?!?! Poor thinkers, all of them. Hacks. I urge you instead to dip into Stephen Jay Gould's work, or Dawkin's, or whoever. In these pages you will find enlightenment and knowledge.

It's 2014, bud. Grow up. Philosophy is ready to go the way of God - that is to say, it'll die.

I just hope that you'll outgrow this silly phase.

[Anonymous No.4532631]

>>4532618
Please troll with more finesse friend, this is low quality stuff.

[Anonymous No.4532643]

>>4532631
I'm being sincere.

Philosophy has no more use. It's literally obsolete. It's an archaic mode of thought that does not illuminate.

I'll concede readily that philosophy led us to science as we know it today... but much like we abandoned the silly practice that was alchemy after chemistry superseded it, so should we abandon philosophy and focus on science, which is the bright beacon that shall lead us to the shores of truth, out of the dark waters of nescience.

But ok, tell me one use that philosophy serves. Just one, I dare you.

[Anonymous No.4532658]

>>4532612

(I'm not >>4532602 )

You say:
>Anyone whose profession requires analysis, synthesis [...]

So, are you implying that, let's say, a worker, can't be an intellectual, because his profession is a "non-intellectual" activity?

For me it is at least possible, because in the modern world, there is much free time for the average person to become an intellectual "as a hobby". (I know however, that this is more a theoretical view than a widespread phenomenon.)

[Anonymous No.4532660]

>>4532643
not being a big ol arrogant dummy

[Anonymous No.4532665]

>>4532660
Weak. Try again.

[Anonymous No.4532666]

>>4532643
Whether you're pretending to be retarded or are genuinely so is unimportant. This thread has a topic, start up a philosophy versus science thread if you want that. Or better yet, don't.

[Anonymous No.4532679]

>>4532658
well, when people are "anti-intellectual" they're usually not anti steelworkers who read books. it's usually professional guys who get the flack.

[Anonymous No.4532684]

This has been raised above, but I don't think a lot of the time it's intentional.

A lot of it I think does stem from apathy, or simply a genuine lack of interest. People are still curious, which is why factoids and game shows and the like are popular, but a lot of the time it seems that this curiosity isn't followed up on, and in these days where we have the internet at our disposal, it's just laziness or apathy that they don't seek answers to their questions.

Intellectualism brings it's own ignorance, however, especially today when intellect is cheapened and there is a kind of inherent elitism towards those that didn't go to university by those that did. This is also an increasing problem where one finds that, ironically, university environments are becoming increasingly narrow minded and intolerant to "unorthodox" thinking.

[Anonymous No.4532691]

If you want to see anti intellectual automatons just waltz into any STEM lecture/lab.

>muh simplistic measurements propose the ultimate truth !
>they dunt conceal nuffin
Actually the...
>hurr humanities durrr

[Anonymous No.4532697]

>>4532691
Scientists aren't interested in ultimate truth. I'm surprised anyone would think they are.

You could probably call them mundane (as opposed to ethereal or spritual) intellectuals

[Anonymous No.4532705]

>>4532697
They are doers not thinkers, Science can't think.

[Anonymous No.4532709]

>>4532427
The rich conspire to get richer, capitalism is inherently broken.

[Anonymous No.4532711]

>>4532705
interesting opinion.
you include theorectical scientists?

please elaborate.

[Anonymous No.4532715]

>>4532697
>>4532691

Wanking verbally about metaphysics isn't going to lead us to 'ultimate truth', whatever that is. And I know of no scientist who would claim to be chasing ultimate truth.

Philosophy is an interesting and entertaining pursuit, like fiction or poetry, but that's about it.

[Anonymous No.4532724]

>>4532666
Nice Satanville trips :)

Science vs. Philosophy belongs under this topic, is a branch of it. Look, if you're too weak mentally to argue, then it's OK, you'll grow smarter, kiddo, and learn how to defend your position; but there's no reason to get so angry and defensive.

[Anonymous No.4532730]

>>4532715
to quote someone literally in this thread

>much like we abandoned the silly practice that was alchemy after chemistry superseded it, so should we abandon philosophy and focus on science, which is the bright beacon that shall lead us to the shores of truth, out of the dark waters of nescience.

[Anonymous No.4532747]

>>4532711
It was Heidegger's original statement.
"Die Wissenschaft denkt nicht"
translated it would be
"The Science(or Sciences) don't think"

If to elaborate, a natural science such as physics is preoccupied with a relatively simplistic formula it follows, it has strict and contained methods of achieving things.

It's essentially applied just you would apply a cooking recipe, just blown out into more "brainy" realms, but that does not mean you actually have to think to do it.

Modern science also follows a predefined dogma it does not question, that of "everything is real which is measurable". Science can't think, it can't even question that statement.

[Anonymous No.4532750]

>>4532730
Well-written and somewhat truthful, but the guy sounds like the average fedora rather than an actual scientist.

I should add that Truth ought to be defined. With scientists, the truth they pursue is the truth that can actually be discerned, i.e. why do things fall (gravity), why do the planets move as they do, how did humans evolve, how to cure cancer, etc.

[Anonymous No.4532783]

>>4532747
Once you've figured out that all your possible knowledge is grounded in unprovable axioms, there isn't much left to do with philosophy.
Science is at least entertaining because it provides a wide array of recipes you can play with to occupy your worthless existence.

[Anonymous No.4532785]

>>4532747
A better way to put it is that science doesn't deal with things it can't prove by demonstration, or postulate by relaitvely rigorous logic. Science is always subject to proof and disproof, and as you point out it is by definition limited to the real and the measurable. However these are pretty large limits, and a lot of intellectual work can be done in the :"mundane" world of quantifiable and observable reality. Most scientists don't disparage those that deal outside the rules of proof or evidence, or concern themselves with unreal (or not demonstably real) or non-measureable things, so long as they don't call those things science.

[Anonymous No.4532789]

>>4532747
>that of "everything is real which is measurable".

And why the fuck would you assume it isn't? Physics works. Planes fly. Predictions can be made. ''Hurr reality isn't real'' - there is absolutely no reason to assume this and thereby to paralyze the wonderful success of science.

>is preoccupied with a relatively simplistic formula it follows, it has strict and contained methods of achieving things

You make it sound as if that's a bad thing. Facts are facts. What, would you like for physics to play fast and loose with the laws of nature just because? Then it would be useless.

>Science can't think, it can't even question that statement.

True, science can't, but scientists can: and they would be questioning that statement, except it would be a worthless exercise, and scientists have much more important things to do.

Philosophy like this is really nothing more than glorified pedantry.

[Anonymous No.4532801]

Oh great, another thread devolves into a science vs. philosophy pissing match.

[Anonymous No.4532803]

>>4532457
i fucking hate Craig Ferguson what a fucking hack

[Anonymous No.4532816]

>>4532801
>that image

[Anonymous No.4532820]

>>4532801
>mathematician is a woman

every fucking time

[Anonymous No.4532821]

>>4532803
he's well good.

[Anonymous No.4532827]

>>4532820
>dur womenz kent math xDDD

Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.4532833]

>>4532816
i agree. where is the philosopher pointing in the lower picture. Why would biology be concerned with the phenomenology of thought? And is the philosopher pointing in the second picture back at the first picture? It could be clearer.

I prefer: If it moves, it's biology, if it stinks, it's chemistry, and if it doesn't work, it's physics.

do you know the one about the physicist, the mathematician, and the philosopher?

[Anonymous No.4532836]

>>4532496
This

[Anonymous No.4532834]

>>4532820
Could be a man with long hair. Math nerds are not prone to grooming themselves.
Could also be one of these fine ladies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_mathematicians

[Anonymous No.4532842]

>>4532827
but i didn't say that.

it's so obviously put there to be 'le diverse and progressive xD' even though we know it would be only right to have it be a guy.

let the biologist and soc.major be a woman, that would be more accurate.

[Anonymous No.4532847]

>>4532833
joke pls

[Anonymous No.4532850]

>>4532801
The only things more stupid than an xkcd comics are fan edited xkcd comics.

