Anti-intellectualism

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

If everybody were so hellbent on forcing others to conform, then why do they go around celebrating athletes and actors rather than trying to force them to conform as well?

Because the dominant value system, that which attempts to enforce confirmity, values atheticism and thus great athletes are held as models of success.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by loinburger

Depends, really. I've been in a lot of classes where I (and the rest of the class) have hated the guy (or girl) who answers all of the questions or asks all of the questions (and he/she has received flak for doing so), yet I've also been in a lot of classes where I've been the guy who answers all of the questions or asks all of the questions yet I've never received any flak for it. It's really just a matter of how much courtesy the know-is-all is showing the rest of the class, IMO -- the folks who answer all of the questions whom I've given flak are the kind of people who immediately shout out the answer, or (in extreme cases) interrupt other people who are trying to answer the question. They're not getting flak because the class is full of anti-intellectuals, they're getting flak because they're honyocks.

Good point. I'm a fairly intelligent person with fair people skills. When I was in high school I took some history classes, and as I was interested in history I usually knew the answer to most of the questions. Once I figured this out, I would only raise my hand when no one else did. This allowed everyone else their opportunity to contribute to the class rather than it being a dialogue between me and the instructor. Another bonus for me was that I was known for being good at sports and a tough fighter. The sports thing made me popular with some of the guys who also enjoyed playing sports, as we enjoyed the comraderie of working together on teams or the thrill of opposing one another honorably on the field of battle. Being tough kept the bullies who were looking for an easy mark off of my back. Between these various factors I managed to avoid being harrassed by my classmates, something that some of my friends who were more narrowly tailored suffered from.

[TCO]

yeah...but you never came up to breck to drink beers with me. Dork.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

You were a devoted fan of The Cure!

That, or a budding transvestite.

So he was all the way to estrogen? I think that takes him into transexual territory.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by loinburger
If everybody were so hellbent on forcing others to conform, then why do they go around celebrating athletes and actors rather than trying to force them to conform as well?

I would say that is caused by two conflicting mentalities, given that peer pressure is alive and kicking (and acute in certain places as well).

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon
Isn't the answer to this question that people are quite prepared to defer to expertise in the sciences, medical arts and so forth; but almost everyone either thinks he is an expert when it comes to philosophy, politics, ethics and the good life or wants to deny that these things can be the subjects of expertise (usually by means of some facile relativism).

Well, that's your opinion bub!

[Sikander]

Whaleboy,

Why do people pick on the stupid or retarded? It certainly isn't anti-intellectualism. Notice that good athletes are rarely the object of scorn on that account, but poor athletes often are. People who are into "wierd" things like Goth makeup or whatever are also more likely to be abused, imo because they are not well-integrated into their larger social group, and thus politically weak. Notice the trend here, people get picked on because they are perceived to be weak. Notice that other brainiacs seem to have managed to get through life without abuse because they were athletic, or had good people skills (which translates into political power). While there may indeed be an anti-inellectual undercurrent in your country, bullying usually has little to do with ideas and a lot to do with who is perceived to be weak.

[Flip McWho]

Interesting thread. Good read.

Whaleboy; Enigma your hmmm style of "saying" things (I use " because you don't really say on the net do you) on the the net comes across as slightly arrogant. I understand why it does though and don't think you are arrogant. In fact I've gained more respect for Enigma from reading this thread. Not that he would care, I don't expect him to.

Hmmm it comes across arrogant because you guys no want you want to say and aren't scared to say it. It's hard to explain. I've been accused of the same as you people, though I wouldn't class myself as arrogant. Keep up the good thread.

- Flip's vague contribution (just so he can now get notified when this thread carries on)

[Whaleboy]

Really? What do you do? And you agree with my point, no?

I'm a novelist and people now pay me to write lesbian erotica. Up on my site before the end of Feb hopefully. Yes I do agree, I have a tendency to be verbose, but not to the point of unreadability or irrelevance I hope. You seem to have understood what I've been saying.

They are for Whaleboy! You are cool enough that you don't need them.

Go for it!

Why do people pick on the stupid or retarded? It certainly isn't anti-intellectualism. Notice that good athletes are rarely the object of scorn on that account, but poor athletes often are.

A good point, but one assumes competence. People pick on those who are different in schools, and unfortunately, intellectual means different. You can lump that with the retarded or the losing athletes etc.
Anti-intellectualism is merely symptomatic of a simplistic instinct to attack what we do not understand, be that the intellectual himself or what he is saying.

Whaleboy; Enigma your hmmm style of "saying" things (I use " because you don't really say on the net do you) on the the net comes across as slightly arrogant. I understand why it does though and don't think you are arrogant. In fact I've gained more respect for Enigma from reading this thread.

Indeed, as have I. I do not think I am arrogant, I don't antagonise my friends and I cant think how one can draw that conclusion from this thread, and make anything more than a speculative, at best circumstantial conclusion that I am so.

Hmmm it comes across arrogant because you guys no want you want to say and aren't scared to say it. It's hard to explain. I've been accused of the same as you people, though I wouldn't class myself as arrogant. Keep up the good thread.

Thankyou, it seems that way to me too.

I must say that these cries of arrogance takes the form of this.

Whaleboy highlights an issue, referring to incidents in his own life.

People say "well you may be correct, but its six of one, half a dozen of the other, and the intellectual may be arrogant"

Whaleboy says "fair enough", but people seem to have a predisposition to attack the intellectual (later says people attack what they don't understand, though he would postulate that intellectuals should be respected for going against the grain, that being his personal opinion).

People say that Whaleboy is arrogant and that is the cause of these incidents (his accusers are mostly those who appear to be anti-intellectuals themselves).

Whaleboy denies this

People continue to insist, even though they are flying in the face of what Whaleboy has been saying about HIS OWN LIFE.

Whaleboy continues to deny, and purport his position.

People go on about him being arrogant, starting to include quotes of his that appear to demonstrate that.

Flip highlighted the situation perfectly. I am forceful in what I say, and confident in saying. I do know what I am saying and rest assured that I think about it. This gives me confidence. That does not mean arrogance. I feel able and strong enough to present and defend my views, critically and reasonably. I don't consider myself of superior intelligence but I am being honest when I say that I am reasonably well read and people do tell me that have a philosophical mind. I know my own capabilities. If you think that is arrogance, which is termed as a sense of smug superiority (which I have implicitly denied) then so be it, you only harm your own credibility in making such an outlandish and frankly ad hoc ad hominem.

[Dis]

anti-intellectualism doesn't exist.

It is either paranoid thoughts, or just some fantasy of intellectuals that they should be treated like gods because they are smart.

Deal with it. I have .

[Flip McWho]

Yes, confidence can be mistaken for arrogance alot of the time.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I'm a novelist and people now pay me to write lesbian erotica. Up on my site before the end of Feb hopefully. Yes I do agree, I have a tendency to be verbose, but not to the point of unreadability or irrelevance I hope.

I shall remain silent on this issue

Actually...
/me points to sig
Couldn't resist it

[Urban Ranger]

Ben and Rich,

Do you consciously or subconsciously dislike dealing with people whom you consider stupid?

[Kramerman]

hey! us stupider people get victimized all the time. Us jocks and super models do too .... when will we learn to love the beautiful people?

[TCO]

1. Read The Gift of Gab inside Dink Stover inside The Lawrenceville Stories.

2. Then read Children of the Atom. (And think about both of them. Don't assume you are so whipcord smart that you know everything. Sit there like Fred with his apple for a little while.)

3. Oh...and "lesbian erotica"? "novelist"? Not good enough of to justify prolix prose or calling yourself a professional.

[Whaleboy]

3. Oh...and "lesbian erotica"? "novelist"? Not good enough of to justify prolix prose or calling yourself a professional.

I am a writer, I get paid for it, and it is my vocation. It would seem self-evident that I am a writer. In my own time I write articles as one can see on my website. Still, what is your point?
[/quote]

Do you consciously or subconsciously dislike dealing with people whom you consider stupid?

I must say that I'm rather indifferent about it. Since I rarely deal with non-intellectuals in a manner that would highlight their "stupidity", I dont see why I am affected by this.

It is either paranoid thoughts, or just some fantasy of intellectuals that they should be treated like gods because they are smart.

I think a lot of it, on the part of the intellectuals irritation with anti-intellectualism is the disparity between the abuse and prejudice, and the perceived importance of their work. Yes, intellectuals see their work, and sometimes theirselves as important, but theres nothing wrong with that since they play such a crucial and individual role in human civilisation imo. That is something I have always thoguht. Furthermore, would you deny that as humans, we simplistically attack whom and what we do not understand? It is quite interesting that those who persist in denying the existence of anti-intellectualism, preferring to highlight arrogance or some grossly overgeneralised point on the part of intellectuals, are appearing as anti-intellectuals themselves.

Deal with it

NEVER!!!

Diss, you have ...intriguing avatar...

[TCO]

have you sold any novels?

