blatham wrote:actually, george, let me put this question to you.
Are there any good intellectuals? If so, what differentiates them from bad intellectuals?
A fair question, and one, for which, based on my previous comments, I owe Blatham an answer .
Using Hofstadter's definition of the term (or even a less restrictive one) I would assert that there are both good ones and bad, and their relative numbers depend on excactly what you mean by good or bad. I infer that Hofstadter would (or could) judge them as good or bad based on how well they fulfilled his definition of the required essential characteristics, i.e. a dedication to the life of the mind and critical thought accompanyed by piety and playfulness with respect to ideas themselves.
Others might define intellectuals as good or bad based on the degree to which they continue to test their assumptions, ideas and conclusions against facts as they unfold; the balance (or lack of it) that accompanies the actions they take or urge other to take in fulfilling these ideas; and the morality (or humanity if you prefer) that limits their actions in support of their ideas; and finally the logical/intellectual merit of the ideas they produce. I suppose I would use these criteria for my own selection.
I don't mean to overplay the distinction I made with respect to Hoffer, who I presume we all would consider to have been an intellectual. Perhaps Hofstadter would have considered him such as well as well - however one must recognize the very practical "folkish" qualities that Hoffer himself emphasized in his own work and persona and the degree to which these qualities differ from the more disciplined, structured and formally trained qualities that Hofstadter repeatedly emphasized and carefully distinguished from mere folk or practical wisdom.
