anti-intellectualism

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
amanitamusc
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:32 am

Re: anti-intellectualism

Post by amanitamusc »

DGA wrote:why do Americans often dislike the smart ones? listen:

No one likes being reminded of his or her own stupidity. Nothing says "I'm smarter than you" than being, in fact, smarter--and even more, having earned an academic credential documenting it. In an egalitarian milieu, and to insecure and resentful people, the Egghead's mere presence amounts to an affront. It is not surprising that such persons lash out in response.

This is why, among other things, Adlai Stevenson was never president. Nor Al Gore. Nor studious Hillary Clinton, famous for doing her homework and thinking it all through, maybe overthinking it. America would rather have an obvious idiot (Bush) or a Klan-endorsed sex assault enthusiast (Trump) in charge of the nuclear launch codes than an Egghead (Gore, Clinton).

This is also part of the animus that Barack Obama, a law professor and author of books that have hard words but no pictures in them, a guy who prefers to be called "Barack" than "Barry," experienced from those sober and reflective expositors, the Teabaggers. He don't hunt, but he do like that arugula. Probably a Terrist.

and so on
No leader in the usa has compared to Pol Pot .So far.
binocular
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: anti-intellectualism

Post by binocular »

Queequeg wrote:This is not to say that the more visceral antipathy to intellectuals as "other" because of their soft hands, big words and strange ideas is not also part of the issue. This aversion would probably be ameliorated if intellectuals were accessible, instead of just appearing from time to time with criticisms on a news show segment about some subject that needs an "expert" opinion.

Not a fully considered thought... a work in progress.
In my experience, there is no vital difference between going to some academic lecture or some such and going to some religious establishment.
In both cases, I am expected to just sit there, be quiet, and unquestioningly and instantly think, feel, speak, and do as told. I recognize that such an expectation is there because of the opposition I face when I don't just unquestioningly and instantly think, feel, speak, and do as told.

In both cases, there is an authoritarian power hierarchy in place, and I am at the bottom of it. For a run-of-the-mill person like myself, it makes no difference whether an academic speaks favorably about evolution, or a religious person about intelligent design (or whatever the topic may be). Both expect me to just agree and believe as told. The mode of interaction is the same in both cases.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: anti-intellectualism

Post by Queequeg »

binocular wrote: In my experience, there is no vital difference between going to some academic lecture or some such and going to some religious establishment.
In both cases, I am expected to just sit there, be quiet, and unquestioningly and instantly think, feel, speak, and do as told. I recognize that such an expectation is there because of the opposition I face when I don't just unquestioningly and instantly think, feel, speak, and do as told.

In both cases, there is an authoritarian power hierarchy in place, and I am at the bottom of it. For a run-of-the-mill person like myself, it makes no difference whether an academic speaks favorably about evolution, or a religious person about intelligent design (or whatever the topic may be). Both expect me to just agree and believe as told. The mode of interaction is the same in both cases.
That is an very good point. Academics have developed their own esoteric rituals that do alienate others; they've ensconced themselves in the "ivory tower" and fail in being public professionals.

That's actually a concern of many in the academy.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: anti-intellectualism

Post by DGA »

binocular wrote:
Queequeg wrote:This is not to say that the more visceral antipathy to intellectuals as "other" because of their soft hands, big words and strange ideas is not also part of the issue. This aversion would probably be ameliorated if intellectuals were accessible, instead of just appearing from time to time with criticisms on a news show segment about some subject that needs an "expert" opinion.

Not a fully considered thought... a work in progress.
In my experience, there is no vital difference between going to some academic lecture or some such and going to some religious establishment.
In both cases, I am expected to just sit there, be quiet, and unquestioningly and instantly think, feel, speak, and do as told. I recognize that such an expectation is there because of the opposition I face when I don't just unquestioningly and instantly think, feel, speak, and do as told.

In both cases, there is an authoritarian power hierarchy in place, and I am at the bottom of it. For a run-of-the-mill person like myself, it makes no difference whether an academic speaks favorably about evolution, or a religious person about intelligent design (or whatever the topic may be). Both expect me to just agree and believe as told. The mode of interaction is the same in both cases.
I can say from experience that academia is basically a cult. You are onto something here.
Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”