Intellectuals and Society
 

came across these two great articles
********townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/01/05/intellectuals_and_society
********townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/01/05/intellectuals_and_society?page=2

came across these two great articles
********townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/01/05/intellectuals_and_society
********townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/01/05/intellectuals_and_society?page=2

The Wright brothers, who fulfilled the centuries-old dream of humanbeings flying, were by no means intellectuals. Nor were those whoconquered the scourge of polio and other diseases, or who created theelectronic marvels that we now take for granted.
All these people produced a tangible product or service andthey were judged by whether those products and services worked. Butintellectuals are people whose end products are intangible ideas, andthey are usually judged by whether those ideas sound good to otherintellectuals or resonate with the public.
Whether their ideas turn out to work-- whether they make life better or worse for others-- is another question entirely.

It may seem strange that so many people of great intellect have saidand done so many things whose consequences ranged fromcounterproductive to catastrophic. Yet it is not so surprising when weconsider whether anybody has ever had the range of knowledge requiredto make the sweeping kinds of decisions that so many intellectuals areprone to make, especially when they pay no price for being wrong.
Intellectuals and their followers have often been overlyimpressed by the fact that intellectuals tend, on average, to have moreknowledge than other individuals in their society. What they haveoverlooked is that intellectuals have far less knowledge than the totalknowledge possessed by the millions of other people whom they disdainand whose decisions they seek to override.
We have had to learn the consequences of elite preemption the hard way-- and many of us have yet to learn that lesson.

What is this obsession of yours with anti-intellectualism? You don't have to answer, I already know.
An intellectual is a person who uses intelligence (thought and reason) and analytical thinking, either in a professional or a personal capacity.
Wilbur Wright finished 4 years of high school, although he never graduated, Orville dropped out after his junior year... Although this may not seem impressive by todays standards, this was quite an achievement in the 19th century, especially since in 1940 only 50% of young adults had earned a high school diploma. Furthermore, Wilbur planned on attending Yale... Both brothers were self-educated engineers.
.
Do you consider Bill Gates an intellectual? He dropped out of college. Is GW an intellectual just because he attended Harvard and Yale? What exactly is an intellectual in your book, and whats so bad about being one?

What exactly is an intellectual in your book,
the minimum qualification would be not being a moonbat..(ch)
and whats so bad about being one?
there is none..the author of the article (and he has a book on the subject too, Thomas Sowell, is an intellectual in my book...the intellectuals that contributed to the betterment of people's lives and I admire the most are probably our Founding Fathers, and their principles they founded are still working..
the intellectuals that I am very suspicious about are the ones on the left..to me many of them are pseudo-intellectuals since they fail to draw the right conclusions from history, analyze their own ideas and their consequences followed..also intellectuals are great when they do what they know best, like Bill Gates and computers..when they start worrying about the rest of humanity, lifting people from poverty, advocating what the rest of us should do..in other words, building own legacy and playing popularism..

they refuse to see that the same ideas they are using never worked..orspending billions of dollars on a study to see if a diaphragm preventsAIDS!!??..I would have told him that for half the price..
here is another good article by the same author
********article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDgzMGYyYmNmN2Y2NDFlMTdjNmI0OWExOGRiZmQ0YWM=#mo re

what a brain-dead article..
by definition intellectuals are those who think and make conclusions, some conclusion will always turn out to be right and others wrong..
making empty, unsubstantiated by facts statements in tune of "In the 1930s, it was the intellectuals who pooh-poohed the dangers from the rise of Hitler and urged Western disarmament"
don't serve any useful purpose.. the article is just a flamebait, same as this topic.

There is a difference between the "Enlightened Progressive Intellectuals" and people with intelligence.

Enlightened Progressive Intellectuals vs Braindead Regressive Pigfuckers? :)
i mean what's the opposite?

There is no opposite to the brainwashed retarded individuals...
There are also - people with education, also dogs and cats lovers, some of us promised to clean the Ocean...

don't serve any useful purpose.. the article is just a flamebait, same as this topic.
WTF??? speaking like the present here brain-dead regressive pigfuckers (ch) I have to consult retards now which topics to open? :-) (L)

Intellectuals are the opposite of brainwashed :) by definition intellectuals think for themselves vs being spoonfed

An intellectual is a person who uses intelligence (thought andreason) and analytical thinking, either in a professional or a personalcapacity.


... from the given information...


Unlike the "Enlightened" - who prefer to teach the populous ...

400 years ago (today ) one of those evil progressives observed that Jupiter had 4 moons orbiting it, this and other findings lead to his publications station that earth was not the center of the world.
the "conservatives" of that time repeatedly tried to suppress his studies and was actually tried for heresy. He was imprisoned and his books were banned.

by definition intellectuals are those who think and make conclusions,some conclusion will always turn out to be right and others wrong..
making empty, unsubstantiated by facts statements in tune of "In the 1930s, it was the intellectuals who pooh-poohed the dangers from the rise of Hitler and urged Western disarmament"
you got to be the most spoonfed or unread person not to know about the appeasement views policies in Europe..
you got to be the most spoon-fed and unread person not to know about the appeasement views and policies throughout the world during that time..
that kind of views and post are intended as flamebait..

Mike,
You are playing words.. he was from the time of Enlightenment...
in reality - He was an intellectual from the time period called Enlightenment. It does not mean he was Enlightened... and definitely he did not call himself that..

Rabinovich, you are free not to address any topics I open, because you are obviously here to insult people..so it's kinda disgusting to have this kind of conversation...
I don't know what kind of idiot or uninformed person doesn't know that the NYT likes were always supportive of the Soviet regime, would write dishonest articles, cover up facts,etc. for as long as they exist..and they are the ones who consider themselves intellectuals..and anybody with the opposite views are anti-intellectuals..and that's why the moonbats here repeat the mantra..

Gera, he did not have to call himself that.. this is what he was, someone who was enlightened and an intellectual and a progressive..
The roman church was "the conservatives" of those times..
If the church still had the power we would still think that the world revolves around the earth.. actually if it was not for the "enlightened progressive intellectuals" we would not even have a wheel, as "conservatives" would argue that wheels are an evil invention of the satan and our life was perfect for thousands of wheelless years :).

The roman church was not "the conservatives" - they were uneducated nuts and they had inquisition and pushed their dogma onto the masses!
Similar to today's Enlightened ones... do not play the words.
Смотри в корень!
(Козьма Прутков)
This not the discussion about educated vs. uneducated... I thought - this is about people who can think for themselves.

(md) what do modern American conservatives have anything do with the Roman Church..I mean when will this lunacy end?? You have to have no perspective to say that..(hu)

the intellectuals that contributed to the betterment of people's lives and I admire the most are probably our Founding Fathers, and their principles they founded are still working..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
also known as liberals... before you open your mouth, they were liberal within the context of their time...similarly,the views of present day liberals will also seem rather conservative a few hundred years from now.

yeah, they WERE liberals of THEIR times, not even liberals, but progressives..but the modern liberal "intellectuals" or the left today no longer hold their views, ideas or principles as golden..and that's a HUGE problem..many lefties today prefer the European thinking (more socialistic) which in contradiction with the thinking of the founders..

what do modern American conservatives have anything do with the Roman Church..
-------------------------------------------------------------------
justlike the present day modern American conservatives, the Roman church of thatperiod (and today)was having difficulty keeping up with the times, holding on to the past, and refusing to look forward towards the future - resisting any kind of change or progress.

sorry, but it's retarded..first, we don't progress for the sake of progress..we learn from the past, we preserve the principles of what made this place unique and great, and it was not collectivism, but individualism..
BTW, Reagan, eventhough doesn't fit the profile, if not intellectual, but a really great person..he, on his own, came up with the strategy to win the Cold War, no one ever tried before, and it worked..and it's all because he knew that America is the greatest place, and communism is to be defeated, not appeased..
but some, who think they are really "enlightened" and great, still, to this day, refuse to admit it..what is the term for them?? (ch)

the left today no longer hold their views, ideas or principles as golden..
---------------------------------------------------------
that's not entirely true... but if you think about it, neither would they(FF), had they lived today... for as you yourself have said, they were progressives... why stop at politics, why not start dressing and behaving as people did hundreds of years ago? what would the founding fathers say of your present day clothing, the fact that you hold a job... ? just because you choose to live in the past, don't condemn those who look towards the future.

