An intellectual is a person who uses intelligence (thought and reason) and critical or analytical reasoning in either a professional or a personal capacity.
‘Intellectual’ can denote three types of persons:
Intellectual - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This next bit is an excerpt I've typed out from "Nonsense On Stilts - How To Tell Science From Bunk", by Massimo Pigliucci. He makes a case for why Anti-Intellectualism kills our ability to have these non-partisan, non-profit, public figures who have been able to facilitate societal evolution in the past. The book as a whole has been pretty inspiring and I strongly urge anyone who has an interest in looking at the world from a macroscopic perspective to give it a read.
Anti-Intellectualism
"Anti-intellectualism is not a single proposition but a complex of related propositions.. The common strain that binds together the attitudes and ideas which I call anti-intellectual is a resentment and suspicion of the life of the mind and of those who are considered to represent it; and a disposition constantly to minimize the value of that life." - Richard Hofstadter from Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (1963)
There are three fundamental kinds of anti-intellectualism - anti-elitism, instrumentalism and anti-rationalism.
Anti-Elitism
As mentioned earlier, anti-elitism is complex and contradictory within American society, as this is a culture where elitism stemming from birth or intellect is seen with deep suspicion, and yet elitism based on money (itself highly culturally heritable) or physical prowess are elevated to mythical levels.
Americans have not yet accepted as a culture that the fact that people are born with different abilities (be they mental or physical) does not translate into the value judgment that they therefore ought to be accorded different status as human beings. Until they do, anti-elitism will in fact seriously limit the impact that intellectuals might have on the political and social discourse in the U.S.
Instrumentalism
Instrumentalism is another quintessential American ideology, although it is not an all-out anti-intellect position. The idea is that learning is to be encouraged if it is aimed at addressing practical concerns.
Instrumentalism makes less and less sense the more a society develops above the level of direct struggle for life. At the beginning of U.S. history, just as in many parts of the world still today—unfortunately—the imperative was first to survive from one year to another, or even one day to another, and then to lay the foundations for a more stable and prosperous society. But as soon as basic human needs are met and a minimum sense of security settles in, we begin to look for other ways to fulfill our lives, what Aristotle referred to as “flourishing.” A liberal education is not meant to provide people with the know-how for functioning in either an agricultural or industrial setting; its goal is to produce mentally sophisticated citizens, capable of critical thinking, who can be fulfilled members of a complex society in which labour is a means to many ends, not just to survival.
Within the context of our discussion, then, instrumentalism is one of the reasons why liberal education has been under constant attack from conservative politicians for decades, and it is why the National Science Foundation (which has a federal mandate to fund both basic—that is, not applied—scientific research as well as science education) tends to be among the least-funded science agencies in the country.
Anti-rationalism
This one has profound religious roots, tracing back at least to the first “Great Awakening” that led to the creation of the evangelical movement in the U.S. during the early 1700s. Ironically, the Awakening was a revolt against what was perceived as the hyperintellectual flavour of early American Puritanism, characterized by ministers who spoke of abstruse theological issues in highly philosophical terms rather than addressing the emotional concerns of their very flesh-and-bone followers in the pews. It is not difficult to see how modern-day evangelical and charismatic movements are direct cultural descendants of that first revolt. This in turn has led to the rise of the extreme religious right in politics and to the never-ending battle between evolution and creationism in science education.
There are two major “currents” within anti-rationalism. In one current there is a tendency to see reason as cold, opposed to emotions, and therefore almost inhuman. One can think of this as the prototypical anti-Aristotelian position, since for the Greek philosopher, reason is the highest characteristic of humanity and ought in fact to keep emotions in check (though he would have also immediately added that this is a matter of balancing the two, not simply of repressing emotions.)
The other current pits absolutism against relativism, particularly when it comes to moral problems. The fear that strikes the creationist’s heart, for instance, when he contemplates what philosopher Daniel Dennett called “Darwin’s dangerous idea” is that the modern scientific account of the origin of humans and of all other species directly contradicts the accounts in Genesis. And if Genesis turns out to be wrong about factual matters, how can we trust it when it comes to questions of morality?
Considering, as we have so far, the decline in quality if not quantity of intellectualism in the U.S., as well as developing a better appreciation of just how dep the roots of anti-intellectualism are in the American culture and history, should make it clear why the task for scientists who wish to do their part as public intellectuals seem daunting indeed.
‘Intellectual’ can denote three types of persons:
- A person involved in, and with, abstract, erudite ideas and theories.
- A person whose profession (science, medicine, literature) solely involves the production and dissemination of ideas.[1]
- A person of notable cultural and artistic expertise whose knowledge grants him or her intellectual authority in public discourse.
Intellectual - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This next bit is an excerpt I've typed out from "Nonsense On Stilts - How To Tell Science From Bunk", by Massimo Pigliucci. He makes a case for why Anti-Intellectualism kills our ability to have these non-partisan, non-profit, public figures who have been able to facilitate societal evolution in the past. The book as a whole has been pretty inspiring and I strongly urge anyone who has an interest in looking at the world from a macroscopic perspective to give it a read.
Anti-Intellectualism
"Anti-intellectualism is not a single proposition but a complex of related propositions.. The common strain that binds together the attitudes and ideas which I call anti-intellectual is a resentment and suspicion of the life of the mind and of those who are considered to represent it; and a disposition constantly to minimize the value of that life." - Richard Hofstadter from Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (1963)
There are three fundamental kinds of anti-intellectualism - anti-elitism, instrumentalism and anti-rationalism.
Anti-Elitism
As mentioned earlier, anti-elitism is complex and contradictory within American society, as this is a culture where elitism stemming from birth or intellect is seen with deep suspicion, and yet elitism based on money (itself highly culturally heritable) or physical prowess are elevated to mythical levels.
Americans have not yet accepted as a culture that the fact that people are born with different abilities (be they mental or physical) does not translate into the value judgment that they therefore ought to be accorded different status as human beings. Until they do, anti-elitism will in fact seriously limit the impact that intellectuals might have on the political and social discourse in the U.S.
Instrumentalism
Instrumentalism is another quintessential American ideology, although it is not an all-out anti-intellect position. The idea is that learning is to be encouraged if it is aimed at addressing practical concerns.
Instrumentalism makes less and less sense the more a society develops above the level of direct struggle for life. At the beginning of U.S. history, just as in many parts of the world still today—unfortunately—the imperative was first to survive from one year to another, or even one day to another, and then to lay the foundations for a more stable and prosperous society. But as soon as basic human needs are met and a minimum sense of security settles in, we begin to look for other ways to fulfill our lives, what Aristotle referred to as “flourishing.” A liberal education is not meant to provide people with the know-how for functioning in either an agricultural or industrial setting; its goal is to produce mentally sophisticated citizens, capable of critical thinking, who can be fulfilled members of a complex society in which labour is a means to many ends, not just to survival.
Within the context of our discussion, then, instrumentalism is one of the reasons why liberal education has been under constant attack from conservative politicians for decades, and it is why the National Science Foundation (which has a federal mandate to fund both basic—that is, not applied—scientific research as well as science education) tends to be among the least-funded science agencies in the country.
Anti-rationalism
This one has profound religious roots, tracing back at least to the first “Great Awakening” that led to the creation of the evangelical movement in the U.S. during the early 1700s. Ironically, the Awakening was a revolt against what was perceived as the hyperintellectual flavour of early American Puritanism, characterized by ministers who spoke of abstruse theological issues in highly philosophical terms rather than addressing the emotional concerns of their very flesh-and-bone followers in the pews. It is not difficult to see how modern-day evangelical and charismatic movements are direct cultural descendants of that first revolt. This in turn has led to the rise of the extreme religious right in politics and to the never-ending battle between evolution and creationism in science education.
There are two major “currents” within anti-rationalism. In one current there is a tendency to see reason as cold, opposed to emotions, and therefore almost inhuman. One can think of this as the prototypical anti-Aristotelian position, since for the Greek philosopher, reason is the highest characteristic of humanity and ought in fact to keep emotions in check (though he would have also immediately added that this is a matter of balancing the two, not simply of repressing emotions.)
The other current pits absolutism against relativism, particularly when it comes to moral problems. The fear that strikes the creationist’s heart, for instance, when he contemplates what philosopher Daniel Dennett called “Darwin’s dangerous idea” is that the modern scientific account of the origin of humans and of all other species directly contradicts the accounts in Genesis. And if Genesis turns out to be wrong about factual matters, how can we trust it when it comes to questions of morality?
Considering, as we have so far, the decline in quality if not quantity of intellectualism in the U.S., as well as developing a better appreciation of just how dep the roots of anti-intellectualism are in the American culture and history, should make it clear why the task for scientists who wish to do their part as public intellectuals seem daunting indeed.
Right answer!
