Intellectual life offers no financial reward

WISDOMfromPO-MO

Maybe I have my sociology wrong, but it seems that in contemporary society there is absolutely no correlation between ability in and contribution to collective intellectual life and income and wealth.

If you want to be wealthy, party during high school and never study, graduate with a "C" average, and buy a McDonald's franchise. Don't spend your resources trying to develop the intellectual tools to contribute to, oh, archaeology.

Sorry, graduating from dental school may require a lot of academic rigor, but it doesn't mean that you are contributing to the collective life of the mind or are addressing questions that greatly expand our collective understanding. It just means that you are studying to be a highly-skilled--and highly-paid--technician. Nothing wrong with that. My teeth and gums thank you for it. But it is not what I am talking about.

Entertainers such as professional athletes, pop musicians, etc. Entrepreneurs. Skilled sales people and managers. Extensively trained technicians such as engineers and medical doctors. Politicians. There is definitely a correlation between those roles and their work and wealth.

Maybe formal higher education--the present home, for better or for worse, of most of our collective intellectual life--does not make intellectual life difficult because of the politics of tenure, research funding, etc. Maybe it is the other way around. Maybe intellectual life--lifelong liberal education--is difficult by its nature and is the province of only the few who have the patience, determination and perseverance it demands. Maybe it doesn't have to pay a lot to attract talent because so few people are talented enough to do it that their supply is inelastic.

Don't be fooled by the present state of academia. Don't confuse it with our collective intellectual heritage that people thousands of years from now will want to preserve. Higher education is big business. People feel like it's either get a degree or live a life of relative poverty. To meet that demand tons of non-intellectuals fill adjunct and tenured positions. They may soon be replaced by automation. They may be inflating the supply of supposed intellectuals and making true intellectual life have absolutely no financial reward.

Or maybe anybody who invests anything in intellectual life is a fool and it will never be financially rewarding under any circumstances or social conditions.

Or maybe it is better to be a poor intellectual than a wealthy fool, and that wisdom keeps a small minority chugging along at philosophy, history, cultural anthropology, etc.

Nils Loc

Is there room for such thing as an intellectual fool in your narrative?

CasKev

I think intellectual life is comparable to other markets. To be competitive and benefit financially, you need to have a product that has a perceived benefit; it has to be unique, or at lease offer an existing benefit at a lower cost.

Trying to succeed in the intellectual market is a lot like the entertainment industry - you need to have talent, you need to put in a lot of hard work, and a little luck doesn't hurt. In the end, only a very small percentage of the population will 'make it'.

The best example of financial success in the intellectual market is probably the self-help section of the book store, where authors peddle their life hacks to interested individuals. To fit in, your philosophical ponderings would have to offer some way of improving quality of life. Otherwise, where is the value in your product?

BC

Maybe I have my sociology wrong, but it seems that in contemporary society there is absolutely no correlation between ability in and contribution to collective intellectual life and income and wealth. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Your sociology is generally right, I think, but how right depends on what you mean by the collective intellectual life and income and wealth.

Income and wealth first:

In the world, income and wealth is heavily skewed toward high income and great wealth. A few people --less than a dozen--have as much wealth as one third of the world's population (according to Oxfam). In the US (and in other countries) the richest 1% to 5% have more wealth than the rest of the population. People don't end up in the rich end of the income distribution by being intellectuals, that's for certain. The business of generating wealth is difficult (it takes immense intellect, ingenuity, drive, a certain insensitivity, etc.) but it isn't an intellectual pursuit.

Some intellectuals can certainly prosper in the modern world society compared to ordinary workers. Wealth, no. A modest level of comfort, convenience, security--yes. Some intellectuals are housed in academic institutions (like Noam Chomsky). Some make a living in government or industry (or non-profits). A few make an income from books and speaking fees. Some are professionals.

An intellectual whose output is extremely arcane (maybe Sanskrit rhetoric), or targets criticism at critical institutions may well have a life similar to a poorly paid worker. And this ins't new. Discounting intellectuals who were well off from non-intellectual pursuits, many intellectuals died broke. Karl Marx survived because Frederich Engels supported him, but that didn't land Uncle Karl in the lap of luxury. It just kept him and his family from becoming homeless and starving. Quite a few intellectuals have been "kept men" -- somebody underwrote their living expenses.

The thing is, a lot of intellectuality is. of necessity, a significant sideline of people who must do other things (which proves your point). Jeff Miller was a high school graduate and worked various temporary and short-term jobs, whose thinking was (still is) on a high intellectual level. There were several people in his circle who supported themselves through ordinary work, but were intellectuals.

WISDOMfromPO-MO

Your sociology is generally right, I think, but how right depends on what you mean by the collective intellectual life and income and wealth. — Bitter Crank

An intellectual: One who greatly contributes to collective intellectual life and is concerned about the truth so much that 1,000 years from now his/her work will continue to be preserved and/or will be considered part of some canon, or who is trying to produce work of that magnitude at least.

Income and wealth: Surplus assets that are expected to grow / yield financial dividends and give the owner a lot of freedom, including the freedom to not have to live paycheck to paycheck working for somebody else.

I don't see the life of the former offering any of the latter.

WISDOMfromPO-MO

The best example of financial success in the intellectual market is probably the self-help section of the book store, where authors peddle their life hacks to interested individuals... — CasKev

I doubt that 1,000 years from now Dr. Phil will be considered part of the same class as Spinoza, Hume, Nietzsche, Chomsky, etc.

Intellectual life offers no financial reward

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions