Intellectuals and Politics

[groovedaddy]

The rise of Newt Gingrich, Ph.D.— along with the apparent anti-intellectualism of many of the other Republican candidates — has once again raised the question of the role of intellectuals in American politics.

In writing about intellectuals, my temptation is to begin by echoing Marianne Moore on poetry: I, too, dislike them. But that would be a lie: all else equal, I really like intellectuals. Besides, I’m an intellectual myself, and their self-deprecation is one thing I really do dislike about many intellectuals.

What is an intellectual? In general, someone seriously devoted to what used to be called the “life of the mind”: thinking pursued not instrumentally, for the sake of practical goals, but simply for the sake of knowing and understanding. Nowadays, universities are the most congenial spots for intellectuals, although even there corporatism and careerism are increasing threats.

Intellectuals tell us things we need to know: how nature and society work, what happened in our past, how to analyze concepts, how to appreciate art and literature. They also keep us in conversation with the great minds of our past. This conversation may not, as some hope, tap into a source of enduring wisdom, but it at least provides a critical standpoint for assessing the limits of our current cultural assumptions.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/intellectuals-and-politics/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1

[Uncle Joe]

1. If Gingrich weren't so evil, I could almost agree with the last paragraph but

that prevents me from recommending an otherwise decent column.

I don't view Gingrich as being an intellectual in-spite of him having been a professor at one time any more than I view Bush the Least as being one for attending Harvard.

Thanks for the thread, groovedaddy.

[BridgeTheGap]

2. There is nothing to prevent an intellectual from becoming a hack. Gingrich is proof enough! n/t

[Uncle Joe]

3. Yes, but if an intellectual becomes a hack, they're not of the mind anymore,

they're of the emotion, at best they've subordinated and at worst abandoned altogether the intellect in favor of emotion; greed, lust, envy, pride, fear, hate etc. etc.

Thus I would not classify them as Intellectuals as they; either abandoned that ethos or never had it in the first place, just donning it as camouflage.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hack

1. a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits, for money, his or her creative ability or training in the production of dull, unimaginative, and trite work; one who produces banal and mediocre work in the hope of gaining commercial success in the arts: As a painter, he was little more than a hack.

2. a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment: a political hack.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intellectual

adjective

4. guided or developed by or relying on the intellect rather than upon emotions or feelings; rational.

noun

8. an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings.