Does intellectualism lead to narcissism?

Yeah, Rand did have some skewed opinions about homosexual people.

The calculation of beauty... I am there.
 
beelsc1 said:
Does intellectualism lead to narcissism?
Click to expand...

Naw. In Colorado it leads to Columbines.

images
images
 
beeksc1 said:
Does intellectualism tend to lead to a narcissism?
Or
Does intellectualism often lead to the us (scholars) verses them (more simple-minded folk) mentality?
Click to expand...

Isn't it the other way round? Narcissism may lead to the kind of "teachers, mentors, coaches" who "are definitely" not "hip, down-to-earth, and approachable", Ayn Rand being just one of them.

There is a big difference between finding out about a thing and being interested in the honour and glory that your discovery may bring you. Narcissism might provide you with the drive, but the narcissistic need to inflate your otherwise deflated self-image might lead to errors in your research, e.g. the many studies that want to prove that educated white men are superior to the rest of the world.
Only a scientist who doesn't have this need (or doesn't let it influence his research) will discover the truth in fields where the self-image could be at stake.

Science is basically anti-narcissistic, i.e. the personality of the researcher does not enter into the result of his research, if done correctly. E = mc2 would still be E = mc2 (sorry, can't write the squared correctly) if discovered by somebody other than Einstein. Art, however, and superstition are very different in this respect because they don't depend on the discovery/explanation of something objective.
 
Weren't the teachers we remember as "hip, down-to-earth, and approachable" the kind of guys who were into their fields rather than into themselves? Weren't they the ones who were interested in sharing knowledge rather than using it to inflate themselves? I remember a few who were both narcissistic and knowledgeable, and I kind of tolerated their narcissism as long as they could pass on their knowledge.
The anti-narcissistic educators usually enjoy seeing their students learn & discover things for themselves. At that stage the narcissist usually begins to feel threathened ...

In this forum there are several people who are quite knowledgeable, actually enjoy to teach, but feel threatened when their teachings are questioned instead of enjoying the challenge. They are into being knowlegeable rather than into knowledge, which is a contradiction in terms that brings its own punishment.
 
I guess that what I've been trying to say is that I disagree with your statement in the opening post where you seem to consider it a question of humility versus narcissism, which is not a real contradiction, or at least not the one that I think is essential in this case.

beeksc1 said:
Many historical and modern-day teachers, shamans, and storytellers, etc. believe in and practice humility; those kind of people basically see each other as brother and sister. Nonetheless, a person can get the impression that: people who think that science is the only way toward truth, the people who are all gung-ho about behavioral observation, the people who are "high-class" authors (Pinter's No Man's Land), etc. are the kind of people who are a "high risk" population toward the formation of a perspective that is narcissistic in quality.
Click to expand...
 
Piggy said:
It's kinda hard to be narcissistic when you realize that you're a cosmic accident no bigger than a dust speck that exists for an eyeblink and then vanishes without a trace and leaves no discernable impression on the cosmos which itself will likely vanish without a trace and every other critter of your species is, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from you and your life has no purpose or meaning but you're doomed to live with a brain that continually demands both purpose and meaning out of life but there's none to be had.
Click to expand...

..............................
549048a2105f72048.jpg
 
beeksc1 said:
Many historical and modern-day teachers, shamans, and storytellers, etc. believe in and practice humility; those kind of people basically see each other as brother and sister. Nonetheless, a person can get the impression that: people who think that science is the only way toward truth, the people who are all gung-ho about behavioral observation, the people who are "high-class" authors (Pinter's No Man's Land), etc. are the kind of people who are a "high risk" population toward the formation of a perspective that is narcissistic in quality. No doubt that empiricism leads to revolutionary machines and is the supreme method to test a hypothesis; yet...

Some teachers, mentors, coaches are definitely hip, down-to-earth, and approachable; but, then, is there an increased likelihood that people who basically seek a lifelong pursuit of knowledge, as compared to people who are more simple-minded, will develop narcissistic views, especially in modern-day society?

Side note: Generally, I think very highly of Ayn Rand; yet...

Does intellectualism tend to lead to a narcissism?
Or
Does intellectualism often lead to the us (scholars) verses them (more simple-minded folk) mentality?
Click to expand...

