[MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[John Carl]

Dmb, all,




On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 5:39 PM, david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> That's right, Ron.
>
> Let me spell it out for you, John.
>
> Intellect has this problem and the idea is to fix it. Intellect is not the
> problem, it HAS a problem. Instead of rejecting objectivity or
> subject-object metaphysics, you're simply rejecting intellect.


Jc:  I assure you I have no intention of rejecting intellect.  That's your
straw man, but it doesn't look anything like me.  I'm arguing a philosopher
on philosophy forum on the meaning of intellect, for goodness sake!  How
much more intellect-oriented can you get?

Intellect's problem is when it values intellect above all.  And speaking of
anti-intellectual, who else has gone by that sobriquet, by the way?

Bergson for sure, and certainly William James whom he got it from.  I don't
see how a guy like you Dave, can in all conscience condemn anyone as
anti-intellectual when your own twin heros, Pirsig and James, united under
that very banner.

I guess the problem is, you can take anti-intellectualism to the point of
stupidity, which evidently some of James' followers have done.


dmb:


> Instead of rejecting the corruptions of the church of reason, you're
> simply rejecting the church of reason. That's the mistake.



Jc:  There are two differing terms, "rejecting".  First of all, as a
system, it is highly valuable.  I'm not advocating the elimination of the
academy as an institution.  Who would preserve knowledge?  But  on a
personal level, it's  not my thing.  I can't really relate to submitting
myself to a system of thought which is fundamentally flawed - and that's
the great preponderance of present academia, right?    But without
intellect, I'd be screwed.  I honor and adore, nerds.  I've spent a
lifetime on the fringes of nerd-dom,  and have always had as friends, the
nerds - I sat at their table in the Caf.  I sought their company on social
occasions.  I grasped the importance of networked programming, as early as
anybody in my community, helping our first group to get local internet
running in 1994.  Intellect, the kind that can beat me at chess, I have
always loved and sought and prized.   But it's not everything.  If it was,
Hegel would be correct and we should just deal with it.

dmb:


> That's what my criticism is all about. That's the point you repeatedly
> evade. As far as I can tell, you have not even tried to address that
> criticism. But you sure have spent a lot of effort avoiding it. Seems like
> a lot of work for nothing.
>
>
Jc:  lol.  Well I've certainly dealt with it now.  If you want further
proof that I'm not anti-intellectual, lets get together some time for a
game of chess, dave.

dmb:


> But, hey, you don't even seem to understand what's wrong with straw men.
> Again, I find this quite disturbing. I really have no idea how (or if) your
> mind works.
>


 That last sentence, is true.  You don't understand me  and I'm glad you
admit the truth, once in a while.  Make it a consistent habit, and you and
I could be friends.


John