Top Intellectuals

[American]

When did "intellectual" become an insult?

Doesn't sound insulting to me. Does it sound insulting to you?

Intellectual: one who can't.

By strict definition, I must respect "intellects", but in 2005 an intellect is a virtual celebrity who advocates that the worst elements of society prey freely upon the middle class, while elites like themselves are safely buffered at the top.

"Elites" is a buzz word you hear on AM radio these days - if you've ever scratched your head at the term, I hope that I give meaning to it here. (Don't be mislead by race-baiters who think that means "Jews". That's a common ploy to divert discussion and brand one a racist, effectively ending all argument.)

 

[Phil]

Intellectual: one who can't.

By strict definition, I must respect "intellects", but in 2005 an intellect is a virtual celebrity who advocates that the worst elements of society prey freely upon the middle class, while elites like themselves are safely buffered at the top.

"Elites" is a buzz word you hear on AM radio these days - if you've ever scratched your head at the term, I hope that I give meaning to it here. (Don't be mislead by race-baiters who think that means "Jews". That's a common ploy to divert discussion and brand one a racist, effectively ending all argument.)

Are you speaking only of the jag offs on talk radio and cable news who deem themselves pundits because they have a microphone and spew a biting political soundbite on occasion? If so, I would agree with your definition.

I personally have a different definition for intellectual; one that encompasses a broader range of subjects and ideas than merely tired jabs at political and/or ratings opponents.

But again, therein lies the rub with these types of lists. No stated definition or criteria.

 

[Orwell]

Intellectual: one who can't.

One who can't what?

By strict definition, I must respect "intellects", but in 2005 an intellect is a virtual celebrity who advocates that the worst elements of society prey freely upon the middle class, while elites like themselves are safely buffered at the top.

"Elites" is a buzz word you hear on AM radio these days - if you've ever scratched your head at the term, I hope that I give meaning to it here. (Don't be mislead by race-baiters who think that means "Jews". That's a common ploy to divert discussion and brand one a racist, effectively ending all argument.)

Well, who exactly are these "elites"? I mean, you talk about "elites that prey upon the middle class". I think you're confusing the intellectual elite with the economic elite. They're not the same, you know?

 

[CBL4]

It's sad that words like "intellectual" and "elite" have become insults. I would feel proud to have "shown intellect to a high degree" or to be a "member of group that has shown superior intellectual, social or economic status." (From dictionary.com) Unfortunately, in most places, it is better to be one of the common man than to be one of the best and brightest.

Is there are positive word that means "best and brightest" or do they all have negative conotations?

CBL

 

[American]

I mean, you talk about "elites that prey upon the middle class".

Not quite - they enable a broad and constant assault on the middle class from the bottom-up: the counter-culture, criminals, and "economic elites" (as you point out, there is a difference). They don't publicly attack the working class themselves, as that would garner retaliation. It is just that sentiment that New Media taps so well - never would we want a liberal to be silent, as their lewd displays provide great exhibitionary value. As a conservative, I am thrilled when Howard Dean speaks, but frustrated that Hillary Clinton remains quite with her feelings.

Their goal (those 10 intellectuals) is to set policy that protects their bubble and undermines the common man and his good values, which they judge to be non-progressive and unenlightened. Class warfare (for everyone but themselves) is mostly achieved by leftist media - including news, MTV, and Rolling Stone - exploiting racial tensions, seducing teens toward degenerate goals, and the berating of true, inspired dreamers - those studious geeks possessing "positive intellect" or "good elitist" qualities yet are hampered by pop (poop) culture and mainstream attitudes.... damn the boy who doesn't "celebrate diversity!" or believe in miracles.

And if you live on a farm, may God or Allah help you....

In any case, the hard Left is well aware of this scheme: that only with the destruction of the middle class can a revolution ever hope to succeed. "The rich" would be easy to pick off, it is instead the gun-bearing, 40-hour work week, semi-populist, Walmart-shopping, strong willed American who wants "the system" to work and is well-satisfied NOT to rise up in bloody revolt, but instead act as patriots and simply enjoy life.

(Is there ONE conformist among those 10 thinkers? I believe that they are all revolutionaries.)

In inflicting as much misery as possible on middle class people - by subverting their values, pushing drugs, bad economic policy (taxation and unrestrained growth of the public sector), and generally promoting modern liberalism - they hope to fulfill the Marxist prophecy they adopted in the 1960s while on LSD and worshiping Beatles songs: the prophecy that capitalists are too greedy not to exploit the proletariat, who will eventually rise-up in revolution.

In summary:

Leftists push for a 2-class system: elitists, and proletariats. [What comes after the revolution? They believe in Utopia, but we all know the real pattern of history: more-of-the-same. Hence we here frequent cries like "REAL communism has never been tried!". At which point one should ignore the child altogether.]

Rightists want a strong stabilizing force to exist - the middle class. So long as they are kind to them (enough wealth trickles down), the King keeps his head.

 

[Dr Adequate]

When did "intellectual" become an insult?

When one guy invented the wheel, and another guy couldn't understand how it worked.

"UGH ... UGH ... GRUNT ... GRUNT ... Second Law Thermodynamics, him say wheel not roll. Me Neanderthal ... you INTELLECTUAL ELITIST ... UGH ..."

 

[American]

When one guy invented the wheel, and another guy couldn't understand how it worked.

No, when a third man told us that we must use it for the common good, despite its patented square shape, and also for the children no doubt.

Note, the inventor received squat for his wheel, while "the other guy" got run over by it.

The primary enabler, after all of this, was revered and made chief... named a "top 10" thinker of all time.

 

[Mercutio]

No, when a third man told us that we must use it for the common good, despite its patented square shape, and also for the children no doubt.

Note, the inventor received squat for his wheel, while "the other guy" got run over by it.

The primary enabler, after all of this, was revered and made chief... named a "top 10" thinker of all time.

Sorry, Dr. A's was funny; this was just forced.

ZN,

It took a lot of restraint to avoid describing Chomsky as anything other than an atheist. I was surprised that it took more than 10 posts for someone else to do so.

CBL

As a behaviorist, I recused myself from commenting on Chomsky. I know I am biased. I believe I am right, but err on the side of recognizing my bias.

 

[epepke]

It's sad that words like "intellectual" and "elite" have become insults. I would feel proud to have "shown intellect to a high degree" or to be a "member of group that has shown superior intellectual, social or economic status." (From dictionary.com) Unfortunately, in most places, it is better to be one of the common man than to be one of the best and brightest.

Is there are positive word that means "best and brightest" or do they all have negative conotations?

CBL

I don't know.

I chafe a bit at the word "intellectual," but probably not for the same reasons that many do. To me, "intellectual" is a bit like "pundit" or "commentator" or "journalist."

Using "intellectual" as a noun is a bit different to me from using it as an adjective. All of the listed people are intellectual, but I wouldn't classify all of them as intellectuals. From another perspective, many people don't mind being called "bright," but some object to being called "a bright."

 

[Cain]

The whole purpose of these polls is to stir up discussion and get people to visit their website. I remember taking a moment to vote in this thing (as it so happens). The British/American bias seems pretty obvious. Chomsky's position does not surprise me.

 

[Orwell]

Not quite - they enable a broad and constant assault on the middle class from the bottom-up: the counter-culture, criminals, and "economic elites" (as you point out, there is a difference). They don't publicly attack the working class themselves, as that would garner retaliation. It is just that sentiment that New Media taps so well - never would we want a liberal to be silent, as their lewd displays provide great exhibitionary value. As a conservative, I am thrilled when Howard Dean speaks, but frustrated that Hillary Clinton remains quite with her feelings.

Most of the people who created the "counter-culture" came from the middle class.

Their goal (those 10 intellectuals) is to set policy that protects their bubble and undermines the common man and his good values, which they judge to be non-progressive and unenlightened. Class warfare (for everyone but themselves) is mostly achieved by leftist media - including news, MTV, and Rolling Stone - exploiting racial tensions, seducing teens toward degenerate goals, and the berating of true, inspired dreamers - those studious geeks possessing "positive intellect" or "good elitist" qualities yet are hampered by pop (poop) culture and mainstream attitudes.... damn the boy who doesn't "celebrate diversity!" or believe in miracles.

It should be pointed out that those "10 intellectuals" come from all kinds of different places, that they do not share the same values, and that they have widely different interests and formations. I'm pretty sure they don't all have the same goals, or values. By the way, pop culture is too vague a term: anything can be "pop culture". Rush Limbaugh is pop culture, 50 Cent is pop culture, The Beatles is pop culture and the Lawrence Welk show is pop culture too. If you are referring specifically to what you see in US TV and movies, then it should be pointed out that that's mostly mainstream corporate culture. Mainstream corporate culture caters to the greatest number possible of people with the explicit objective of making money. Since most americans are city dwellers, well, most of the values adopted by mainstream corporate culture are "urban".

