What is an “intellectual”?
Posted on February 9, 2008
Further to my post yesterday:
In his usual memorable way, the delightful Dr. Spooner once said: “I have in my breast a half-warmed fish”. I suspect that the definition I am about to offer is little better than a half-warmed fish but here goes: I think an intellectual is someone who defends popular ideas in a particularly persuasive way — which is why the label is usually attached only to people who are much in the public eye. There are many scholars and scientists labouring away at making a contribution to knowledge and understanding but it is only when they get into the public eye that they become “intellectuals”. And if the ideas they espouse are complex or difficult to follow they will simply not get into the public eye. The ideas concerned have to be readily comprehended by the intelligent layman.
And one reason why most intellectuals seem to be Left-leaning is that Leftist ideas are the ones most in need of defending. Some Leftist ideas — such as the belief that you can provide more and better accomodation for the poor by instituting government rent-control — are so obviously mad that not even an intellectual could defend them (except in NYC of course). But other ideas — such as the desirability of universal government healthcare — are attractive enough to warrant defending. And if you have been to a government hospital lately, you will very likely feel that only an intellectual could defend that idea. I am sure that Hillary Clinton goes to private hospitals.
So I think I can safely say that I am not an intellectual. I get no mainstream media exposure at all. Since I would much prefer to be regarded as a scientist or a scholar, however, I feel rather pleased about that. Most “intellectuals” seem to me to be very poor scientists and scholars — Noam Chomsky, for instance.
Posted by John Ray
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, News
Trackback URL
Comments
8 Responses to “What is an “intellectual”?”
Leave a Reply
I think it is odd that you would make such accusations without proof. It is obvious to all of us that your accusations about Prof. Chosmky supporting the regimes of Pol Pot or Mao are just that, accusations. Prof. Chomsky has millions of words on record but you can not produce a single word supporting the dictators that you claim he supports. It would be interesting to see a cartoon with Uncle Sam at that chalkboard. You could show Suharto, Somaza, Pinochet, Sharon, Musharaf, the Sauds, Batiste, Saddam, Osama, Norigea.. et al.
You obviously have nothing to say about Chomsky’s linguistic work because it is above you intellect so instead you repeat charges that are decades old. Is this really all you people have? YOu really do hope that Americans are too stupid to think for yourself, don’t you?
I would imagine that Carl Sagan is one of those fake intellectuals but he is qouted as saying that extraordinary claims require evidence of which you can not produce. This show that you are intellectually dishonest at best or a complete liar at worst.
Justin:
You mean something like this, from Noam Chomsky’s official Website::
Just wondering…
First off what is the context of that quote? I know what where it came from but most readers won’t. Also that quote you produce has nothing to do with Pol Pot or Mao, so how does that fulfill my simple request? If you want to argue the about the use of violence to achieve political gains I am all for it but this debate, from 67, has nothing to do with Castro.
So again, will you please provide quotes from Prof. Chomsky that show him supporting any of those dictators.
If you can’t it shows you are pushing false garbage, which is fine. Again extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Again, you show that you spout lies. It is as simple as that. This is why you will never win because eventually people wise up, just look back at the civil rights movement. People like you tried their hardest to stop blacks from voting but guess what you lost.
If you can not tell the truth then what good are you? My guess is that you are nothing but a hatefilled little boy in a man’s body. I also guess that you resent the fact that some of read Kant and Hegel and you can’t.
When you have some truthful statements to make about Chomsky then be my guest and air them but if you are just going to spew garbage then ….. oh wait what was it that your man Jesus said about the food purity laws? Nevermind you wouldn’t know.
It is just a matter of time until you fanatics turn into wacko fundies and start offing people like the Muslims.
You are a joke and so are the people who give you support. I really hope that one day you have your rights stripped from you.
You put in so much work for such much intellectual garbage.
Wasn’t Chomsky talking about the NLF? The National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam?
You know, the Viet Cong.
Supported by North Vietnam.
Which was led by Ho Chi Mihn.
What, too many dots to connect?
But it’s really typical “trash America” nonsense from Chomsky. Consider what he said following the attack on Pearl Harbor:
Chomsky is one of those that says American is always wrong.
You seem to be of the same ilk.
What what the heck was that crack about “people like you tried … to stop blacks from voting?”
People like me have never done any such thing.
People like Robert Byrd tried. But not people like me.
Oh and yes, I’ve read Mark’s Gospel.
My goodness! Justin sure is full of hate and anger. He’s been fuming here for a few days now.
Amusing that it seems to be the cartoon that he is arguing with. The link to an expose of what an academic fraud Chomsky is goes unmentioned
O Just one: Just a little note in response to this:
“I also guess that you resent the fact that some of read Kant and Hegel and you can’t.”
I have a comment on a central article by Hegel here:
http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/05/american-roots-of-fascism-american.html See Appendix 2
I do read Marx, Engels and Hitler in the original German and I have in fact been the first one to offer online translations of some of Marx’s words. See the archives here:
http://marxwords.blogspot.com/
– which surprised me nearly as much as I am sure it surprises you
But I do confess that Hegel is too much for me in the original German. His prose is constipated enough in a good English translation!
Justin wants proof of Chosmky’s support of Mao and Pol Pot?
Mao: read, “New Mandarins” specifically the chapter, “The Logic of Withdrawal.”
Pol Pot: “At War With Asia,” 1977 The Nation Article, “Distortions and Fourthand.” and, “After the Cataclysm.”