Intellectual: Largely Social Critique

[coberst]

Intellectual: Largely Social Critique

All thought is saturated with egocentric and sociocentric presuppositions. That is, all thought contains highly motivating bias centered in the self or in ideologies such as political, religious, and economic theories. Some individuals are conscious of these internal forces but most people are not.

Those individuals who are conscious of these biases within their thinking can try to rid their judgments of that influence. Those who are not conscious, or little conscious of such bias, are bound to display a significant degree of irrational tendencies in their judgments.

“Can the intellectual, who is supposed to have a special and perhaps professional concern with truth, escape from or rise above the partiality and distortions of ideology?”

Our culture has tended to channel intellectuals, or perhaps more properly those who function as intellectuals, into academic professions. Gramsci makes the accurate distinction that all men and women “are intellectuals…but all do not have the function of intellectuals in society”.

An intellectual might be properly defined as those who are primarily or professionally concerned with matters of the mind and the imagination but who are socially non-attached. “The intellectual is thought of not as someone who displays great mental or imaginative ability but as someone who applies those abilities in more general areas such as religion, philosophy and social and political issues. It is the involvement in general and controversy outside of a specialization that is considered as the hallmark of an intellectual; it is a matter of choice of self definition, choice is supreme here.”

Even anti-ideological is ideological. If partisanship can be defended servility cannot; many have allowed themselves to become the tools of others.

We have moved into an age when the university is no longer an ivory tower and knowledge is king but knowledge has become a commodity and educators have become instruments of power; the university has become a privately owned think-tank.

“A profound change in the intellectual community itself is inherent in this development. The largely humanist-oriented, occasionally ideological minded intellectual dissenter , who saw his role largely in terms of proffering social critiques, is rapidly being displaced either by experts and specialist, who become involved in special government undertakings, or by generalist-integrators, who become house-ideologues for those in power, providing overall intellectual integration for disparate actions.”

The subordination to power is not just at the individual level but also at the institutional level. Government funds are made available to universities and colleges not for use as they deem fit but for specific government needs. Private industry plays even a larger role in providing funds for educational institutions to perform management and business study. Private industry is not inclined ‘to waste’ money on activities that do not contribute to the bottom line. ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’

Each intellectual is spouting a different ideology, how does the individual choose what ideology? Trotsky once said “only a participant can be a profound spectator”. Is detachment then a virtue? To suggest that intellectuals rise above ideology is impractical. Explicit commitment is preferable to bogus neutrality. But truth is an indispensable touchstone.

I think that the proper role for the intellectual is commitment plus detachment. Do you think many of our present day intellectuals qualify as committed and detached?

Quotes and ideas from “Knowledge and Belief in Politics” Bhikhu Parekh

[Angela]

Originally Posted by coberst

Do you think many of our present day intellectuals qualify as committed and detached?[/b]

Regarding your question, by "intellectuals" do you mean all men and women, or just the ones who "have the function of intellectuals in society"... the ones who are "supposed to have a special or perhaps professional concern with truth"?

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Angela

Regarding your question, by "intellectuals" do you mean all men and women, or just the ones who "have the function of intellectuals in society"... the ones who are "supposed to have a special or perhaps professional concern with truth"?

The question is directed at any individual whom you judge to be an intellectual? Perhaps we no longer have anyone who functions as an intellectual.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by coberst

The question is directed at any individual whom you judge to be an intellectual? Perhaps we no longer have anyone who functions as an intellectual.

I won't rely on anyone to function as an intellectual, or demand that they do or think that they should. The days are over, I think, when anyone can authoritatively use their intellect for others. The individuals whom I would say are intellectuals are those who use their own intellect -- that is to say, everybody.

So to answer your question from that perspective...

Do you think many of our present day intellectuals qualify as committed and detached?

...Some of 'em do, some of 'em don't. Either way is ok with me.

[coberst]

I am a self-actualizing self-learner and follow my curiosity wherever it leads me. An overarching question that tends to direct all of my learning is "Why do humans act as they do and can we do better?

I am convinced that we, the citizens of America, do not have the intellectual sophistication required to comprehend the problems created by the technology we have created. We display a great aptitude for creating technology but we display little concern for developing the intellectual sophistication required to control and manage such great power.

I think that it is necessary that adults change dramatically their present attitude toward learning. We can no longer afford to store our intellect in the attic with our year book after our school daze are over. If we do not quickly become more intellectually sophisticated our civilization will not endure another 200 years.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by coberst

I am a self-actualizing self-learner and follow my curiosity wherever it leads me.

I am C3PO, human cyborg relations, fluent in over 6 million forms of communication.

Don't worry coberst, maybe we'll create the Singularity before we self destruct!

[Brutha]

Those individuals who are conscious of these biases within their thinking can try to rid their judgments of that influence.

And fail. Humans have biases, that's the way our brains work.

We display a great aptitude for creating technology but we display little concern for developing the intellectual sophistication required to control and manage such great power.

Do you see your strong bias towards the belief that possible way to control a complex system like our society today exists?

If you try to solve that problem, you don't progress.
You can talk about intellectual sophistication and make complicated modells but that problem is not solveable. You can't control the world.

But truth is an indispensable touchstone.

Truth isn't reachable.
The more intellectually sophisticated your models of reality the greater the damage when they blow up because you depend on them and the reality is to complex for them.
To quote from Nassim N. Taleb's "The Black Swan":
"In the end we are being driven by history, all the while thinking that we are doing the driving."