Nearly all of them are Elitist. — JerseyFlight

Who are them? "Intellectuals" is a vague concept. If you don't indentify the target of your invective, it loses whatever bite you think it has.

If you don't identify the target of your invective, it loses whatever bite you think it has. — SophistiCat

This is false. Such a criteria will rob you of much general wisdom.

Such general wisdom as "there are terrible, horrible, no good, very bad people" I can easily do without.

Such general wisdom as "there are terrible, horrible, no good, very bad people" I can easily do without. — SophistiCat

Translation: where reality is negative there I bury my head in the sand.

Nearly all of them are Elitist. — JerseyFlight

Reminds me of an earlier thread here about the Trial of Socrates. He was sentenced to death or exile I think. He chose one or the other but made some remark (or maybe someone here did) about "if he says he knows nothing how can he know wherever he would go people would drive him out?" My reply was it's simple, people don't like having their core beliefs challenged or otherwise proven wrong. They will get nasty and turn on you in a second, often violently. And it's true. Even here sometimes lol

I see this as a serious problem because the intellectuals have begun to function as a new ruling class. — JerseyFlight

First, I doubt it. Second, Oh the horror. Let's just get my nephew's son who plays in a garage band to be responsible for the lives of hundreds of millions if not billions of people. Really? lol

This has serious consequences when it comes to the reality of class oppression. Here the analysis takes us into tragic places, systemic poverty has a negative outcome on the positive development of our species. When we begin to analyze this in terms of class, we learn that those who should be most helping the species, are often adding to their oppression. — JerseyFlight

While I mostly agree with your opening paragraph, this paragraph is problematic. What I have learnt ios that if you want to mix it with the 'intellectuals, you need to be rigorous.. and it is not so hard for a serious thinker. But this paragraph makes broad generalisations and sweeping conclusions that are, presumably, based on your own experiences of a specific locality and culture. It is not philosophical.

It is not philosophical. — A Seagull

Strange that one would see this as an objection. My only concern is what takes place in terms of life and its concretion, I could care less about the abstract world of forms -- that is, until idealism starts distorting reality. Then it is necessary to intercede on behalf of intelligence.

Yeah, we don't want no people what know things tellin' us what to do.

The problem with professional intellectuals is that they get paid. Imagine you are 52 years old, too established in your career to turn back, and trying to put 3 kids through college. You can't afford to rock the academic community group consensus boat. You are probably quite skilled at presenting an image of authority, but you can't actually do philosophy.

As example, imagine an academic writing a series of articles challenging the current mad panic consensus for diversity. Imagine your head on a pike, a pink slip in your hand, while you fill out an application for a delivery driver job. :-) Nah, too scary, better just salute the flag and keep your head down.

My only concern is what takes place in terms of life and its concretion, I could care less about the abstract world of forms -- that is, until idealism starts distorting reality. — JerseyFlight

Reality in this context is little more than an environment that follows scientific laws. It's about how we- instead of being restricted by these confines- use them to our advantage to create a better society and civilization as a whole. We can either embrace something like idealism (or positive change) or succumb to something like cynicism (or stagnation). Which all points considered makes the latter seem like little more than just being lazy. People confuse circumstance for reality quite often. Here's an example of both.

Ancient Rome. The pinnacle of Western society at one point. The envy of the world. Running water ensuring healthy citizens along with representative government ensuring happy ones as well. Exquisite bathhouses that are still replicated to this very day! Not the least greatest feature of these being indoor toilets. Did you know Romans would often discuss life, politics, and even conduct business deals... while on the toilet. So you got two guys (or hey why not several) all together in a room with their pants down just casually defecating talking about life, trading some grain, shoot maybe even discussing philosophy as we are now! That was the life then and it was embraced by society. Now suppose one day, while again publicly defecating someone came up with the notion of... bathroom stalls or even in-home toilets and decided to mention it to... again the man just casually doing the same right beside him. What if what I quoted was his reply? What if nobody improved the first cellular phone or television set. Or airplane or even just brushed any and all notions of these inventions we take for granted aside because "it's idealism run amok" or "a distortion of reality"? They weren't feasible at the time. Some were even impossible. And yet. Think about it...

Then it is necessary to intercede on behalf of intelligence. — JerseyFlight

Well that didn't take long now did it lol. Looks like we're all a bit elitist deep down.

The problem with professional intellectuals is that they get paid. — Hippyhead

This must certainly factor into the equation. Non-conformity nearly always seems to come at a social price. The thinking subject is really only making progress at the point where he becomes aware of the social conditions that determine and undermine his quality. This is the awareness that really matters.

We can either embrace something like idealism (or positive change) or succumb to something like cynicism (or stagnation). — Outlander

Embrace idealism or cynicism? I think not. Resistance is a matter of dialectical intelligence, it is not, a matter of succumbing to the false authority of Aristotelian categories. All quality is dialectical!

Non-conformity nearly always seems to come at a social price. — JerseyFlight

Human being tend to move in herds. It seems the most valid role for a philosopher is to serve as a kind of court jester who continually tests and challenges the herd group consensus. Kind of hard to do that when the herd is paying your mortgage.

Non-conformity nearly always seems to come at a social price. — JerseyFlight

Think it through. How could one even define "social" except to the degree that individuals are in some kind of conformity?

Collections don't have to be made of things that are all the same. Indeed, they have to be all different - at least as instances of something - otherwise their could be no "collection" as such.

But to be a collection, we are saying the differences don't make a difference. The degree of non-conformity is acceptable, within bounds, for the purposes of that particular collection.

So the social price of non-conformity is that you are free to do anything you want, so long as it doesn't break that constraint of collectivity. At worst, society is going to be indifferent to your difference.

If instead you disrupt the conformity of the society in a way that appears to improve its functioning at that collective level, then you will be celebrated. Your non-conformity will become part of a new conformity. The collective can learn and adapt its own definition.

There is a natural dynamics to groups. Complaining about it at a general level ain't going to change it. Instead it is up to you to get heard - and risk that indifference. Or if you make too much of a pointless ruckus, the club might physically move to eject you of course.

Even indifference has its limits. Being anti-social is different from merely being non-conformist in an open society.

So the social price of non-conformity is that you are free to do anything you want, so long as it doesn't break that constraint of collectivity. At worst, society is going to be indifferent to your difference. — apokrisis

With all due respect, this merely tells me that you have not thought very deeply about social resistance and its ramifications. You are probably an American, which means you are part of a young political system, but most of all, you manifest a complete ignorance of any form of class awareness in your consciousness. This is a problem if you are indeed striving to be an intellectual. It literally means you cannot have (make contact) with adult conversations, it means you live in a kind of cultural Matrix without any distinction... perhaps worst of all, it renders you the ignorant victim of idealism.

I will not debate this with you because I have more important things to do with my time, but what I will do is discuss Lukács, History and Class Consciousness, if you are serious. (That means you need to read the book).

I agree with sophisticat, Aprokrisis and Seagull. You are making way too many generalizations. It's as if you have some sort of ax to grind, without sufficient justification.

Consider a thesis where you have a definitions index as part of your blueprint, or architectural engineering documents with a definitions page on the drawings. Consider defining:

1.The Elitist
2. The Intellect
3. The Intellectual
4. The Socio-political
5. Academia

What's more, I realize you're new here but unfortunately you've already set some alarming groundwork. You said: " I pay attention to the content of what is being said! In my life as a thinker I have found that most thinkers do the opposite."

Are you sure about that? For instance, because you didn't provide the proper context for what it means to comprehend information or any novel concept as something that might be communicated or taught in say academia, you're suggesting that the student in that case should ignore the Intellectualist teacher since they're "ivory tower".

Are you just purging something?

With all due respect, this merely tells me that you have not thought very deeply about social resistance and its ramifications. — JerseyFlight

Wrong.

You are probably an American, — JerseyFlight

Absolutely wrong.

which means you are part of a young political system — JerseyFlight

Sadly also absolutely wrong.

you manifest a complete ignorance of any form of class awareness in your consciousness. — JerseyFlight

Screamingly, laughably wrong.

I will not debate this with you because I have more important things to do with my time, — JerseyFlight

Like being wrong every time you make a claim?

...but what I will do is discuss Lukács, History and Class Consciousness, if you are serious. (That means you need to read the book). — JerseyFlight

That would be a better plan on your part. Why not put forward a sensible OP based on your reading of that and see who wants to engage - be a member of your intellectual club.

But so far your ranting doesn't inspire hope.

One of the most frightening things about class awareness is how many intellectuals don't have it in any shape or form. This essentially renders them advocates of the oppression contained in their own cultures, though they view their conformity as intelligence or attunement with reality. No doubt, conformity is not negative in itself, but the possibility of such a determination proves that one is already, to some extent, outside it. The world doesn't need more philosophers or academics, it needs more culturally responsible intellectuals.

The world doesn't need more philosophers or academics, it needs more culturally responsible intellectuals. — JerseyFlight

We're confused, what is a "culturally responsible intellectual" a teacher? If it is, and since you denounce academia, it seems to be a contradictory statement from your thesis.

what is a "culturally responsible intellectual" — 3017amen

This is an appropriate question and an important one. A culturally responsible intellectual is an intellectual that uses their mind, not merely to advance themselves in culture, but to impact culture in the direction of social quality for the broadest possible amount of people. Intellectual responsibility is not a matter of being good at playing philosophical games, it's largely a matter of focus, courage and concern for the well being of the species.

A culturally responsible intellectual in Nazi Germany, for example, would precisely be one, not merely who disagrees with the status quo, but one who spends his intellectual energy trying figure out how to effectively resist the encroachment of Nazi tyranny. As Adorno so accurately said, "the point of philosophy is to ensure that nothing like the holocaust ever happens again." [paraphrased]

Intellectual responsibility is missing from our time. It is no surprise, therefore, that barbarism has proliferated itself. Whether the intellectual knows it or not, he cannot afford to remain neutral. Fascism is a threat to intelligence in general, this is because it doesn't use words to resolve contradictions, it regresses to primitive violence. Intellectuals have to learn to unite against barbarism and fascism, in this sense we are all in the same boat, for barbarism has many times wiped out the advancing world, and it is again on the rise. No intellectual is safe from it.

Tragically this is not the concern of institutional intellectuals in general. Many of them are not resisting the destruction of democratic culture, they are standing back and allowing it to take place. They are quite fond of simply thinking themselves to be above the struggle, arrogantly superior to it, they cannot be bothered to defend the uneducated man from fascist propaganda.

Are you feeling peeved about not getting enough attention as an autodidact? I can understand that--there are many unofficial intellectuals who get no respect.

We could perhaps separate out "intellectuals" (autodidacts or degreed and paid, whatever) from the the institutions that are in business to produce more knowledge and more knowledge producers, as well as 'think tanks' that hire intellectual types to produce policy and influence. Also, let's set aside corporate and governmental agencies that hire intellectuals, and put them to further their various and sundry interests.

Thinking is generally a friendly activity; running institutions may be, but isn't always, friendly.

An intellectual may contribute to greater class consciousness, if he or she is so inclined. But he or she may also opt to help suppress class consciousness, In both cases, this will generally be from a post within some institution. And, of course, many intellectuals--llike other people--have no class consciousness to speak of.

Thinking is generally a friendly activity — Bitter Crank

Not as I understand it through the lens of the strongest thinkers: Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx. In this sense thinking is a painful and consequential activity. High level thinking is about negativity, if you don't know that then you don't know thinking.

Intellectual responsibility is missing from our time. It is no surprise, therefore, that barbarism has proliferated itself. — JerseyFlight

Nonsense. Intellectual responsibility isn't missing any more now than in the past. As for barbarians -- they have been running things for millennia.

In this sense thinking is a painful and consequential activity. — JerseyFlight

Consequential, certainly. Painful? Let's say, 'difficult'.

High level thinking is about negativity, if you don't know that then you don't know thinking. — JerseyFlight

Can you expand a bit about that? Why is high level thinking about 'negativity'?

Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx — JerseyFlight

Have you read a lot of their stuff? I confess: I have not, though of the three I've read and enjoyed Marx most.

Intellectual responsibility is not a matter of being good at playing philosophical games, it's largely a matter of focus, courage and concern for the well being of the species. — JerseyFlight

You may be interested in this thread, which is making a similar point.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8990/are-philosophers-qualified-to-determine-what-quality-content-is

Are you feeling peeved about not getting enough attention as an autodidact? I can understand that--there are many unofficial intellectuals who get no respect. — Bitter Crank

It's strange that this assumption repeatedly surfaces as I have discussed this topic throughout the years. The assumption seems to be that my objection is based on a negative experience of rejection. But rejection has not been my experience, the incompetence and immaturity of intellectuals has been my experience. Further, I do not long to be a part of the Elite academy. Here's an anomaly friend, I'm a true believer! What I am after is getting intellectuals to engage culture precisely to make human existence better. I don't attack intellectuals because I have been psychologically burned by them, but because I see the loss of so much valuable energy wasted, unfocused, misplaced. But I also see cowardice and a serious lack of responsibility. To try to make my position more clear, intellectuals like Chomsky, Bregman and Reich are all examples of intellectuals that have run toward their cultural responsibility.

Have you read a lot of their stuff? I confess: I have not, though of the three I've read and enjoyed Marx most. — Bitter Crank

Yes. But not just them, I am steeped in the entire dialectic movement of thought, which began with Hegel.

Intellectual responsibility isn't missing any more now than in the past. — Bitter Crank

Ok, but it can be said that the need is greater now. You know, modern civilization can now be destroyed, perhaps by mistake, in just a few minutes.

In the thread I linked to above, I'm making a case related to, but different than, intellectual responsibility. I sense the problem is that intellectual elites lack the ability to focus on what matters. And so they get sucked in to the intellectual games which Jersey referred to.

Can you expand a bit about that? Why is high level thinking about 'negativity'? — Bitter Crank

This is a super important question and I don't have time to explain it in detail, to do it the justice it deserves. What I recommend is that you get a copy of Adorno's lectures on Negative Dialectics. Get the lectures not the book, though the book is superior, it will be rough going. Adorno was a master of philosophy, studying Kant with Siegfried Kracauer at the age of 16. The reason negativity is so important, is essentially, to speak in high philosophical terms, because it is the surest path to the comprehension of essence --- not a dead image of reality, to use Hegel's terms, but a comprehension of reality itself in all its movement.