You need to distinguish between intellectualism and a life-long pursuit of knowledge. A genuine pusuit of knowledge will tend to produce the opposite of narcissism - as in Socrates "know that you don't know" dictum. See Einstein's humility in the face of the mysteries of the universe.

On the other hand posturing intellectualism is based upon narcissism, rather than leading to it. See Derrida.

The most humble intellectuals like Einstein have the least to be humble about, and the most narcissistic intellectuals like Derrida have the most to be humble about.
 
dann said:
Weren't the teachers we remember as "hip, down-to-earth, and approachable" the kind of guys who were into their fields rather than into themselves? Weren't they the ones who were interested in sharing knowledge rather than using it to inflate themselves?
Click to expand...

Not in my case. Turned out they were all just pedophiles. Go figure.
 
beeksc1 said:
Ayn Rand... crap?
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

I know I have not written a novel like The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged.
Click to expand...

I'm worried that you even aspire to.

Her philosophy is sophomoric, simplistic, and wrong.

But beyond that --- her plots are stupid and overly complex, her characters are completely unrealistic, her language is appallingly turgid, and she just plain sucks as a writer.
 
drkitten said:
Her philosophy is sophomoric, simplistic, and wrong.

But beyond that --- her plots are stupid and overly complex, her characters are completely unrealistic, her language is appallingly turgid, and she just plain sucks as a writer.
Click to expand...

But hey, she can do wonders for your self-esteem!
 
Piggy said:
It's kinda hard to be narcissistic when you realize that you're a cosmic accident no bigger than a dust speck that exists for an eyeblink and then vanishes without a trace and leaves no discernable impression on the cosmos which itself will likely vanish without a trace and every other critter of your species is, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from you and your life has no purpose or meaning but you're doomed to live with a brain that continually demands both purpose and meaning out of life but there's none to be had.
Click to expand...

Regarding your statement, it is possible that the universe also may indeed vanish without a trace. I'm not entirely sure but it's possible I suppose.

INRM
 
Yes, humility may not be the exact antithesis of narcissism; but, if a person beliefs and enacts the notion that no one person is more important than another (on a very relative scale), then that person reasonably is not narcissistic. Yes, Chomsky influences more people than farmer Joe; yet, farmer Joe is pretty important to his children's livelihood and to his spouse.

And i debated as whether to limited the original post to just the question and that question only or to reflect on it a little. I decided to elaborate upon it a little because I thought it might bring forth some interesting posts.

dann said:
Weren't the teachers we remember as "hip, down-to-earth, and approachable" the kind of guys who were into their fields rather than into themselves? Weren't they the ones who were interested in sharing knowledge rather than using it to inflate themselves? I remember a few who were both narcissistic and knowledgeable, and I kind of tolerated their narcissism as long as they could pass on their knowledge.
The anti-narcissistic educators usually enjoy seeing their students learn & discover things for themselves. At that stage the narcissist usually begins to feel threathened ...

In this forum there are several people who are quite knowledgeable, actually enjoy to teach, but feel threatened when their teachings are questioned instead of enjoying the challenge. They are into being knowlegeable rather than into knowledge, which is a contradiction in terms that brings its own punishment.
Click to expand...

And definitely Dann, I mostly agree with what you have to share with that post. I also can usually tolerate (in academia) those Profs that are "full of themselves" because they usually are d*mn good at their job. But, then there are Profs who are on par with the aforementioned kind of Prof and they are down to Earth and really cool people.

It is like I could see myself having a drink (or sharing a smoke; etc. whatever... socializing) with the down to Earth Profs; and for the "I am untouchable" Profs (who are usually top-notch teachers), I am unable to visualize myself hanging out (shooting the breeze) with them.

Peace.

~beeks
 
I would tend to believe that the intellectualism of another, or an opponent of one’s beliefs, could lead to claiming that that person is a narcissist as a convenient “Personal Attack” when one’s own lack of intelligence prevents him/her from any logical counter argument.

I find the same is true when discussing the existence of a god, and then I am “attacked” as arrogant since I lack the belief held by believers.

The flaw in these “personal attacks” is that whether a person is a narcissist or arrogant has nothing to do with fact. Whether a person is or isn’t a narcissist has nothing to do with their intelligence. Whether I am or am not arrogant has nothing to do with whether there is or isn’t a god. It’s just a convenient way to back out of a discussion the “claimant” realizes cannot win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom