Anti-Intellectualism

What is Intellectualism, and who is Anti-Intellectual?

The designation, “intellectual”, is an amorphous, squishy thing that is usually self-applied. There is no badge that one acquires that can be worn prominently to warn non-intellectuals that there is a bona-fide intellectual in their presence. Lists of intellectuals are usually politically preferential, and always subjective. Public intellectuals usually get that way by being highly radical and controversial rather than by having fountains of useful, brilliant insights flowing into the intellectual wastelands of the common folk.

As for the common folk, intellectuals complain that they are anti-intellectual. A recent article complained that the author – self-designated intellectual – could hardly accept that anti-intellectualism could possibly exist: it must be due to massive ignorance or superstition amongst the masses. The writing was submerged in elitist arrogance.

So how does one become an intellectual? And what is the actual market value of an intellectual to the common folk? Here are some questions that help determine the value of potential categories:

Are biologists intellectual, and if so can they make my life decisions better than I can?

Are news commentators intellectual, and if so can they make my life decisions better than I can?

Are news reporters and editors intellectual, and if so can they make my life decisions better than I can?

Are professors intellectual, and if so can they make my life decisions better than I can?

Are humanist philosophers intellectual, and if so can they make my life decisions better than I can?

Are leftist radical politicians intellectual, and if so can they make my life decisions better than I can?

If we define intellectual as the pursuit of fact and truth using rational, logical, and empirical methodology while eschewing preconceptions and dogmatic philosophy yet maintaining moral restrictions, who amongst the intellectual crowd remains? It is easy to see that many – very many – of the self-designated intellectuals are in fact “faux intellectuals”.

Realizations not yet had by Faux Intellectuals:

1. Extra length of time on-campus does not give one superior insight.

2. Artificial limitation of reality is not rational.

3. Social radicalism is elitist and arrogant.

4. Egalitarianism – equal outcomes – is anti-liberty: totalitarian.

5. Radical attacks on personal freedoms will be repelled.

6. Radical ethics are attacks on human rights and freedoms, even when named as if they support human rights and freedoms.

7. Consequentialism is not an ethic, it is license. If it applies to the egalitarianism of intellectual radicals, then it also applies to those in opposition, who will fight fiercely for personal liberty.

8. A war is a war; if you wage it, expect it to go to conquest.

9. Self-designated intellectualism is accompanied by hubris that is seen as juvenile by those who have had teenagers.

10. True intellectualism is characterized by humility; hubris indicates dogmatic rationalization of predetermined conclusions. Most of those designated as intellectuals are not truly humble intellectuals, they are dogmatic radicals. Characteristic of dogmatic radicals is the search for data to back up a predisposed conclusion: rationalization over rationality. Most true intellectuals do not self-appellate, they investigate and hold dogma in abeyance to the humble search for truth: for them accuracy is more important than any agenda.

The Anti-Science Lie
Much of science is conducted by corporate research centers; academic science is not the driving force of human progress. Academics, however, need both taxpayer funding and public deference. What they want is taxpayer cash and deference without any accompanying moral restraint.

Taxpayers are seen by radical intellectuals in the same way that hosts are seen by parasites: feed me, but do not interfere with me. Why should they wonder at taxpayer revulsion?

Taxpayers are not against science or science education. Taxpayers are not anti-intellectual. But they are against dogmatic, radical, socialist, elitism that feels obligated and qualified to determine how the common folk should live, what the common folk should believe, what the common folk should have, and how grateful the common folk should be for elitist control of their existence.

This is not anti-intellectual; real intellectuals still are intellectually humble. What is called anti-intellectual is actual anti-totalitarian, and that is justified.

Addendum:
Intellectual radicalism is dangerous to real humans. Watch as the USA succumbs to the radical intellectuals' anti-Semitism, and abandons Israel while approving of assaults on Israel from its neighbors.