You are grossly over-simplifying anti-intellectualism, some streams of which are extremely valuable. Your claim only fits the “thalamic anti-intellectual”, one of at least five broad types Eric Raymond discusses.
The most important and useful to society is the “epistemic-skeptical anti-intellectual. His complaint is that intellectuals are too prone to overestimate their own cleverness and attempt to commit society to vast utopian schemes that invariably end badly.” Of course lefties who want to change society to fit their theories try to smear them with claims like yours, but:
Because it’s extremely difficult to make people like F. A. Hayek or Thomas Sowell look stupid enough to be thalamic or totalitarian enough to be totalizers, the usual form of dishonest attack intellectuals use against epistemic skeptics is to accuse them of being traditionalists covertly intent on preserving some existing set of power relationships. Every libertarian who has ever been accused of conservatism knows about this one up close and personal.
And:
“If “intellectuals” really want to understand and defeat anti-intellectualism, they need to start by looking in the mirror. They have brought this hostility on themselves by serving their own civilization so poorly. Until they face that fact, and abandon their neo-clericalist presumptions, “anti-intellectualism” will continue to get not only more intense, but more deserved.”
You sound like you’ve researched this. If I wanted to get a really good idea of what both sides mean by elitism and understand the problem better, is there some reading you could recommend for that?
Thanks for this link. I think it just boils down to more arguing about words—as far as I can tell, I agree with what you and he are actually saying, but I was using “intellectual” more sloppily to refer to people who interact with culture via argument, ideas, and art, regardless of whether they dabble in politics, perform what Eric criticizes as “ceaseless questioning,” or whether they have an inclination toward “vast utopian schemes.” It was sort of a throwaway remark and not very well thought-through.
You are grossly over-simplifying anti-intellectualism, some streams of which are extremely valuable. Your claim only fits the “thalamic anti-intellectual”, one of at least five broad types Eric Raymond discusses.
The most important and useful to society is the “epistemic-skeptical anti-intellectual. His complaint is that intellectuals are too prone to overestimate their own cleverness and attempt to commit society to vast utopian schemes that invariably end badly.” Of course lefties who want to change society to fit their theories try to smear them with claims like yours, but:
And:
You sound like you’ve researched this. If I wanted to get a really good idea of what both sides mean by elitism and understand the problem better, is there some reading you could recommend for that?
Interesting link, however, this looks like a tangent. If this is more related than I realize, please point out the connection.
Thanks for this link. I think it just boils down to more arguing about words—as far as I can tell, I agree with what you and he are actually saying, but I was using “intellectual” more sloppily to refer to people who interact with culture via argument, ideas, and art, regardless of whether they dabble in politics, perform what Eric criticizes as “ceaseless questioning,” or whether they have an inclination toward “vast utopian schemes.” It was sort of a throwaway remark and not very well thought-through.