What I am after is getting intellectuals to engage culture precisely to make human existence better. — JerseyFlight

In the referenced thread I defined philosophy as "the application of disciplined thought to the enhancement of human welfare". This is apparently judged to be a low quality proposal, so they moved the thread to the lounge. Wouldn't be surprised to meet you there soon. :-)

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. — JerseyFlight

Yes, that's it, a tragic waste of a valuable resource. The thing is though, attacking intellectuals accomplishes nothing. They have their salaries, positions and offices, and are content with that, so they'll just ignore inconvenient challenges.

This is apparently judged to be a low quality proposal, so they moved the thread to the lounge. — Hippyhead

If this was the reason your thread was moved, that is disappointing. Adorno was a hundred times the philosopher anyone on this forum is, and he basically held the same position. For that matter so did Hannah Arendt. This is what happens when idealism dominates philosophy, thinkers locate value in the wrong place, that is, in the abstract as opposed to the concrete.

I understand the sentiment. Our social bonding is a double edged sword. Social bonding allows us to create societies...but also exclude others.

Your understanding of "intellectuals" can be applied to any group of people. "Jocks", "Hipsters", etc. This is because in the formulation of groups, "status", comes about. And status is a rare and limited resource. As such, there are barriers to it. Those who have obtained it have worked much harder and had greater skill than those around them. It is difficulty to tell such people, "Give us the respect you earned, without us having to earn it," when it is more work and cost to themselves to do so.

As much as we would like other people to behave better for ours and other's benefit, it cannot be done by appeal, but by example. We must be the one's to do the work to ensure "those beneath our stature" are treated as equals.

And that is all we can do. When we have shouldered that burden and made something out of it, then people can see and decide for themselves if they want to as well. But complaining about others when we are not doing the hard work ourselves will never change any social situation of life.

I found an article on JerseyFlight's blog which may further reveal his reasoning on these topics.

http://jerseyflight.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-point-of-thought-is-to-change-world.html

Analytical thinkers are scared to death of dialectical thinkers, if they can censor them they will. The irony is quite hilarious, analytical thinkers consider themselves to be the elites of the philosophical world, but theirs is just a more abstract form of idealism. When the dialectical thinker shatters their false presumptions of value, they sense the total loss of their authority and cultural relevance, and so they either run away or try to attack or suppress the dialectical thinker.

And status is a rare and limited resource. As such, there are barriers to it. Those who have obtained it have worked much harder and had greater skill than those around them. — Philosophim

Status and authority are most often accumulated by those with a talent for accumulating status and authority. This talent may have little to nothing to do with the performance of their duties. Case in point, Donald Trump.

If this was the reason your thread was moved, that is disappointing — JerseyFlight

Not a big deal, just a friendly warning, this thread may meet the same fate. If this thread vanishes from the home page listings, that will probably be why. If that happens, you can probably find the thread in The Lounge section.

As much as we would like other people to behave better for ours and other's benefit, it cannot be done by appeal, but by example. — Philosophim

I think there is much truth to this. The responsible intellectual walks a hard road. However, I do not accept the one-sided nature of your position. Instruction and example are both important, there are many other factors as well.

When we speak of direct activity we are not talking about street protests, we are talking about polemics: direct intellectual engagement with the intelligentsia.

If intellectuals are irresponsible as you claim, and/or inept as I claim, what is the argument for engaging them? Before we consider such engagement to be productive action, don't we need some evidence that it will be successful in reaching some of the goals you have outlined?

Analytical thinkers are scared to death of dialectical thinkers, if they can censor them they will. The irony is quite hilarious, analytical thinkers consider themselves to be the elites of the philosophical world, but theirs is just a more abstract form of idealism. When the dialectical thinker shatters their false presumptions of value, they sense the total loss of their authority and cultural relevance, and so they either run away or try to attack or suppress the dialectical thinker. — JerseyFlight

While I generally agree with the thrust of your comments, I would suspect the tone will need some refinement if you are to be persuasive with your target audience. Not that I'm anyone to lecture others about tone. :-) Your points are valuable, but the tone is infected with a good bit of ego posturing which will likely trigger the same in your audience.

If intellectuals are irresponsible as you claim, and/or inept as I claim, what is the argument for engaging them? Before we consider such engagement to be productive action, don't we need some evidence that it will be successful in reaching some of the goals you have outlined? — Hippyhead

This was exactly Adorno's position, that we need to be able to calculate, in one form or another, that our revolutionary action will have some relevant level of effectiveness. What I would point out here is that such awareness is already light years ahead of average intellectual concerns. Most activists never even get to this level, they just assume that action is itself the wisest thing to do. Adorno takes it back to theory, allows it to pass through thought in order to increase its power.

This was exactly Adorno's position, that we need to be able to calculate, in one form or another, that our revolutionary action will have some relevant level of effectiveness. — JerseyFlight

So how did he calculate the opportunity for effectiveness?

It seems there are two factors for success. One, we must have something worth sharing. Two, the audience, whoever they are, must be both capable and willing to hear it. Can you provide evidence that such conditions exist?

So how did he calculate the opportunity for effectiveness? — Hippyhead

I don't think Adorno ever did, keep in mind I have criticized critical theory for getting lost in itself. Nevertheless, the question is exceedingly important. I think one thing that stands out is that thought must know how to select the right emphasis. The way I have calculated is by reverse engineering culture through an analysis of effective historical action. However, we have much more than this. We have cultural psychology and social psychology, which help to guide the process. The answer is through a multi-disciplinary comprehension of the social sciences.

Status and authority are most often accumulated by those with a talent for accumulating status and authority. This talent may have little to nothing to do with the performance of their duties. Case in point, Donald Trump. — Hippyhead

True. When I wrote skill, I considered skill both in obtaining status, and skills that other people find useful for their status, and will promote you as well for.

For my part, when I look at thought, I do not think about the cultural status of the person who is thus speaking, 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 — JerseyFlight

Some, through wisdom, do actually give heed to substance as opposed to form, — JerseyFlight

This suggestion, advice, actually an injunction, is to be found in every basic course in logic: focus on the argument, not on the person. Not doing so will lead to hurt, hurt for both the perpetrator violating this rational principle, for his peers, other intellectuals, will waste no time in faulting him/her on it and the victim on the receiving end for obvious reasons.

I don't think Adorno ever did, keep in mind I have criticized critical theory for getting lost in itself. Nevertheless, the question is exceedingly important. I think one thing that stands out is that thought must know how to select the right emphasis. The way I have calculated is by reverse engineering culture through an analysis of effective historical action. However, we have much more than this. We have cultural psychology and social psychology, which help to guide the process. The answer is through a multi-disciplinary comprehension of the social sciences. — JerseyFlight

Do you think engaging intellectuals can be useful? If yes, why?

This suggestion, advice, actually an injunction, is to be found in every basic course in logic — TheMadFool

Indeed it does friend, but it's tragic that our psychological structure is so emotionally set against it, that even those who teach it still fall prey to it. I have seen it happen repeatedly. Even though this may be taught throughout the world my experience tells me that it's exceedingly rare. The problem is that it takes a different form in our own psyche, one we cannot detect. We don't even realize we're doing it.

Indeed it does friend, but it's tragic that our psychological structure is so emotionally set against it, that even those who teach it still fall prey to it. I have seen it happen repeatedly. Even though this may be taught throughout the world my experience tells me that it's exceedingly rare. The problem is that it takes a different form in our own psyche, one we cannot detect. We don't even realize we're doing it. — JerseyFlight

Yeah. On the one hand we have this mental image of the ideal debate and on the other hand we have reality.

If someone solely focuses on a single aspect of a certain way of thinking/thought subscription such as intellectual then they will loose sight of other important aspects that we can interpret about the environment as a whole. Specialization definitely has its upsides, pointing towards precision. With how rapidly this precision and specialization is increasing, along with the rate of technology, is increasingly separatist and eventually leads to stagnation. This tends to happen when you jump down a rabbit hole headfirst without having any idea what is below. But we just keep throwing people down these holes just because they are there and that it is for the "benefit of humanity" to explore them. The specialization isn't a bad thing but without proper knowledge of what that may bring can be devastating. We need people who study the intellectuals and convene on what they have observed about them being in their specialization and how their attitude is to other disciplines. Also intellectuals should not continue themselves to limit themselves to a singular discipline in order to diversify thinking and problem solving. A person that is only good at one thing is bound to make a mistake, maybe not even know it, and continue with everyone thinking they are a god in their field. Current educational systems are flawed in the same way many governments are, egoism and separatist tactics.

Do you think engaging intellectuals can be useful? If yes, why? — Hippyhead

Yes. Most certainly. You and I are both intellectuals. The problem is not that one is an intellectual, but that intellectualism has become of kind of culture phenomena, thereby draining it of its authentic power and reducing it to a caricature of itself. Most assuredly intellectuals are important, they do matter, thought directs culture past the emphasis of stupidity. Thought can continue to change the world, but only very slowly, possibly even too late, if it's confined to the seclusion of the Ivory Tower.

