Hey! Get an Intellectual Hobby

[coberst]

Hey! Get an Intellectual Hobby

 

My experience leads me to conclude that there is a world of difference in picking up a fragment of knowledge here and there versus seeking knowledge for an answer to a question of significance. There is a world of difference between taking a stroll in the woods on occasion versus climbing a mountain because you wish to understand what climbing a mountain is about or perhaps you want to understand what it means to accomplish a feat of significance only because you want it and not because there is ‘money in it’.

 

I think that every adult needs to experience the act of intellectual understanding; an act that Carl Sagan describes as “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.”

 

This quotation of Carl Rogers might illuminate my meaning:

 

I want to talk about learning. But not the lifeless, sterile, futile, quickly forgotten stuff that is crammed in to the mind of the poor helpless individual tied into his seat by ironclad bonds of conformity! I am talking about LEARNING - the insatiable curiosity that drives the adolescent boy to absorb everything he can see or hear or read about gasoline engines in order to improve the efficiency and speed of his 'cruiser'. I am talking about the student who says, "I am discovering, drawing in from the outside, and making that which is drawn in a real part of me." I am talking about any learning in which the experience of the learner progresses along this line: "No, no, that's not what I want"; "Wait! This is closer to what I am interested in, what I need"; "Ah, here it is! Now I'm grasping and comprehending what I need and what I want to know!"

 

When we undertake such a journey of discovery we need reliable sources of information. We need information that we can build a strong foundation for understanding. Where do we find such reliable information? We find it in the library or through Google on the Internet or combinations thereof.

 

I have a ‘Friends of the Library’ card from a college near me. This card allows me, for a yearly fee of $25, to borrow any book in that gigantic library. Experts in every domain of knowledge have written books just especially for laypersons like you and I.

 

I often recommend to others that they get an intellectual hobby. The following is the essence of my message.

 

Hobbies are ways in which many individuals express their individuality. Those matters that excite an individual’s interest and curiosity are those very things that allow the individual to acquire self-understanding and understanding of the world. Interests define individuality and help to provide meaning to life. We all look for some ideology, hobby, philosophy or religion to provide meaning to life.

 

Not many of us have discovered our full potentialities or have fully explored in depth those we have discovered. Self-development and self-expression are relatively new ideas in human history. The arts are one means for this self-expression. The artist may find drawing or constructing sculptures as a means for self-discovery. The self-learner may find essay writing of equal importance.

 

I recommend that each person who does not presently have some similar type of hobby develop the hobby of an intellectual life. We could add to our regular routine the development of an invigorating intellectual life wherein we sought disinterested knowledge; knowledge that is not for the purpose of some immediate need but something that stirs our curiosity, which we seek to understand for the simple reason that we feel a need to understand a particular domain of knowledge.

[CaptainPanic]

Do you honestly believe that people can acquire intellect simply by choice?

 

You suggest people just grab books, and study. Or just grab a pen, and write. Or just take a wrench and build a car.

 

I think that you completely utterly fail to see that this is what everybody already does. Unfortunately for the world, many of us are interested in glossy magazines, in pointless TV shows and in mindless games.

 

The true point in becoming an intellect is to be curious in the first place. And perhaps also to be able to reduce a problem to its essence...

 

What you are suggesting is nothing more than giving people homework... although you seem to explain (in very long and difficult sentences) the purpose of the homework.

Edited October 13, 2009 by CaptainPanic

[coberst]

Do you honestly believe that people can acquire intellect simply by choice?

 

You suggest people just grab books, and study. Or just grab a pen, and write. Or just take a wrench and build a car.

 

I think that you completely utterly fail to see that this is what everybody already does. Unfortunately for the world, many of us are interested in glossy magazines, in pointless TV shows and in mindless games.

 

The true point in becoming an intellect is to be curious in the first place. And perhaps also to be able to reduce a problem to its essence...

 

What you are suggesting is nothing more than giving people homework... although you seem to explain (in very long and difficult sentences) the purpose of the homework.

 

 

No. Intellect is what a person is born with. I am encouraging the viewer to develop intellectual sophistication, which is within the reach of every person.

[iNow]

No. Intellect is what a person is born with.

 

Can you cite any peer-reviewed evidence confirming that this is the case, or at least clarify the specific meaning of "intellect" with which you are working, coberst?

[Moontanman]

I have several hobbies I consider intellectual, do you have a definition of an intellectual hobby?

[Mr Skeptic]

Aren't hobbies generally more intellectually stimulating than entertainment in general (TV, I'm looking at you). I'd encourage people to get a hobby, any hobby.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I help run a science forum. Does that count?

[bascule]

My advice: read a book, or preferably many books. I don't care if you read crap. Reading crap is better than not reading at all.

 

However if you do read regularly and enjoy it, but only read crap, try to space out your crap. Throw a work of substance into your reading queue here and there.

[coberst]

“The capitulation of Western man to his technology, with its crescendo of specialized demands has always appeared to many observers of our world as a kind of enslavement.”

 

No more are intellectuals focused upon the nature of man in society. Intellectuals have become non intellectual specialists—hired guns of CA (Corporate America)—Vulcan

 

Vulcanization—the process of treating crude or synthetic material chemically to give it useful properties.

 

All thought is saturated with egocentric and sociocentric presuppositions. That is, all thought contains highly motivating bias centered in the self or in ideologies such as political, religious, and economic theories. Some individuals are conscious of these internal forces but most people are not.

 

Those individuals who are conscious of these biases within their thinking can try to rid their judgments of that influence. Those who are not conscious, or little conscious of such bias, are bound to display a significant degree of irrational tendencies in their judgments.

 

“Can the intellectual, who is supposed to have a special and perhaps professional concern with truth, escape from or rise above the partiality and distortions of ideology?”

 

Our culture has tended to channel intellectuals, or perhaps more properly those who function as intellectuals, into academic professions. Gramsci makes the accurate distinction that all men and women “are intellectuals…but all do not have the function of intellectuals in society”.

 

An intellectual might be properly defined as those who are primarily or professionally concerned with matters of the mind and the imagination but who are socially non-attached. “The intellectual is thought of not as someone who displays great mental or imaginative ability but as someone who applies those abilities in more general areas such as religion, philosophy and social and political issues. It is the involvement in general and controversy outside of a specialization that is considered as the hallmark of an intellectual; it is a matter of choice of self definition, choice is supreme here.”

 

Even anti-ideological is ideological. If partisanship can be defended servility cannot; many have allowed themselves to become the tools of others.

 

We have moved into an age when the university is no longer an ivory tower and knowledge is king but knowledge has become a commodity and educators have become instruments of power; the university has become a privately owned think-tank.

 

“A profound change in the intellectual community itself is inherent in this development. The largely humanist-oriented, occasionally ideological minded intellectual dissenter , who saw his role largely in terms of proffering social critiques, is rapidly being displaced either by experts and specialist, who become involved in special government undertakings, or by generalist-integrators, who become house-ideologues for those in power, providing overall intellectual integration for disparate actions.”

 

The subordination to power is not just at the individual level but also at the institutional level. Government funds are made available to universities and colleges not for use as they deem fit but for specific government needs. Private industry plays even a larger role in providing funds for educational institutions to perform management and business study. Private industry is not inclined ‘to waste’ money on activities that do not contribute to the bottom line. ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’

 

Each intellectual is spouting a different ideology, how does the individual choose what ideology? Trotsky once said “only a participant can be a profound spectator”. Is detachment then a virtue? To suggest that intellectuals rise above ideology is impractical. Explicit commitment is preferable to bogus neutrality. But truth is an indispensable touchstone.

 

 

Quotes and ideas from “Knowledge and Belief in Politics” Bhikhu Parekh

[bascule]

...

 

I don't think you're here to discuss.

[padren]

“The capitulation of Western man to his technology, with its crescendo of specialized demands has always appeared to many observers of our world as a kind of enslavement.”

 

Fairly nonsensical statement. It has also always appeared to many observers of our world as a kind of liberator.

 

Can you argue that it was anything but technology that freed us from subsistence farming? We will always be "enslaved" by the fact we exist in a hostile environment subject to various pressures and a powerful need to eat.

 

We "need" our machines and are thus shackled to them only in the sense that they are a preferable means to meeting our ultimate needs - food, shelter, and where possible luxury. Without them we'd be just as shackled (actually, more so) to the fields and our hand-held farming implements.

 

No more are intellectuals focused upon the nature of man in society. Intellectuals have become non intellectual specialists—hired guns of CA (Corporate America)—Vulcan

 

Vulcanization—the process of treating crude or synthetic material chemically to give it useful properties.

Is Corporate America in the business of hiring assassins now, or is "hired guns" just a pleasant euphemism for people paid to create innovative solutions? I think it paints a far too broad and dark generalization of the people who do this sort of work. If there is a rise in "hired guns" it's thanks to the success of education and access within a wealthy nation - there wasn't an absence of them in Roman times or any other. We just have more access today, and it's a good thing.

All thought is saturated with egocentric and sociocentric presuppositions. That is, all thought contains highly motivating bias centered in the self or in ideologies such as political, religious, and economic theories. Some individuals are conscious of these internal forces but most people are not.

 

Those individuals who are conscious of these biases within their thinking can try to rid their judgments of that influence. Those who are not conscious, or little conscious of such bias, are bound to display a significant degree of irrational tendencies in their judgments.

Just what exactly isn't in that general catch all of "influences" that we are supposed to "rid" our judgments of? You cover self interest, political interests, religious interests - pretty much every reason (selfish, or selfless) is encompassed. You could possibly content one could simply be motivated by "truth" but we only know the world through our senses and how we model it internally, which is based on our experiences and - due to the uniqueness of our individual experiences - our natural biases. If you take on a selfless act it is because you hold that to be a good action to take - directly because of your experience, which cannot be free of bias.

 

The only thing we can hope to do is challenge our model when it fails to reflect reality - instead of warp our perception of reality to fit out models. Being aware of our biases helps us be aware to challenge our models even if it's uncomfortable, but you can't be rid of bias.

 

“Can the intellectual, who is supposed to have a special and perhaps professional concern with truth, escape from or rise above the partiality and distortions of ideology?”

That is the challenge of every human being. Everyone feels discomfort when the model in their mind of how things should work out fails consistently to predict how things do work out. No one can rise fully above distortions because we perceive in a distorted manner. All anyone can do is refine their tools and models, but they'll never be perfect. You can't fit the world in your head.

 

Our culture has tended to channel intellectuals, or perhaps more properly those who function as intellectuals, into academic professions. Gramsci makes the accurate distinction that all men and women “are intellectuals…but all do not have the function of intellectuals in society”.

 

An intellectual might be properly defined as those who are primarily or professionally concerned with matters of the mind and the imagination but who are socially non-attached. “The intellectual is thought of not as someone who displays great mental or imaginative ability but as someone who applies those abilities in more general areas such as religion, philosophy and social and political issues. It is the involvement in general and controversy outside of a specialization that is considered as the hallmark of an intellectual; it is a matter of choice of self definition, choice is supreme here.”

I can't help but to find the distinction of "intellectuals" a little too black and white - it's far more an attribute than it is a label or hat. We live in an age where intellectual capacities can achieve amazing things, far more than in any other time in history. Of course people with those capacities will gravitate to where they can have the most impact, and will likely be best compensated for their impacts.

I still don't think you are "properly defining" intellectuals though. I don't think of anyone as an intellectual or not, nor has it ever occurred to me to do so. I've noted a variance in desire to engage in intellectual pursuits in people, but that's it. I would be willing to bet more has been written on philosophy, religion, politics and social issues being written in the 21st century so far than in the whole of the 20th century.

I honestly have no idea where you are going with all that. Can you clarify? What is the "hallmark" of an intellectual exactly, and who even recognizes an individual's achieves as being in the capacity of an intellectual? People are either insightful or they are not, more often or not, but they rarely carry a label like "intellectual" or such.

Even anti-ideological is ideological. If partisanship can be defended servility cannot; many have allowed themselves to become the tools of others.

 

We have moved into an age when the university is no longer an ivory tower and knowledge is king but knowledge has become a commodity and educators have become instruments of power; the university has become a privately owned think-tank.

I would expect knowledge has always been a commodity, it's just more apparent now. Your comment on 'servility' seems odd as we are living in one of the least servile times in human history.

 

“A profound change in the intellectual community itself is inherent in this development. The largely humanist-oriented, occasionally ideological minded intellectual dissenter , who saw his role largely in terms of proffering social critiques, is rapidly being displaced either by experts and specialist, who become involved in special government undertakings, or by generalist-integrators, who become house-ideologues for those in power, providing overall intellectual integration for disparate actions.”

