Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is the Philosophy of the state now anti-intellectualism?

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Do people inadvertently repress innovative thinking and concepts due to their stubborn views? Could we have advanced far greater than we have as a society, if we didn't have such stringent views of how our lives should be maintained? Examples are the plenitude of negs people will receive for having discordant views to what is discerned as "the norm".
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If negs are the worst form of opression you are receiving I think you can be confident of living in a fairly open minded society, to be honest.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Or maybe the masses have protected themselves from bad things. Not all innovation is good.
    Thing is, people want the norm. People want others to think like them because it protects them. A "rebel" might be dangerous because you never know what he'll do next.
    And people are right to think like this. The overwhelming majority of people are morons so the odds that something good is going to come out of their ideas are very slim.
    The downside of this perspective is that when someone worthy of attention does arise they are usually repressed. However I think this is the lesser of two evils.
    • Thread Starter
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobifier)
    If negs are the worst form of opression you are receiving I think you can be confident of living in a fairly open minded society, to be honest.

    Problem is my friend, is that if people are somewhat belittled on a forum that is facilitated on intellectual endeavours, then what can be said about the rest of society? TSR has a collective group of highly knowledgeable people, and if they are to defame change, how can change ever truly occur?

    The deeper question I'm trying to disclose here, is that what happens if we've set our views so deeply into one way of thinking, that previous ways of thought have been lost to us (ones which could've guided us in solving a TOE).
    • Thread Starter
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by idontthinkso)
    Or maybe the masses have protected themselves from bad things. Not all innovation is good.
    Thing is, people want the norm. People want others to think like them because it protects them. A "rebel" might be dangerous because you never know what he'll do next.
    And people are right to think like this. The overwhelming majority of people are morons so the odds that something good is going to come out of their ideas are very slim.
    The downside of this perspective is that when someone worthy of attention does arise they are usually repressed. However I think this is the lesser of two evils.

    Unfortunately, I'd have to agree with you. People are hesitant to promote change because of their lacklustre and fearful position. It's a shame.
    • 32 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    “The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.”

    J. M. Keynes
    • Thread Starter
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    “The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.”

    J. M. Keynes
    Dumbfounded. Sums up everything really.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Sounds like you're talking about America...
    • Thread Starter
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's perhaps a prominent calamity across the globe now. It's not an isolationist paradigm that only America follows. :ashamed:
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Sadly not. If politicians could get over their obsession with "progress" and stand above the frenetic race to "modernise" their countries by destroying their traditions in accorance with the imaginary laws of a bizzare cosmic Whiggery, the world would, I think, be a substantialy better place. The Reign of Terror, 19th century governments granting workers the "freedom" to die at 40 as a result of backbreaking labour and insanitary housing, the Holocaust, Stalin's purges, the Second World War, the Cold War, and the Euro-crisis were all the result of governments carrying out the ideas of intellectuals. What we need is humility and caution, not innovation.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JacobW)
    Sadly not. If politicians could get over their obsession with "progress" and stand above the frenetic race to "modernise" their countries by destroying their traditions in accorance with the imaginary laws of a bizzare cosmic Whiggery, the world would, I think, be a substantialy better place. The Reign of Terror, 19th century governments granting workers the "freedom" to die at 40 as a result of backbreaking labour and insanitary housing, the Holocaust, Stalin's purges, the Second World War, the Cold War, and the Euro-crisis were all the result of governments carrying out the ideas of intellectuals. What we need is humility and caution, not innovation.
    Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

    Not all intellectuals want to turn you into clouds of ash, you have just lumped every intellectual in with the worse, not all intellectuals are radicals or extremists or even anti-liberal.

    Many such as Popper advokated piecemeal social change in the Socratic tradition of critical thinking.

    Anyway your history is poor because the Nazi and Soviet regimes were supremely anti-intellectual persecuting or forcing to flee many intellectuals. There is a long list including Freud, Popper, Hayek.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's becoming more and more evident every day (to me anyway) that certain ideas and concepts are being intruded upon the general populace, regardless of their merit. It is becoming taboo to question or criticise the 'norm; where those who disagree with the 'norm' are ridiculed or accused or being racist/sexist/whateverist, regardless of whether they are this thing or not; these words carry the inherent message that the person in question is not credible and not to be trusted.

    The sensationalism of the media is a big part of this problem, they are the purveyors of this (albeit subtle) propaganda.

    There is no particular individual or organisation at the root of this, just the complete inertia of the general populace, and a system that allows an idiot's opinion to be as highly regarded as an intellectual's. We are told what we can and can't do, say and think, and it creeps into every aspect of our lives.

    David Starkey puts it far better than I can articulate in a forum post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrX_v29Uzjg
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snozzle)
    Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

    Not all intellectuals want to turn you into clouds of ash, you have just lumped every intellectual in with the worse, not all intellectuals are radicals or extremists or even anti-liberal.

    Many such as Popper advokated piecemeal social change in the Socratic tradition of critical thinking.

    Anyway your history is poor because the Nazi and Soviet regimes were supremely anti-intellectual persecuting or forcing to flee many intellectuals. There is a long list including Freud, Popper, Hayek.
    1.) You appear to have committed the fallacy of inversion. I said that all extremist, destructive ideologies are created by intellectuals, not that all intellectuals create extremist, destructive ideologies. I'm well aware that a moderate and a conservative intellectual tradition exists.

    2.)The Soviet regime was not anti-intellectual per se; it was just anti- anything that opposed communism, which happened to include most intellectuals. The Bolsheviks justified their actions by appealing to Marxist ideology, Marx being one of the greatest intellectuals of all time. You might have a stronger case with the Nazis; but they were still acting in accordance with a grand theory and a vision of a perfect society, albeit not one advocated by a significant number of intellectuals or on particularly rational grounds. A theory doesn't have to be intelligent to be intellectual. I don't oppose intellectuals by virtue of the fact that they are so, but because they all too often imagine fail to recognise the limits of their understanding and create groundless, speculative theories later used to justify atrocities.

    I gave the wrong impression by saying "sadly not." I don't advocate anti-intellectualism, but I do think it would be less destructive than the political establishment's current philosophy.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think people are fundamentally anti-intellectual because most people don't understand it, therefore don't care or are scared (myself included).

    But I think change takes place over a period of time. People say socialism has failed or whatever, but if you compare government policy of now, in most Western States, compared to a hundred or even 70 years ago, you'd find that socialistic policy has crept in; welfare, healthcare etc. This is being reversed in what will be a catastrophic wave of liberalism but the point still stands
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Not yet but it is getting there.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JacobW)
    1.) You appear to have committed the fallacy of inversion. I said that all extremist, destructive ideologies are created by intellectuals, not that all intellectuals create extremist, destructive ideologies. I'm well aware that a moderate and a conservative intellectual tradition exists.

    2.)The Soviet regime was not anti-intellectual per se; it was just anti- anything that opposed communism, which happened to include most intellectuals. The Bolsheviks justified their actions by appealing to Marxist ideology, Marx being one of the greatest intellectuals of all time. You might have a stronger case with the Nazis; but they were still acting in accordance with a grand theory and a vision of a perfect society, albeit not one advocated by a significant number of intellectuals or on particularly rational grounds. A theory doesn't have to be intelligent to be intellectual. I don't oppose intellectuals by virtue of the fact that they are so, but because they all too often imagine fail to recognise the limits of their understanding and create groundless, speculative theories later used to justify atrocities.

    I gave the wrong impression by saying "sadly not." I don't advocate anti-intellectualism, but I do think it would be less destructive than the political establishment's current philosophy.
    You don't have intellectuals in a totalitarian society you just have propagandists and cheerleaders. Yes the Soviets and Nazis used the ideas of various intellectuals but they very quickly stamped out free thinking and criticism once power demanded it.

    Intellectuals are one of the best defenses we have against rogue governments and despotic regimes. Who else would be able to subject the policies of demagogues to criticism, or even a slow creep to tyranny which may be latent in existing institutions?

    An intellectual free populace would be a disaster.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snozzle)
    You don't have intellectuals in a totalitarian society you just have propagandists and cheerleaders. Yes the Soviets and Nazis used the ideas of various intellectuals but they very quickly stamped out free thinking and criticism once power demanded it.
    Yes, and they did so in the name of Marxism.

    (Original post by snozzle)
    Intellectuals are one of the best defenses we have against rogue governments and despotic regimes. Who else would be able to subject the policies of demagogues to criticism, or even a slow creep to tyranny which may be latent in existing institutions?

    An intellectual free populace would be a disaster.
    I quite agree. Of course intellectuals fulfill an invaluable role in society. I oppose them by virtue of the fact that, and only insofar as they do, develop ideologies that rest ultimately on little more than speculation and are used to justify at worst despotism and atrocities, or at best the undermining of institutions and traditions whose value intellectuals fail to appreciate because it does not play a role in their theories. It's a difficult thing to judge, but I think a degree of anti-intellectualism is preferable to a political elite who allow themselves to be unduly influenced by intellectuals. Very few great thinkers make great statesmen.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 17, 2012
New on TSR

Moving on from GCSEs

What advice would you give someone starting A-levels?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.