I am all about the future..except when the future is socialism..but history shows that the only time we improve our future is when we stick to something that's proven to work..like living in a free country, American way..
that's why I said..let smart people what they know and do best, do it on their own, in the private sector, with their own money, where they face all the consequences of their ideas...that's how we generate the best ideas and progress..

no one ever tried before, and it worked
----------------------------------------------------
it worked because the time was right... it didn't work with brezhnev, andropov, or chernenko... RR just got lucky with gorbachev

gorbachev - yet another progressive, refusing to hold on to the "golden" principles of his country's founding fathers.

and it's all because he knew that America is the greatest place, and communism is to be defeated, not appeased..
---------------------------------------------------------------
change America to the USSR, and communism to capitalism, and you sound like a typical commie.

In the 1930s, it was the intellectuals who pooh-poohed the dangers from the rise of Hitler and urged Western disarmament"
btw, what's there to substantiate?..was the world full of intellectuals screaming back in the 30s that Hitler was very dangerous, eventhough his book was out for everyone to read?? or it took millions to die before they finally got it?? (ch)
yeah, except we are all here, and not in a communistic China or N Korea..and their doors are open too..
I mean, do you actually have to be an intellectual to know that we live in a great country?? (ch)

How and why such patterns have existed among intellectuals is achallenging question, whose answer can determine the fate of millionsof other people.
Вопрос очень сложный, и ответ на него трудно сформулировать в двух словах...
Мне кажется, что среди интеллигенции/интеллектуалов очень много малодушных и трусливых людей. Бога они обычно отвергают, но в поисках защиты обращаются к идеям статизма.

"Reagan, even though doesn't fit the profile, if not intellectual, but areally great person..he, on his own, came up with the strategy to winthe Cold War, no one ever tried before, and it worked..
- if I am reading this right - this means that Reagan single-handedly came up with this strategy and this was the only thing that brought the Soviet Union down?
Hmmmmmm.... how about not so simple?
maybe we need to add a little bit more complexity since we at least are trying to be intelligent -not intellectual:-D

Julia, I thought we already covered in great details "the complexicity of his strategy/ies" in many other topics..I just pointed out that many people on the left today who consider themselves intellectuals still refuse to admit his strategy worked..
but speaking about other strategies...the liberals including Obama has been very critical of Bush's strategy and his war on terror, in your opinion, has Obama's approach been successful (diplomacy and all the butt-kissing)?? Honestly??

Interestingly, the todays "intellectual" as the Progressives call themselves invision their world involving into something - the world we lived in - in 1970s... The time of Brezhnev's Развитой Социализм.
(N)
... and then some of the participants of these discussions (here) are surprised why stupid me (and alike) - are against their enlightened thinking!

Мне кажется, что среди интеллигенции/интеллектуалов очень многомалодушных и трусливых людей. Бога они обычно отвергают, но в поискахзащиты обращаются к идеям статизма.
Маша, interesting observation..Limbaugh's words - you take God out of equation, all you have is government..:-|
but what's more interesting is that all the great ideas of the intellectuals/elite regarding the improvement of the regular people's lives, they don't want to apply to themselves..just like our commies, they lived in a totally different system..when republicans offered an amendment for the members of Congress to enroll in the public option, what do all dems do?? (ch) they voted it down..hmm...why is it, if their ideas are supposed to be great for the regular people??

the liberals including Obama has been very critical of Bush's strategy and his war on terror
----------------------------------------------------------------------
they were critical of his lack of strategy

yeah, one more - members of Congress have an option to opt out of social security..and we don't..:-|

all federal and state employees who were a part of the federal pension system as of 1982 (or something like that) can opt out of social security. new members of congress cannot opt-out.

"
- "you take God out of equation, all you have is government."
-when I read , hear or see stuff like this, first I get seizures, and then I feel like immigrating again far, far away..... where should I go? Australia? New Zealand? is there any country in the world that will not shove G-d in our faces and just let us be? How about some degree of moderation as well - not calling all on the left spineless and all on the right -whatever people call them? - how about a little more gray and a little less black and white?
Or is it not intelligent any longer to see things in the gray zone?