ANTI-Intellectualism : Intelligent Idiocy?

This is NOT a story,more of a rundum blog entry that's ANTIeverything as usual.

Its just after one o'clock on a Saturday and I just remembered that I'm into this whole writing thing. I do have a lot of things to write about but then again,whether I'd actually ever let a random person read into these writings is for another day. I've been thinking,taking my time to actually structure my thoughts into something cohesive and insightful but I've suddenly taken a left turn in that direction of thought.

Why do we feel the need to actually do THAT? Of course,"THAT" being the tendency of thinking in a uniform manner which is really just an extension of wanting to appear intellectually capable to peers? I mean,really now,is how smart you are dependent on what you know,or what people know you know? Let's look at it this way,if there was a wise old man who was omniscient (or close enough) and never ever detailed his mind's brilliance in terms of writings and long,drawn-out thesis statements;would he still be someone who knows everything? Chances are,if you're a modern thinker you probably think the answer to that question is an unforgiving 'no',simply because you wouldn't know of his knowledge - this is where I can argue that you not knowing of his knowledge would not mean that it is NOT there,only just undetected by your mind...(but I won't,because whatever you're thinking has already been justified in your mind,by your mind already.)

Let's take,for example,one of my favorite philosophers,Socrates. Now the old geyser is referenced as the father of Western philosophy especially for his thoughts in the field of ethics - but that's just that;his thoughts. No one has yet found a collection of his writings where he turns these thoughts into great works,yet he is heralded as one of the greatest rational thinkers ever. For all we know, Socrates could've very well been illiterate but we nonetheless give him his due for his contribution.

The main reason for this is his greatest student,the prolific Plato. Now if Socrates was the trailblazer then Plato is the driving force that pushed on his ideas. In fact,Socrates is made great in the eyes of the world by Plato,who actually wrote of Socrates' teachings and acknowledged him. I can imagine that Plato was a very studious person and given his wide reach across various fields,he was extremely intuitive. Teacher and student seem polarized - one only relayed his ideas through verbal transmission while the other didn't only write his own ideas down,but those of his teacher too. So whose smarter? Socrates or Plato? All we can ever know of Socrates is from Plato,but all Plato knew came from Socrates...Quite the conundrum and by now the average mind has forgotten what its all for.

The last two paragraphs were basically to get thinking on the value of thought in comparison to thoughtful works. Generally speaking,one is derived from the other (thoughtful works are derived from thought) while the other can never be known in one's absence (without thoughtful works,then the thought shall never be stumbled upon). Postmodern thinkers place more interest in one's writings as opposed to their actual thought derivation into such writings. In other words,you're more likely to think better of some studious person's writings based on their copious notes as opposed to their own inference into whatever they are writing on.

This is quite a major flaw in our modern worldview because it leads to the ability of thinkers to infer their own thoughts to diminish. Its like the world no longer needs or even wants people who can think on their own and create their very own theories based on their own perceptions. Its seems more suitable to follow,to memorize as opposed to MAKE your own conclusion. Such a worldview not only impedes on the desire to contrive abstract thought but also adds to the process of shutting out of other knowledgeable perceptions simply because they aren't "orthodox" or what is expected of modern thinkers. I,being an African of Zulu descent,know that knowledge was shared via oral tradition as opposed to three thousand page books and the likes. The problem with us (new thinkers regardless of ethnicity) is that we no longer seem to put any value on our own cultural knowledge but are actually willing to read The Republic and the likes.

Its becoming easier for us to be able to read four-hundred and eighty-four pages of Plato's works than to listen to our grandparents. This leads to the peculiar state of the modern (black) intellectual. Where do you stand as an intellectual person who happens to be of non-European descent? Do you detail the teachings of your ancestors,and advance thought into such subjects? Do you only focus on European thought from antiquity? Does it even matter to you or your people? If it doesn't,then what would be the point of knowing? I sometimes wonder what value relevance adds to knowledge. Are astronomers really as smart as we think they are because they can find some obscure planet lightyears away? I mean,if its really lightyears away then (currently) there isn't the slightest chance of any human being ever getting to it alive,leading to the next question of why even bother finding it? Couldn't the astronomical costs of such endeavors help a few million children be able to get educated and become empowered in relevant knowledge (to us) and perhaps advance New Thought on Old Problems - as opposed to the relentless pursuit of knowledge for novelty?

If you've gotten this far reading this,its probably only because you are wondering where exactly I stand and how I feel. As usualnI don't stand anywhere - I think its silly that we ought to have PhDs and write these laborious theses filled with extravagant discourse before we can actually be taken seriously within the given subject of inquiry. I also find it odd that we claim to know things without ever actually studying them - of course,knowledge is just belief we hold to be fact in empirical terms. I don't take this whole knowing or being known to know thing too seriously,because after all - I know that I know nothing.

I perceive a lot of things and whether or not my perceptions will ever be read by brilliant minds like yours is a matter of not really knowing. Whether I shall try to prove my aptitude for whatever reason,also remains outside the realm of epistemology. I find it better to be an ANTI-intellectual than the converse,given that for hundreds of years intellect has been the basis of dominion of human beings over others,refuting it doesn't seem like the worst option in the world anymore... Nonetheless I will write. I will go to University and get a degree and write,then write...and write,then after all that writing,I'll write just that little bit more. But my reasons for it aren't to flaunt my conceited vocabulary or promote these largely ironic squibs - no,its simply because I can,which is arguably worse than any person telling me how they loved reading Socrates' books,just to impress me. And yes - I will write,but will you read?

If/When you do,I just hope you're able to draw your own conclusions and invent your own stream of thought...and when you do,don't use it to divide yourself among your fellow people. ANTI-intellectualism.

Reviews

[Timothy Burjess]

Slbo my friend! How are you? I hope you are well.

I'm going to review a slight bit different to I normally do; instead of reading it once over and then reviewing it again from top to bottom, I'm simply going to review as I read. Let us see how that goes! I'll start from the second paragraph, for that is when I can begin to comment.

Good gracious, what an interesting idea ... straight off the mark I am engrossed here. Bringing up the subject of appearing " intellectually capable to peers is a topic I have mulled over in my own cranium a few times, but never to an explicated standard, and I think the same goes for a lot of people; the majority of humans I'd say, and quite a handful of creatives too. I think what you begin to examine here is something each individual who wishes to write to such levels must define within themselves, and is in fact something I now shall add to my list of things to do in my sabbatical. In regards to the question you pose on what truly defines a "smart" person, I think the question answers itself; - at least for those who hold even the slightest inclination of the self - being that knowledge holds worth in each individual alone, and something I think I have stated to you before; that what one man may hold as the focal aspect of knowledge and primary worth, may hold zilch to another - each "measurement" of knowledge if I may be so bold as to define a weight of the matter, weighs a differing scale depending on the individual's evaluation of it. The example you provide with the old man's introspective knowledge, and the opposing ignorance of the extroverted knowledge seeker is absolutely perfect; molded to precisely the right shape for the discussed subject. The final sentence in brackets relates perfectly to the people I think you suggest as the "modern thinker". Overall, the first paragraph reflects what I may suggest as thoughts close to my own, and I honestly respect the work here.

The third paragraph is written so well, I struggle to write anything about it; you have come from a personal level, through to an explanation, then finishing with a point; simply perfect. I too would totally agree with you here; Socrates was "way ahead of his time" as people may say, and gifted the world with such grand ideas, which, in truth, still hold value in today's societies - but sadly not many people care for thought nowadays, just entertainment and comfort. Oh dear.

You explain yourself greatly indeed, so too do you show your studies greatly; innocently and morally - as you must taking into consideration the subject matter you discuss here. You link your personal relation to Socrates and the previous paragraph here perfectly, and the skillfully precise structure is leaving me nothing less than impressed. I feel I should ask if you have been to university or not due to the exemplary structure. The questions you pose at the end of the paragraph, then following with the final thought, leave the reader pondering themselves, which due to the method of delivery, will stay a focal point in the mind. Let us hope we read this in the morning!

Indeed, if put in relation to something - take words as an example as Ayn Rand does in "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" - words would be useless, futile, and trivial without definition - thus could be said about thought if not put into practice ... or works in relation here. A quote from Rand's book is as follows: "Language is a code of visual-auditory symbols that serves the psycho-epistemological function of converting concepts into the mental equivalent of concretes. Language is the exclusive domain and tool of concepts. Every word we use (with the exception of proper names) is a symbol that denotes a concept, i.e., that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a certain kind. ... Words transform concepts into (mental) entities; definitions provide them with identity. (Words without definitions are not language but inarticulate sounds.)" So, taking into account the latter (especially the final sentence bracket), the way Rand states words without definitions mean nothing (and thus concepts or ideas), words need to be provided so for value. That could be linked to the way thoughts mean nothing (worth or value), without a means of providing them with definition and / or an entity. Nevertheless, I feel the same as you I believe, in that just because something is not existent to the entirety, it means not that it doesn't actually exist or hold value - what a combination of letters might mean to one person may mean something entirely different to another and in varying worth.

Wow, yes, I see what you suggest here. This ANTI-Intellectualism is almost like the loss of individuality, but of the mind. The latter in that when one purposefully looses their self for the contradictory insecure security in others they force themselves to be like all others, of which isn't their true self - this compared to the intellectual point of view, if one produces physical works of their thoughts, yet restricts themselves to write in a way that MUST be accepted by the scholastic society, they loose their own thought, changing it for the benefit of those they write for. Hmm, it seems I agree with you yet again my friend, we always must remain in touch with our "roots" as it were, or perhaps the "self - or both due to the different depictions some may derive from the two. We must not be swayed (in any aspect) by cultural norm, decorum, or expectant principles - I'm sure you know what I am about to say here - for one ... ahah .... individual is their own entity, their own means of perception and thought - to round it up, they are all their own things, and to be swayed by predestined forces detracts from the individual and promotes a dismissal of the former. To create is greater than to copy.

It is indeed the most disgusting world in which we live, when the f****r that is money is given freely to people who sit behind desks, who then spend it on lavish cars and pristine suits, when there are billions of individuals in the world without access to the things we as humans need for basics. The space exploration example you provide is greatly adequate, and describes the state of affairs in the world perfectly; it almost seems like the viewpoint the Nazi's had in the second world war in regards to the Jewish population and even their OWN wounded soldiers...

Again, I too stand on the viewpoint that having gone through rigorous tests and immense pressure (and fees), a piece of paper explain just how good you really are defines you no greater or lesser over another fellow man - of course, if the individual needs such justification for themselves, then of course that is worth they need to evaluate in themselves, thus the test of their ability - but it is not the paper that truly tells them that, it always lied within them, but even then, being marked externally on works of their own is only a form of judgement via others, which, paradoxically, holds no justification in regards to them.

Ahh, you answer my previous question, you shall go to university, well, I think you shall go with a (if not the) great mindset. Individuals like you and I find a necessity in writing, but I think the same goes for you as it does for I; we do not seek approval from others, for others' perceptions hold no worth over our own, and our own perceptions are the most valuable; the priceless worth of self-perception. I SHALL READ MY FRIEND!

Awe-inspiring write my friend. Allow me to say I have drawn my OWN thoughts here; My most valuable. In fact, you help me re-illiterate something; that works created by others, help one define themselves, and any criticism is just criticism regarding the critic and the critic alone - unless the criticizing regards a decorum of sorts ... and then its a criticism of the shackles that bind one to forced correction.

Thank you Slbo. I am in high-spirit now. I have another works of yours to review next "Religious Views Without Blinkers". I cannot wait to read it.

All the best with your grand writing.

Timothy.

[Sibling]

Greetings Tim,

I've only read ye review now because I was actually locked outta my own account (changed email address) but I'm thankful for the effort you took in reading this.

I'm glad my arrangement of words and sentences is of a relatable context to you. I'm glad you actually inferred sumchin on your own - that's why I write...

ANTI-Intellectualism is basically my take on my apparent distrust for "intellectuals" in the real world. Ironically,they resemble you and I more than we'd prefer to admit. We're the dudes who come up with these crazy -isms that people follow and thus rob themselves of the opportunities of creating their own journeys. We suck. I hate us. But we can't help it now can we? Marx criticized the term "ideology" greatly and I also sorta think its a legitimizing concept of control exercised by some over others - difference being,I don't really care...but that's just MY view.

And I actually have started University since I wrote this - I major in Political Science and Philosophy and my writing style has changed considerably to suit academic requirements,so yes I am a sellout...but they're only buying that which is free.

Now I gotta go read The f*****g Republic :) hahahaha,its cool though I think Plato is an endorser of totalitarianism. ANTI-Intellectualism is NOT a compromise of individuality,its rather a an endorsement of it - just in a very solipsistic way.

I just tried reviewing your review...hope ye enjoy(ed) the Religious Views Without Borders thing :)

I haven't written in a while.

SIbo.

[Sibling]

Greetings Tim,

I've only read ye review now because I was actually locked outta my own account (changed email address) but I'm thankful for the effort you took in reading this.

I'm glad my arrangement of words and sentences is of a relatable context to you. I'm glad you actually inferred sumchin on your own - that's why I write...

ANTI-Intellectualism is basically my take on my apparent distrust for "intellectuals" in the real world. Ironically,they resemble you and I more than we'd prefer to admit. We're the dudes who come up with these crazy -isms that people follow and thus rob themselves of the opportunities of creating their own journeys. We suck. I hate us. But we can't help it now can we? Marx criticized the term "ideology" greatly and I also sorta think its a legitimizing concept of control exercised by some over others - difference being,I don't really care...but that's just MY view.

And I actually have started University since I wrote this - I major in Political Science and Philosophy and my writing style has changed considerably to suit academic requirements,so yes I am a sellout...but they're only buying that which is free.

Now I gotta go read The f*****g Republic :) hahahaha,its cool though I think Plato is an endorser of totalitarianism. ANTI-Intellectualism is NOT a compromise of individuality,its rather a an endorsement of it - just in a very solipsistic way.

I just tried reviewing your review...hope ye enjoy(ed) the Religious Views Without Borders thing :)

I haven't written in a while.

SIbo.