[Whaleboy]

No. Have finished one and working on my second before I get it published.

You think I'm pushing the word "professional" too far don't you?

I take it as read, in other words, you do something within a given classification (i.e. writer) and get paid for it, both of which apply to me (because of my sick, perverted friends of course ).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sikander


Well, that's your opinion bub!

[Whaleboy]

I don't think Agathon likes relativists...

[Ned]

Whaleboy, just from me, I like you. You have always presented your positions respectfully, not arrogantly, to me.

I suspect, but do not know, that many people are inately jealous of talented people regardless of the talent.

Think of the way the world reacts to the United States. We mean well, but we are still thought of as "arrogant." I think a lot of this attitude stems from our success.

Think also of the way the Republicans reacted to Clinton. It was not that Clinton was a liar or an adulterer. They reacted to his obvious talent. He was very intelligent, smooth and articulate.

[Drogue]

Wow, now that I wasn't expecting Good post

I completely agree with Ned

[TCO]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
No. Have finished one and working on my second before I get it published.

You think I'm pushing the word "professional" too far don't you?

I take it as read, in other words, you do something within a given classification (i.e. writer) and get paid for it, both of which apply to me (because of my sick, perverted friends of course ).

You're being a weasel now. You said you got paid for you're writing. I asked for detail and you cited being a novelist as support. But your novels have not been paid for. That's a bit slimy. A good thing that I pinned you down like a struggling butterfly.

[East Street Trader]

There are people more interested in ideas and others less interested.

And there is a tension between a jock and a bookworm.

But you can make a great deal too much of those things.

The tension is easily expoited in popular fiction. So there are any number of films taking that tension as a theme or a mainspring for their action.

Quite a good one, film that is, - can't remember the name - has as a hero a youngster who has a wonderfully strong knack for mathamatics. But his homeys are working class lads and he is unwilling to give himself up to the world his talent would lead him into. This is overlain by some psychological stuff rooted in guilt and his family but the tension between his desire not to sell out on his jock oriented roots internalises the jock/bookworm tension.

More commonly the theme simply involves violence between and the book worm employs his wits to overcome the brawny jock. Straw Dogs being a striking illustration but without the usual Rites of Passage setting.

Anyway my experience suggests that all this goes on primarily in fiction. In reality whether the jock is suspicious and threatened by the bookworm or vice versa is to do with other aspects of their lives and characters. It takes quite a lot of differences to align before the tension has consequences.

I liked academic stuff, my brother did not. That put a distance between us as boys - but so would any other difference of taste. As adults we have had sharp disagreements. But because of different ethical standpoints. Aided by the fact that he has earned more than me (he became a deep sea diver) neither of us accords any significance to our differing levels of interest in academic stuff.

Now had he earned a lot less I can see that the jock/bookworm difference between us might have led to jealousy.

But that would have been due to the disparity of means. Any sneering back and forth over the jock/bookworm thing would just have been window dressing.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I don't think Agathon likes relativists...

No I just don't understand them, since their alethic relativism in my view entails semantic relativism.

If a relativist says to me "knowledge is relative" how am I supposed to know what those words mean to him. For all I know he could be saying "Ben Kenobi is right, Mariah Carey has a hot ass!" After all, it's all relative.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by TCO
You're being a weasel now. You said you got paid for you're writing. I asked for detail and you cited being a novelist as support. But your novels have not been paid for. That's a bit slimy. A good thing that I pinned you down like a struggling butterfly.

No, you asked if his novels have been published. He has been paid, because some were commissioned, IIRC. However he has not ad any published yet. His only source of income is his writing, IIRC, and so if he had to state a trade, that is what he would state. That's not slimy at all.

[Ned]

Agathon, Whaleboy admits he is not a relativist anyway. He starts his philosophy from an emotive position that war is bad. All else follows from this.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Agathon
If a relativist says to me "knowledge is relative" how am I supposed to know what those words mean to him. For all I know he could be saying "Ben Kenobi is right, Mariah Carey has a hot ass!" After all, it's all relative.

If he is, then he would be wrong. Plain wrong

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ned
Agathon, Whaleboy admits he is not a relativist anyway. He starts his philosophy from an emotive position that war is bad. All else follows from this.

No, he believes, IIRC, that war is bad, however he also believes that someone else thinking that war is good is an equally valid position. He is a relativist, in that he believes all views are equally valid, however he still has his personal views. At least, that's what it was last time we chatted about it

[Ned]

Drogue, I look forward to Whaleboy's confirmation of your post.