Subordination to power: Follow the money

[schola]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Most politicans also don't give much about what the art or philosophy profs in universities which they finance do.

Well most individual politicians don't care what the individual reporter at a CNN writes about, but does that mean that government doesn't have a huge influence on mainstream media? You are a European so wouldn't you agree that our US government uses our mainstream media as a vehicle for propaganda?

Governments and corporations have great influence over academia. Politics and science are getting muddled and mixed up more and more every day. Global warming and creationism anyone?

Personally as a college student, I am amazed at the closed mindedness and lack of innovation that I see at my school. Most people, even those studying sciences, are just here to "get a job." Granted, I go to a state university, but I doubt it's much different anywhere else.

I am not saying good, productive research isn't coming out of universities, but most of it is nonsense. And there aren't many open doors for true innovators.

Apart from the fact that an professor has to teach annoying students from time to time he has the choice to spend the rest of his time sitting around spinning off good ideas.
A professor only needs to speak to other people if we wants more resources than his own time to spend on problems.

Annoying students?? Oh what a wonderful perspective to have! Cuz they are just a means to an end right? Just people you gotta deal with to get a paycheck. You would make a wonderful professor.

The activity of writing books or having a coloum somewhere is also compatible with the act of spinning ideas.
Do you really think that this is the proper role for an intellectual?

No. Not just to spin ideas. To innovate. To shake things up. To create paradigm shifts. To MAKE PEOPLE THINK.

I believe that by the time most professors have gotten tenure and have a comfortable enough salary that allows them to explore other endeavors, they have already spent too much time in the "system" and have lost any shred of creativity or innovation that they once had.

Or they still secretly hold some original ideas, but are not willing to sacrifice their cushy position to say something controversial, because they have seen what happens when they do: Ward Churchill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[schola]

Do you really think that this is the proper role for an intellectual?
From your own link: It is also no wonder that intellectuals could be won over easily by a king in his attempt to establish himself as the monopolist of justice. In exchange for their ideological justification of monarchical rule, the king could not only offer them better and higher-status employment, but as royal court intellectuals they finally could pay the natural elites back for their lack of respect.

Sorry I missed your reference to the article.

No that is not the proper role of the intellectual. Did you read the whole thing? Kings are different than natural elites and aristocrats. That's obviously not the way things should be.

Make sure you read the whole thing because it's quite interesting!

[Brutha]

Global warming and creationism anyone?

Creationism is doing a pretty poor job in influencing mainstream science and despite the pressure from big oil and co there is a consensus amoung scientist that there is human made climate change.
Even when people obviously tried to influence those to areas the didn't get very far in influencing scientists.

Annoying students?? Oh what a wonderful perspective to have! Cuz they are just a means to an end right? Just people you gotta deal with to get a paycheck.

It's a bit of irony is you don't mind.
On the other hand a lot of profs see their primary reason d'étre as creators of ideas. And from your perspective dealing with students would interfere a bit with the persuit of innovative ideas that lie beyond the current knowledge pool.

Well most individual politicians don't care what the individual reporter at a CNN writes about, but does that mean that government doesn't have a huge influence on mainstream media? You are a European so wouldn't you agree that our US government uses our mainstream media as a vehicle for propaganda?

There are certainly people with pro goverment views that have a lot of power in the media.
I don't think that Fox news does what it does to do what Bush wants but to push certain ideas by some neoconservative think tanks.
I think that the main stream media has more influence (and surely some of it is ideologlically motivated) on the government than the other way around.

I am not saying good, productive research isn't coming out of universities, but most of it is nonsense.

It exactly the freedom do research stuff that other people label as nonsense that actually result in them producing nonsense. But sometimes those ideas where everyone thought they would be nonsense turn out fantastic and the value you get outways the price you have to pay of tolerating nonsense.

And there aren't many open doors for true innovators.

True innovators don't walk through open doors. If you want to shift paradigms you have to open doors yourself.
Historically it is easier to innovate than ever before.
You don't have to fear to get burned up for saying new things.
You might lose a bit of status but you probably won't lose your life. Ward Churchill can probably make a good living from selling books about his thesis.
Even if nobody buy your book you can life of wellfare and blog (at least in Europe).

Most people, even those studying sciences, are just here to "get a job."

That is true but I don't think the people in power (or with the money) force them to take that mentality.
They're just to lazy to want more than just getting a job.

[schola]

Originally Posted by Brutha

On the other hand a lot of profs see their primary reason d'étre as creators of ideas. And from your perspective dealing with students would interfere a bit with the persuit of innovative ideas that lie beyond the current knowledge pool.

Would it? What would be the purpose of innovating if not to share it with others to benefit humanity? If a professor regards his students as a nuisance he has to deal with every Monday Wednesday and Friday at 10:00, are his priorities really in the right place?

If you want to shift paradigms you have to open doors yourself.

Good point! Now you understand why I don't see academia as any sort of shining beacon of hope.

You don't have to fear to get burned up for saying new things.
You might lose a bit of status but you probably won't lose your life.

We don't use crude 15th century execution methods any more, but are you suggesting that Martin Luther King jr and Gandhi, among many others, were not killed for their beliefs? Conspiracy theories aside, they were both killed because they posed a threat to somebody. Just like historical example you care to give.

And do you really think things are better off because we don't burn heretics at the stake anymore?

Do you truly believe losing your life is the worst thing that could happen? Then why did Socrates willingly accept his execution? Or Jesus Christ? Why did Gandhi and MLK jr risk their lives?

But you are right. We don't kill radical people any more because we don't need to. What's going on right now is much more insidious than executing people for daring to say something controversial. It is more subtle and unless you really pay attention, you won't notice it.

If Jesus Christ lived today he wouldn't be executed. He would simply be drowned out by all the shallow, mass produced infotainment.

He wouldn't even get a chance to be labeled a heretic or a crackpot, much less something cooler like "a danger to society."

Albert Einstein was the last great intellectual in my opinion, and even he was shunned and relegated to the outskirts of academia by the end of his life. Not because he wasn't producing, but because the mainstream had shifted away and had no use for him anymore. (By the way, string theory is another academic black hole sucking up millions of dollars and time.) If the early 1900s were like today, he would have never had a chance.

We don't kill heretics anymore because it is much easier to kill their ideas instead.

[Brutha]

Do you truly believe losing your life is the worst thing that could happen?

I don't think that losing the life is the worst thing.

And do you really think things are better off because we don't burn heretics at the stake anymore?

Yes, I think it is progress not to burn heretics anymore, do you disagree (maybe it might make academia a bit more exciting)?

If Jesus Christ lived today he wouldn't be executed. He would simply be drowned out by all the shallow, mass produced infotainment.

He would probably found a sect somewhere and find followers.

Conspiracy theories aside, they were both killed because they posed a threat to somebody. Just like historical example you care to give.

They actually are historic examples. Especially Gandhi didn't live in a western style democracy.
Martin Luther King also wasn't accepted as someone who was a real citizin in his time. He wasn't only murdered because he said something controversial but because he was black and said something controversial.
I think that we also made progress in the last forty year on that front.

If the early 1900s were like today, he would have never had a chance.

Einstein didn't get much help in before 1905 when he did produce something either.

Good point! Now you understand why I don't see academia as any sort of shining beacon of hope.

You can open doors regardles of your position or the help you become when you have something to eat and something to write. A lot of influential ideas in the 20th century got developed in prison where people have a lot of time on their hands to think.

The problem is that a lot of people don't care to listen. Not because of money or because of pressure from the government but because they don't care.

[schola]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't think that losing the life is the worst thing.

Yes, I think it is progress not to burn heretics anymore, do you disagree (maybe it might make academia a bit more exciting)?

Progress on what front? I can agree that it is probably the most shallow, simple-minded example one could think of for progress against the suppression of ideas.

If you were against the death penalty, would you consider the phasing out of the electric chair "progress?" Maybe on some small, shallow level, but it wouldn't change the fact that the death penalty still remains.