Anti- Intellectualism in American Life

You are too simple, sir dyslexia. You could have said a great many things. I hope that your dyslexia does not slow you down.

0 Replies

When Hoffer speaks of the "fault finding man of words" he clearly is referring to Intellectuals. As George ob1 says, we must distinguish between good intellectuals and bad ones.

It is clear that Hoffer felt that "bad" intellectuals were those "faultfinding men of words" who, by "persistent ridicule and denunciation, shakes prevailing beliefs and loyalties". In other words, the Atheist who is firmly grounded in Relativism.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

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.

george

We have achieved an end as unlikely as tossing a spacecraft out to a Juipter moon and having it arrive within two miles and fourteen minutes of what was expected before launch - in short, a miracle - I find not a word to disagree with in your post.

0 Replies

BBB
Gentlemen, it sounds like you are debating the value and legitimacy between an elitist and a pragmatic intellectual.

Not being a scholar myself, I found it easier to absorb Hoffer than many other intellectuals I've struggled to read. Isn't that a wonderful thing? To be able to reach out to the common man rather than just the elite.

Compare Hoffer to Carl Sagan and his genius in creating the TV show, The Cosmos. This series brought the wonders of space science to millions in a manner they could understand. It inspired young people to enter the world of science. Hoffer and Sagan were both intellectuals, but with a pragmatic bent. This style allowed them to break out of the elite intellectual bubble to inspire the masses. I like that!

Are we being a bit snobbish?

BBB

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

We have achieved an end as unlikely as tossing a spacecraft out to a Juipter moon and having it arrive within two miles and fourteen minutes of what was expected before launch - in short, a miracle - I find not a word to disagree with in your post.

It is an indication of just how far you have come Bernie !!

More seriously, we have been fortunate (or persistent) enough to briefly break through the partisan baggage that overlays basic ideas and that makes for so much discord. I think we have both long known that there are many fundamental ideas, values, and tastes which we share in common. I don't think we have ever really disagreed about the existence or meaning of things like narrow-minded fundamentalism (or its equivalent secularism) or even questions of national strategy. Rather we have disputed the relative importance or significance of these things in a variety of complex and changing contexts.

BBB can be an agreeable and engaging person. She's smart and very quick to find the essential points of most disputes here. However still too much there of the strident labor organizer, still fighting a vanished class of exploiters. The "elite" up close aren't different at all - they merely need to think they are - and you, dear, exhibit many of the traits of scholarship, endlessly pasting selections from your reading here. Take it easy babe! (BTW I'm back in Alameda now. The place looks great ! Restaurants, coffee shops & neat stores now domonate Park St. There's not an unrestored Victorian or Bungalo left on the island, and Bay Farm is as green and 'California' as ever.)

0 Replies

george

You know, I think it is just that in the modern context where points of view are established in relation to this administration, everyone other than them, Savonarola, Ghengis Khan and the Green River Killer will be substantially identical.

0 Replies

i certainly will agree that the Bush Administration excites intense visceral opposition from many of its political opponents both in the USA and in Europe. However, correspondingly, so did the Clinton Administration among its opponents (you weren't one of the opponents, so you didn't feel it.). It seems likely that the underlying cause factors here go well beyond either of the administrations.

There have been several previous periods of very intense political partisanship in this country, partuicularly in the first half oof the 19th century, starting with Hamilton and Jefferson and going on to Adams (the son) and Jackson, and continuing through, and even beyond, the civil war. In the second half of the 20th century we saw instead prolonged periods of dominance, first by Democrats under Roosevelt and a Democrat controlled Congress, punctuated by periods of intense partisanship, generally with Executiuve and Legislative power held by opposing parties. The metaphor here is far from perfect, but I believe the real cause for what you describe is to be found here.

Happy Thanksgiving !

0 Replies

The two party system is defunct. It lumps different groups into an 'either or' situation where they don't belong. If there is only 'black and white' where does the 64-bit true colour spectrum fit, or for that matter the different shades of grey?

0 Replies

Gerogeob1- You comment about periods of "intense political partisanship" remind all of us that however we would wish to characterize Bill Clinton as the damndest rogue in the History of the United States or Geore W. Bush as the most inept fumbler, many past administrations have suffered under attempted demonization.

www.connerprarie.org/HistoryOnline/1880pol.html

shows clearly how the Politics of the 1870's and 1880's were just as brutal as the present machinations and how the shibboleths were tossed around just as shamelessly--Ma, Ma, Where's My Pa--Gone to the White House-Ha Ha Ha.

Blatham would love to connect the present Administration with Savanarola, Ghengis Khan and the Green River Killer( his attempts to equate the Green River Killer with Savanarola or Ghengis Khan is supposed to be funny, I suppose but it falls flat since there is such an ungulfable distance between the importance of Green with Khan or Savan).

I think that Blatham must be reading too many of H. L. Mencken's essays which, unfortunately, reveled in the same type of Historical inaccuracies.

0 Replies

Anti- Intellectualism in American Life

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know