[Anonymous No.4532852]

>Anti-intelectualism
>Too stupid to spell

[Anonymous No.4532853]

>>4532852
Have mercy, he just made a mistake. Twice.

[Anonymous No.4532855]

>>4532612
Anti Intellectuals are the ones who police the term like yourself. Loads of Manual labour requires intellectual capacity and thinking about stuff.

Plumbers, builders, enginees, electricians, tailors and tinkers all have as much chance of being intellectual as any of your "professions", given that they all require analysis, synthesis etc. You're just simply being snobby.

I'd be much more likely to think a plumber with 20 years experience was intellectual than some guy who actually thinks that /lit/ is the smartest board on 4chan.

Face it, the pseuds on lit, who make 3x3 of dead white guys as their favourite philosophers might as well be birdwatchers, checking stuff off a list.

[Anonymous No.4532865]

>>4532855
They aren't though.

I bet those turbo-plebs haven't even realized that you can't know nuffin and that science is a scam because what if nothing is real?

[Anonymous No.4532880]

>>4532847
A physicist a mathematician and a philosopher are debating the relative economies of their departments. The physicist holds that while he requires expensive equipment and and materials, he produces quite a bit of knowledge. The mathematician counters by saying that while he may not produce quite as much useful knowledge, but all they needed to do it was a pad, pencils and a wastebasket, so they should win on simple economy. The philosopher says "Ha! We don't even need the wastebasket!"

[Anonymous No.4532890]

>>4532789
>And why the fuck would you assume it isn't?
Why would you assume that is the only truth ?
>Physics works. Planes fly. Predictions can be made
I didn't state otherwise.
>>4532785
>Science is always subject to proof and disproof, and as you point out it is by definition limited to the real and the measurable.
Correct, and focusing only on the "real (as you define it) and measurable" aspects of our existence in the end conceals more truths that it uncovers.
>>4532789
>You make it sound as if that's a bad thing. Facts are facts
Truth is not only a thing you can get by measuring natural phenomena. Truth comes in many forms.

[Anonymous No.4532906]

>>4532890
confining oneself to the real and measurable may conceal truths, but since science concerns itself with facts and valid proofs, and doesn't seek truths, that's not really a problem. The disagreement seems to come form the proposition that intellectual capacity and efforts (thinking) isn't needed or used in seeking these facts and proofs.

[Anonymous No.4532922]

>>4532448
>"What is intellectualism? It is important to avoid misunderstandings in this regard. Intellectualism is a sort of infertile intelligence, an intelligence without virtility. Intellectualism is a disease of the intelligence ...."

[Anonymous No.4532926]

>>4532482
>being intellectual is subscribing to an outlined ideology and being a political cheerleader

[Anonymous No.4532946]

>>4532691
>be in mathematics
>tfw laughing at every field outside mine

Have fun chasing approximations and feelings pleb

[Anonymous No.4532949]

>anti-intellectualism

What I would regard as anti-intellectuals are those who simply refuse (or even detest) thinking about things that don't concern them in an identifiable socio-economic way. Anti-intellectuals strike me as the kind who refuse to regard thought about subject areas beyond it affecting how they are perceived by others or by how much money they can make from it.

That is why I believe anti-intellectuals can also be a term labelled as those willing to simply peddle a lot of other people's opinions round in a circle. In such instances it may benefit them in the way I've outlines above. As an example, in our current society you might get mad-hits by quoting Nietzsche or Darwin or Hitchens but to me unless you're interested in producing you're own response to the axioms of their arguments then you are a filthy anti-intellectual plebeian.

Note: I don't think being anti-intellectual is being unintelligent. As somebody has highlighted already, a tradesman or real-estate agent uses a lot of thought about their actions in their every day lives but they only do so because it benefits them in some identifiable way. They are good at something but it is the reason why they do it which marks them as against considering topics of a more intellectual realm; topics which don't have clear benefits.

[Anonymous No.4532955]

>>4532946
Do you have a degree?

[Anonymous No.4532967]

>>4532955
>implying thats at all relavent with mathematics

I have a beard and live in my moms basement if that makjes any difference tho

[Anonymous No.4533007]

ITT people have no idea what "intellect," "intellectual," or "anti-intellectual" mean.

Case in point:

>>4532855
>Plumbers, builders, enginees, electricians, tailors and tinkers all have as much chance of being intellectual as any of your "professions", given that they all require analysis, synthesis etc.

Hint: it has more to do with culture than intelligence, you ignorant fucks.

[Anonymous No.4533014]

>>4532816

[Anonymous No.4533020]

>>4533007
in·tel·lec·tu·al (ĭn′tl-ĕk′cho̅o̅-əl)
adj.
1.
a. Of or relating to the intellect.
b. Rational rather than emotional.
2. Appealing to or engaging the intellect: an intellectual book; an intellectual problem.
3.
a. Having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree. See Synonyms at intelligent.
b. Given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect.

[Anonymous No.4533043]

>>4532618
my fucking sides

[Anonymous No.4533077]

y'all niggas is bein' bold only to get told, yo. science v. philosophy, like Biggie vs. Tupac. shit nigga, if it's good, it's good, don't need to be like a buncha bitches talkin smack.

aristotle was a real nigga, dawkins is a real nigga, they all real niggas. let february be a monf a peace, yo, mlk jr. represent.

word?

[Anonymous No.4533084]

>>4533077
Word. They there's no hierarchy only differance, Derrida said so.

Lrn2deconstruct niggaz

[FiRez !!tndrCZJHE+I No.4533092]

I see anti-intellectualism as a byproduct of political correctness.

You can't even direct a well thought critique against religion without something replying with a canned fedora something joke.

Fwiw I'm part of a minority group and 3rd world dweller.

[realnigga !bYbeZ.VyMM No.4533114]

>>4533092
shit nigga, yous right, but yous wrong.

a fedora is da yarmulke of da unbeliever. they is fools on each side, yo, and you gotta deal wif fools like a mo'fuggah.

so dat when some wannabe tough-ass atheist or man a god tries some 1-2 chow yun fat double-wieldin' shit, tryin' to clean house and shit, but comes off as corny, that nigga ain't gonna get no mo' than a simple fedora tip.

a fool ain't cool, yo.

[Anonymous No.4533136]

Anti-intellectualism, while still alive and well in large parts of the country, has kind of tapered off a bit. In the last 5ish years, it has suddenly become kind of popular to be "in the know" about underground stuff in a good portion of the population. While this almost manifests itself as something utterly retarded (see: hipsters), it is still a good sign that people desire knowledge of any sort.

[Anonymous No.4533140]

>These are funny words actually, I mean being an 'intellectual' has almost nothing to do with working with your mind; these are two different things. My suspicion is that plenty of people in the crafts, auto mechanics and so on, probably do as much or more intellectual work as people in the universities. There are plenty of areas in academia where what's called 'scholarly' work is just clerical work, and I don't think clerical work's more challenging than fixing an automobile engine—in fact, I think the opposite. So if by “intellectual” you mean people who are using their minds, then it’s all over the society. If by “intellectual” you mean people who are a special class who are in the business of imposing thoughts, and framing ideas for people in power, and telling everyone what they should believe, and so on, well, yeah, that’s different. Those people are called “intellectuals” — but they’re really more a kind of secular priesthood, whose task is to uphold the doctrinal truths of the society. And the population should be anti-intellectual in that respect, I think that’s a healthy reaction.

[Anonymous No.4533141]

>happenstantial
>Anti-intelectualism.
>intelectualism.
67 responses

[Anonymous No.4533143]

>>4533020

In academic disciplines, there's often a difference between the dictionary definition of a word and its definition in a field, like how "artifact" is used in the humanities. "Intellect" in this sense doesn't mean intelligence, it means the cumulative, nonmaterial product of a society's institutions....

Intellectualism is closer to academe than intelligence. It can be stifling and ossifying. All those medieval theologians debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin were more "intellectual" than Galileo because of the context of the times... /lit/ is such a circle jerk...

[Anonymous No.4533144]

>>4533092
>I see anti-intellectualism as a byproduct of political correctness.

You are wrong anti intellectualism is the virtue of peasants that doesn't like to be reminded of their sub-human status compared to people who know what they talk about. When you are in the higher echelons of knowledge you get difficult to understand and resentment is the easiest psychological defense mechanism of petty creatures who makes up most of us.

Pseudo intellectuals can only be spotted by real intellectuals, so that argument crumbles as well. That clever people just 'look' or sound clever is also a defense of lesser creatures. The funny thing is that lesser people are always, no exceptions, 'led' by pseudo intellectuals themselves.

For reference read the allegory of the cave by Plato. He knew what the deal was. That's why he was put to death by the lesser among us.

[Anonymous No.4533157]

As we can see from the last night, the only thing that people (at least in my country) care about are sports. Don't want to talk about nothing but sports? EW you're a creepy sperglord autist anti-social loser. It's like NOTHING MATTERS BUT SPORTS in this country. It's not "hip" or "cool" to know what's going on in the world with politics, to know this country is going down the dumps, the only shit that matters is shit that DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER GOD DAMN THIS MAKES ME RAGE FUCK

[Anonymous No.4533158]

>>4533144
>wants to sound like a real intellectual
>references plato's cave

top mofugin kek. plato in general and the cave allegory in particular is so passe.

[Anonymous No.4533165]

>>4533140

Except the everyman's "anti-intellectualism" isnt an expression of his freedom of thought. He is usually just as conditioned by entertainment media and the social norms imposed on him at the scale of his actual social interactions. His priesthood has only shifted hands.

I think that whole passage was self-indulgent of chomsky. He isnt trying to talk about what is really meant by the criticism of "anti-intellectualism". He is more concerned with using the topic as a platform to dismiss academics as shitheads that should be ignored, divorced from the context of what takes its place or what the actual ideological condition of the subject defined as "anti-intellectual" is.

[Anonymous No.4533169]

>>4533165
Chomsky just really thinks all people more or less is like himself. Common error of analytics.

[Anonymous No.4533170]

>>4533157
Why do you assume some things matter and some others do not?
What does that assumption rest on?

[Anonymous No.4533172]

>>4533158
>passe.

Yes, good, try to rationalize it by making the truth akin to a fashion statement.

[Anonymous No.4533174]

>>4533165
>I think that whole passage was self-indulgent of chomsky. He isnt trying to talk about what is really meant by the criticism of "anti-intellectualism". He is more concerned with using the topic as a platform to dismiss academics as shitheads that should be ignored, divorced from the context of what takes its place or what the actual ideological condition of the subject defined as "anti-intellectual" is.
No, his point was simply that you're not some special free-thinking snowflake who lives on an elevated plane just because you're an academic, and that you're in no position to denigrate the masses just because they have their own intellectual problems in life and can't be bothered to give a single fuck about your.

[Anonymous No.4533176]

>>4533172
That's a good definition.

[Anonymous No.4533178]

>>4533165
I think he makes a reasonable point. If intellectual means smart, that's not confined to universities. And it may be beneficial for the masses to question those who help produce and disseminate views of the world.

[Anonymous No.4533179]

>>4533172
I'm not making a fashion statement, nigga. Plato was just a guy who walked around wearing a loincloth and pontificating about universal forms.

We know so much more than people knew then.

[Anonymous No.4533180]

>>4533176
Enjoy never experiencing the true forms.
If i wasnt being a lame troll, I would agree.

[Anonymous No.4533182]

>>4533174
Good point but this here sounds like someone talking out of his ass:
>There are plenty of areas in academia where what's called 'scholarly' work is just clerical work, and I don't think clerical work's more challenging than fixing an automobile engine—in fact, I think the opposite.
Has Chomsky ever fixed an automobile engine?

[Anonymous No.4533183]

>>4533166
It is a fact, that since the Roman times (scratch that even the times of the Greeks and the original Olympics) sports become a substitute for normal human struggles and becomes the first false reality. People are no longer players in life but spectators, like in Plato's cave looking at shadows on the wall.

Nowaday's people know all about football scores, they're not stupid their minds are just filled with shit that doesnt matter unless their gamblers. Now its unmanly to know geopolitics or how the world works, but KNOWING SPORTS IS NOW A VIRTUE. Go to any declining society (rome, north korea, nazi germany, etc.) Everyone thinks they're going to somehow be a rockstar or a sports player when they grow up, just look at our youth. No one is in reality, they just talk about nothing but sports, its god damn pitiful. We dance at Dennis Rodman for going to north korea but clearly basketball is king in north korea. When you build your whole life around being a spectator youre not in the arena, thats why authoritarians push sports to keep people on their butts interested in factoids and stats about sports not in philosophy or how the world works.

[Anonymous No.4533184]

>>4533182
>Has Chomsky ever fixed an automobile engine?

Of course.

[Anonymous No.4533188]

>>4533170
I would classify something that "matters" as something which has the greatest impact on our lives and society as a whole. This is just my definition, so tell me if you disagree, but frankly sports are just a part of our mass consumerist/propaganda/escapist culture which seeks to hide reality from the people. That's why knowing about politics or philosophy or geopolitics is "hah nerd fag loser" but knowing stats about football is manly HUE HUE HUE USA USA USA

[Anonymous No.4533192]

>>4532691
>not understanding the purpose of studying STEM

[Anonymous No.4533197]

>>4533188
Because in reality they are being exploited by men no better than them. You can't change that much better to be a spectator watching and cheering for your heroes glory, that's much better than 'reality' where they are slaves of capital and alienated from their own lives.

[Anonymous No.4533199]

>>4533188
Because in reality they are being exploited by men no better than themselves. You can't change that. It's much better to be a spectator watching and cheering for your heroes glory. that's a much better deal than 'reality' where they are slaves of capital and alienated from their own lives.

[Anonymous No.4533206]

One of the best strategies for marketing is fostering insecurity. You have ugly teeth, buy this toothpaste; you aren't attractive enough, buy this car, etc. So we have a society that is built on inspiring insecurity and keeping people insecure in order to keep the money flowing. We have an entire nation that believes it isn't attractive enough or smart enough and so they're scared of people they see as attractive and smart. Anti-intellectualism and anti-activism are all insecure people who believe that they can never be intelligent or can't change the world so they want other people to stop being intelligent or fighting for change because it makes them feel bad about themselves. And it can all be traced back to this culture of insecurity where marketers are destroying people's egos in order to push toothpaste.

[Anonymous No.4533207]

>>4533197
>slaves of capital
>using that phrase unironically

[Anonymous No.4533208]

>>4533174

>No, his point was simply that you're not some special free-thinking snowflake who lives on an elevated plane just because you're an academic

That is agreeable, i dont think that his point was a bad one. I just think that if ii were in the midst of a discussion with chomsky about anti-intellectualism in the west and that was his offering i would see it as irrelevant to how anti-intellectualism actually manifests itself in the average person. Its usually somebody getting emotional and mentally cataloguing you as a faggot because you challenged their opinion on something. Or it is somebody irrationally defending their perspective on the status quo against criticism.

An example of the latter may be as raw as some kid getting socially ostracized because he was more precise with his language in middle school, and all of the kids oriented their understanding of normalcy around vague slang. In that sense, being anti intellectual is just being intellectually dense and indulgent of the ego.

>and that you're in no position to denigrate the masses just because they have their own intellectual problems in life and can't be bothered to give a single fuck about your.

Granted, too. But discussion of ideals isnt necessarily a declaration of what ought to be done, if you realize that your perspective is very insulated and fallible. Its kind of masturbatory if you dont claim your perspective is absolutely true, but from that "objective" angle everything youre doing is masturbatory. Ive got too much free time to not be cultivating models of reality. I used to want to be a farmer so i wouldnt have so much time to just think about things.

[Anonymous No.4533217]

>>4533179
>We know so much more than people knew then.
Yeah, we're so much closer to the true forms now.

>>4533180
Same to you my good fellow :^)

>>4533183
Sorry for deleting that post >>4533170, had to correct that mistake.
>People are no longer players in life but spectators, like in Plato's cave looking at shadows on the wall.
There's plenty of non-human animals who enjoy games. Rats for example like playing around. There's probably some social animals who enjoy watching other animals play around.
There's a great deal of such social games in birds for example. Some birds will imitate other birds' songs to improve on their own. They have to be passive in a way to listen to the others' songs.

>Now its unmanly to know geopolitics or how the world works, but KNOWING SPORTS IS NOW A VIRTUE.
How is geopolitics not typically a spectator's game? Do the people who play the game (elected officials, dictators, military leaders business owners, and so on) care that much about geopolitics? I don't think they do. They have people paid to focus on all the technical aspects. Experts on culture and economy and history to advice them. I don't think people in the ruling business care as much about "happenings" as your typical /pol/ user for example.

>not in philosophy or how the world works.
You can learn about philosophy or how the world works entirely through books or the internet, and that'd be a rather passive, spectator-like endeavor as well.
There were actually very few philosophers, authors, or even scientists who were also rulers, business owners and so on.

[Anonymous No.4533221]

>>4533188
>I would classify something that "matters" as something which has the greatest impact on our lives and society as a whole.
Clearly sports have a great impact on the American society if you refer to this post: >>4533157

>As we can see from the last night, the only thing that people (at least in my country) care about are sports.
> It's like NOTHING MATTERS BUT SPORTS in this country.

>but frankly sports are just a part of our mass consumerist/propaganda/escapist culture
Seemingly yes.

>seeks to hide reality from the people.
But sports are part of reality.
>That's why knowing about politics or philosophy or geopolitics
It's just a different type of interest. I don't think most people have cared that much about politics, philosophy or geopolitics from an historical perspective. Sports are part of people's daily lives.
While there were maybe hundreds, thousands of variations of political systems, some which granted the masses more power than others, sports were always there, and were always popular.

[Anonymous No.4533223]

>>4533178

Definitely. Like i said above, i guess i should have adjusted my language a little because i came off as in disagreement. I think it is a valid point he made, but i just thought it was a deviation. Its only incidental that anti-intellectualism may dismiss ivory tower wankers that otherwise could lead the proles into a set of social norms that are a mismatch with their everyday lives. Or worse, a Great Leap Forward that kills a bunch of middle and lower class people.

But it also usually ends up dismissing criticisms of irrationale beliefs held by the middle or lower classes that could be detrimental to those classes. We know people arent perfectly rationale, and that they behave in ways that result in effects theyd consider negative. I just think the topic of anti intellectualism is really discussing the extreme of the satirical image in "Idiocracy". People who are not very thoughtful, and who react in ways they were emotionally conditioned to react when confronted with thoughtful reflection.

[Anonymous No.4533311]

>>4533007
http://www.emersoncentral.com/amscholar.htm

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4534080]

>>4532602
Yes, I considered that. I left it open for the debate, figuring that the topic would stray wildly anyway. I like deep thought intellectuals, but what I personally am concerned with is general intelligence of the masses. "I jus wanna be yung n stoopid" [From the Craig Ferguson YT] I just want people to be thoughtful, considerate, garner some knowledge of something.

>>4532618
>Philosophy ... headed inexorably for extinction
It may have little else that's new to add, but it isn't dead. It still has a purpose. Every generation should hear at least a little bit about the major themes. Science is a growing vine admittedly. Growing over the brick and mortar of philosophy.

>>4532684
>Intellectualism brings it's own ignorance,
Not by my definition. I don't think people are being encouraged to think to hard. I think the state of things could be flipped rather easily.

>>4532709
You know I lean there!
>>4532852
>>4532853
Wow. Fucking spellcheck allowed it, why? and I just copy/pasted it, obviously.
>Anti-intellectualism.
Shame shame.

>>4533092
>I see anti-intellectualism as a byproduct of political correctness.
I don't see that at all. "Fedora" Ignored.