In any case, the hard Left is well aware of this scheme: that only with the destruction of the middle class can a revolution ever hope to succeed. "The rich" would be easy to pick off, it is instead the gun-bearing, 40-hour work week, semi-populist, Walmart-shopping, strong willed American who wants "the system" to work and is well-satisfied NOT to rise up in bloody revolt, but instead act as patriots and simply enjoy life.

It's not the "hard left" who is destroying your populist middle class. What's destroying this middle class are economic policies supported by both the mainstream democrats and republicans. You probably don't know it, but most "american liberals" are, in fact, very much to the right of what you call the "hard left".

By the way, that Walmart shopping american your talk about is actually shooting himself in the foot (with his gun) by buying at Walmart. These middle class people used to work in the manufacturing industry. And these days most of the manufacturing is getting done in places with cheap labour. Almost everything that Walmart sells is made somewhere else, China mostly. And I'm not even talking about what the opening of a Walmart does to the small main street businesses in the towns nearby. You wanna help your fellow middle class americans? Don't shop at Walmart.

(Is there ONE conformist among those 10 thinkers? I believe that they are all revolutionaries.)

All of these intellectuals "conform" to some kind of values. It just happens that they probably are not your values. If you actually bother to read what Diamond or Dawkins have written, you'll notice that they're not "revolutionaries": they're scientists. Vaclav Havel writings were banned by the Czech communists and he spent a large part of his life actively fighting them. He also was the president of Czechoslovakia for 13 years, and his country became a member of NATO mostly thanks to him. Hitchens actually supported the Iraq invasion... They don't sound like revolutionaries to me.

In inflicting as much misery as possible on middle class people - by subverting their values, pushing drugs, bad economic policy (taxation and unrestrained growth of the public sector), and generally promoting modern liberalism - they hope to fulfill the Marxist prophecy they adopted in the 1960s while on LSD and worshiping Beatles songs: the prophecy that capitalists are too greedy not to exploit the proletariat, who will eventually rise-up in revolution.

Modern american liberalism has very little, if nothing, to do with marxism. Economically, there's very little difference between, say, a moderate republican and a mainstream american liberal. They're both unabashed big business capitalists. And usually they're both in favour of gov. intervention: it's just that the liberal wants government to intervene in certain things, and the republican wants the gov. to intervene in different certain things.

In summary:

Leftists push for a 2-class system: elitists, and proletariats. [What comes after the revolution? They believe in Utopia, but we all know the real pattern of history: more-of-the-same. Hence we here frequent cries like "REAL communism has never been tried!". At which point one should ignore the child altogether.]

Rightists want a strong stabilizing force to exist - the middle class. So long as they are kind to them (enough wealth trickles down), the King keeps his head.

In summary, I think that your "intellectuals are revolutionary marxists" spiel is, well, to put it mildly, wrong. Also, your opinion on "american liberals" has very little to do with reality. You sound like a very confused individual.

By the way, I am not a "liberal". To me, that particular label is meaningless: I'm not american, and I don't care much about american liberalism.

 

[epepke]

Economically, there's very little difference between, say, a moderate republican and a mainstream american liberal. They're both unabashed big business capitalists. And usually they're both in favour of gov. intervention: it's just that the liberal wants government to intervene in certain things, and the republican wants the gov. to intervene in different certain things.

OK, that's true, but it doesn't apply necessarily to people who get called "intellectuals" or who are on the hard left.

The first on this list is Noam Chomsky. Are you going to call Chomsky an unabashed big-business capitalist?

 

[peptoabysmal]

When did "intellectual" become an insult?

It happened at the same time that revisionist history and anti-semitism were raised to the level of "intellectual."

Chomsky is to "intellectual" as Moore is to "documentary."

http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html

 

[American]

Most of the people who created the "counter-culture" came from the middle class.

That's freedom and class mobility at work. Whether they were subverted or made an educated choice of freewill is not especially important, so I will grant you that.

It's not the "hard left" who is destroying your populist middle class. What's destroying this middle class are economic policies supported by both the mainstream democrats and republicans. You probably don't know it, but most "american liberals" are, in fact, very much to the right of what you call the "hard left".

Absolutely. But the vast majority (>90%?) of participants are tools of the party leadership, the "hard" believers. Most only know that they want to "make a difference", save whomever they perceive to be victims, and that they hate successful companies.

By the way, that Walmart shopping american your talk about is actually shooting himself in the foot (with his gun) by buying at Walmart. These middle class people used to work in the manufacturing industry. And these days most of the manufacturing is getting done in places with cheap labour. Almost everything that Walmart sells is made somewhere else, China mostly. And I'm not even talking about what the opening of a Walmart does to the small main street businesses in the towns nearby. You wanna help your fellow middle class americans? Don't shop at Walmart.

Walmart delivers modest goods to modest people at fair prices. You need to protest decadence - those Beverly Hills boutiques, designer jeans, J. Crew, Pottery Barn, classy restaurants and cocktail bars that waste more resources producing high-priced crap for rich pricks that most people can't afford and don't especially want. I am not the horrible person for being satisfied with cheap Chinese book-shelves. Why is it better to prefer the Ethan Allen bedroom set that ended up in John Kerry's niece's 2nd summer home on Martha's Vineyard? You don't find dissidents ranting against that for some reason.

All of these intellectuals "conform" to some kind of values. It just happens that they probably are not your values.

One can surely "conform to rebellion" - but they are still rebels, not conformists. You are most right that they don't share my values; that fact resides at the very fulcrum of the culture wars.

If you actually bother to read what Diamond or Dawkins have written, you'll notice that they're not "revolutionaries": they're scientists. Vaclav Havel writings were banned by the Czech communists and he spent a large part of his life actively fighting them. He also was the president of Czechoslovakia for 13 years, and his country became a member of NATO mostly thanks to him. Hitchens actually supported the Iraq invasion... They don't sound like revolutionaries to me. Modern american liberalism has very little, if nothing, to do with marxism. Economically, there's very little difference between, say, a moderate republican and a mainstream american liberal. They're both unabashed big business capitalists. And usually they're both in favour of gov. intervention: it's just that the liberal wants government to intervene in certain things, and the republican wants the gov. to intervene in different certain things.

I did not take notice of who was on the list, that's fair enough. I did notice who was missing, men like Leo Strauss and William Buckley.

In summary, I think that your "intellectuals are revolutionary marxists" spiel is, well, to put it mildly, wrong. Also, your opinion on "american liberals" has very little to do with reality.

I only speak of those who define and effectively project true ideals, at least those ideals that take hold and inspire millions (good and bad). Sheeple are sheeple, they go left and right for complex reasons at times... I wouldn't try to describe them here, so far as that psychology goes.

 

[a_unique_person]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about me. Carry on.

 

[UserGoogol]

Noam Chomsky is an intellectual because of his views on linguistics. He is a famous intellectual because of his views on politics.

 

[Beerina]

Similar polls might put Kenny G among the legends of Jazz...

Or Chuck Mangione. My former HS English teacher, an exceedingly well built woman, married a 400 lb. guy because he was a professional Jazz musician. She had very little good to say about him.

 

[Beerina]

Noam Chomsky is an intellectual because of his views on linguistics. He is a famous intellectual because of his views on politics.

Well, not exactly. He got famous because he rode the crest of a scientific revolution in linguistics. It's like saying Bobby Fisher got famous because of his politics. They got famous, then used the fame to issue some controversial statements.

 

[billydkid]

Hmmmmm

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3260&print=1

I think it is an exceedingly good list for a popular vote. The fact that Dawkins finishes third is great news. (I imagine there is strong British bias in the voters.) I admire four of the top 10 quite a bit (Dawkins, Havel, Diamond, Rushdie) and have favorable views of some of the others. I admit not to being familar with all the people.

Two of the top five (Dawkins and Hitchens) are famous atheists and Diamond is on the Skeptics board.
ETA: I just read that Chomsky is an atheist as well. That makes 3 out of the top 5.

One note from the web page:


CBL

I don't know that all of these people could legitimately be considered intellectuals. It's funny, I saw S. Rushdie and Ben Affleck on Bill Mahrs TV show the other day and I was struck by the impression that Ben Affleck was far more articulate than Rushdie was. I have always just assumed that Ben was just an idiot. He is far brighter than I ever imagined and able to express himself far more clearly than most politicians.

 

[Cleon]

I don't know that all of these people could legitimately be considered intellectuals. It's funny, I saw S. Rushdie and Ben Affleck on Bill Mahrs TV show the other day and I was struck by the impression that Ben Affleck was far more articulate than Rushdie was. I have always just assumed that Ben was just an idiot. He is far brighter than I ever imagined and able to express himself far more clearly than most politicians.

That doesn't really say much. The professional politician has turned "talk a lot but say nothing" into an art form.