I think the gist of what you are saying is "intellectuals aren't objectively commenting in the background, but being paid to write biased speeches and justify positions without regards for truth" but again, I think there are just more jobs and room for intellectual work - and more people qualified to do that work than ever before. As far as the "intellectual dissenter" goes, we have a ton of those, but it would be nice if there were more less biased ones. Of course - how many have there really been throughout history?

The subordination to power is not just at the individual level but also at the institutional level. Government funds are made available to universities and colleges not for use as they deem fit but for specific government needs. Private industry plays even a larger role in providing funds for educational institutions to perform management and business study. Private industry is not inclined ‘to waste’ money on activities that do not contribute to the bottom line. ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’

And yet it's easier to be an artist, a musician, or an author than ever before in the history of human kind. The capacity to write and self publish and have your writings viewed by millions of people has never been cheaper, faster, or more accessible.

 

Of course governments and private industry fund research into matters that they feel warrant research, but there are a lot of things that get funded that would surprise you. Which "pipers" called these tunes?

Each intellectual is spouting a different ideology, how does the individual choose what ideology? Trotsky once said “only a participant can be a profound spectator”. Is detachment then a virtue? To suggest that intellectuals rise above ideology is impractical. Explicit commitment is preferable to bogus neutrality. But truth is an indispensable touchstone.

 

 

Quotes and ideas from “Knowledge and Belief in Politics” Bhikhu Parekh

 

On the topic of ideology people see what they see in the world and that shapes their views, which shapes their opinions, which shapes their biases, which shapes what they see in the world. When this leads to convergence and a sort of mental flocking behavior, I suppose it could be called an ideology. I don't think anyone should "try" to be apart from, or in any given school of thought - they should just try to be honest to their observations, their considerations, and and critical of their own metal model of the world.

 

But why do we care about identifying intellectuals and what they have to say? We have a planet full of humans, who say lots of stuff, and we filter the things we hear people say based on where we think they are coming from. It's not like there are people that stand above the fray - everyone is in it, and what they say resonate with some and not others.

 

 

PS: I hate to say it but you should distill your thoughts more, and copy/paste less. The proliferation of “” vs "" demonstrates it was pasted from a word processor, and if you want to have a discussion share your distilled thoughts, not Bhikhus. That's just my opinion at least - but it really felt like it was big on flowery terminology and poor on distillation of thoughts within a chain of interconnected ideas.

[coberst]

National governments in the West have advanced from Monarchies to Republics. Societies have moved from rule by a monarchy aided by the aristocracy, to rule by a plutocracy subject only to ratification by the citizens of the republic.

 

It seems that, like the poor, we constantly have with us a privileged class. Is it possible to organize a well functioning democracy that does not support a privileged class?

 

Let me give you my definition of privileged class.

 

Fifteen years ago there was a humorous saying about George Bush the elder, which went something like this, “George Bush was born on third base and thought he had hit a triple”. My definition of a privileged individual is one who was born on “third base”.

 

Evidently many assume that the privileged classes are those who have higher IQs or some kind of natural endowment. I do not consider this to be privilege. The privileged are those who, by birth, are endowed with great wealth thereby being placed into a position of power and prestige without any meritorious effort on their part.

 

Can a democratic society function effectively if no individuals are allowed to inherit great wealth?

[padren]

National governments in the West have advanced from Monarchies to Republics. Societies have moved from rule by a monarchy aided by the aristocracy, to rule by a plutocracy subject only to ratification by the citizens of the republic.

 

....

 

Can a democratic society function effectively if no individuals are allowed to inherit great wealth?

 

We could manage to perhaps just tax estates on the same level of any other property transfer, but being able to transfer property to others is pretty unequivocal if you have the notion of private property, and I don't think you can do away with private property.

 

Besides wealth, there are far more value things that are passed on in families - social and business connections. A family's wealth could also survive multiple generations through a corporate entity. If a man starts a corporation and passes the top position on to his son is a transfer of position considered a transfer of wealth?

 

I think multi-generational wealth will be a longstanding feature in society for some time to come. If there is any real single cause of the wealth gap it is the willingness of the majority (the relatively poor) to tolerate it.

 

Btw: How did we get onto this topic now? This thread is really all over the place.