The specialization isn't a bad thing but without proper knowledge of what that may bring can be devastating. We need people who study the intellectuals and convene on what they have observed about them being in their specialization and how their attitude is to other disciplines. Also intellectuals should not continue themselves to limit themselves to a singular discipline in order to diversify thinking and problem solving. — River Lantzantz

I agree. :)

Intellectuals are not all alike. At least be mad at the right ones. Oopsie. I see you're not peeved!

It's strange that this assumption repeatedly surfaces as I have discussed this topic throughout the years. — JerseyFlight

The assumption keeps surfacing, one might suppose, because you keep "sounding" like you are peeved. But I'm glad you are not peeved. I, on the other hand, am profoundly peeved, so maybe I read peevishness into your phrasing.

Negative Dialectics. Get the lectures not the book, though the book is superior, it will be rough going — JerseyFlight

At this point in my life, I think I'll skip negative dialectics. The time remaining is short and there are other avenues I wish to pursue.

Intellectuals question their own mostly adopted worldview. That's where it begins...

At this point in my life, I think I'll skip negative dialectics. The time remaining is short and there are other avenues I wish to pursue. — Bitter Crank

Friend, I am not dogmatic. Not all intellectuals bear the same burden, context matters, social conditions matter. In my opinion, it is intelligence that regulates action from the basis of context. If one had five years left to live, I certainly would not argue that they should spend it learning Negative Dialectics.

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. — Hippyhead

Indeed. You're right. Our capacity to destroy is much greater than in the past (nuclear weapons) and our willingness to change our energy consumption levels and form of energy seems insufficient to save us from our ecological doom. Another thing that's true about these days (as opposed to the 13th century, say) is that a handful of people are in a position to launch the nuclear-tipped missiles, or to effectively block sound ecological policy. It doesn't take many irresponsible people to fuck everyone en masse.

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

What reality? For all I know, those "intellectuals" are strawmen, a figment of your imagination. You ranted a bunch, but didn't identify the target of your rant. Why should I care?

This is not to say that every intellectual or every academic is Elitist. — JerseyFlight

There's a good book, written around the 1980's, Paul Johnson Intellectuals. Read it years ago, can't remember much of it, but remember thinking it was great at the time. Goes more into their biographical details and fleshes out some of the factors that influenced their thinking from that perspective.

Incidentally, my knowledge of 'negative dialectics' is limited to encyclopedia entries, but I have come to notice the so-called 'critical theory' advocated by Adorno and Horkheimer in respect of their criticism of the Enlightenment, and agree with a good deal of it. See for instance this entry, which actually picks up on some of the themes we discussed in another thread.

Instrumentality is one of the main dangers of reason. Hard it is to get those born into slavery to see the error of slavery. It is no different when it comes to the culturation of intellectuals. Nietzsche repeatedly warned of the danger of scholars. It is no surprise that we cannot separate ourselves from our culture, but that is the very thing that is required of high level thinkers.

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

It's a servitor role I think. I'm assuming that intellectual = professional researcher. If you meant something different by it, I dunno what you mean. Hitchens, Krauss, Deepak Chopra, Krishnamurti etc. aren't really ruling class - they have cultural significance but no hands on institutional levers of power.

You have to be able to generate funding for your research. To my knowledge that either comes from technology applications (this research will help deacidify the sea!), funds for social initiatives (this research will help the mentally ill!), or the very rare carte-blanche researcher grants (this academic has a personal brand the institute wants to acquire) + humanitarian/public interest grants (funding for a problem that isn't immediately relevant by a grant institution).

To the extent you define your own research problems, you are mostly separate from state political power. You only have to be able to get funding from the above means. In that situation, you work in obscure research projects and small teams. Alternatively, you are a research leader for an institution already, so your research decrees are aligned with institutional interest by the job title.

To the extent your research problems are defined by others, you are trying to answer questions given to you by other institutions or line managers in the above position. You are part of a command chain larger than the research group or the command chain of the research group. If you're a consultant, you're given a dataset and a problem, your job is to produce a solution and sell confidence in it (at the same time as evaluating risks). Or alternatively your job is to make the problem addressable through data.

There's a real job filter for technical competence nowadays. You simply can't be hired for many jobs nowadays without it. But effectively you become a member of the civil service for a corporation or you're working for an institution to analyze whether it's meeting its goals. You will not set the goals.

Though I believe there is a "division of learning in society" (as spelled out in "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism") - it's a question of who can use the data and for what ends. As a researcher, it isn't your job to define the ends of research. It's your job to be the means of technical problem solving and troubleshooting concepts that aid in that problem solving.