Anti-intellectualism Is Killing America

originally posted by: searcherfortruth

Intelligence is not lack of ignorance, being ignorant is not a lack of intelligence. I do think that arrogance plays a bigger role than the article or OP present to the picture, but I did not focus on it initially. Now, I think the inability to see another point of view is based on a lack of humility, too.

We are sometimes incapable of seeing through the rhetoric when it comes to polarizing issues what ever they may be.

Humility, arrogance, intelligence, ignorance....all go hand in hand. Being an intellectual does not provide for an escape without having humility, thereby creating arrogance and leads to ignorance.

I don't think I mentioned intelligence, I looked back at my posts, and didn't find it. If I did, somewhere, it was a mistake!

I referred to intellectualization, which is not the same as intelligence.

But I do think that our high values upon independence act as an obstacle to humility. People want to deny having any weakness or needs when concerned with being independent.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Nice point. Now, I'm off to play with my Star Wars toys. Don't call them dolls!


EDIT: I see Star Wars as anti-propaganda propaganda. One reviewer of the prequels said the story is unoriginal. He stated that it was copied from history books. I hope he was being sarcastic.

a reply to: searcherfortruth

if we ignored ignorance, there wouldn't be many members left.

a reply to: searcherfortruth

I don't like articles like this-especially when it the source with a name like "Psychology today"

Can protests against inequality be traced to the abandonment of reason? I sure as hell don't think so. And what's with this "Anti-intellectualism" title? can these people marching in the streets to protest corporate bailouts be accused of not being intellectual? They know what's going on and it takes intellect to come to that conclusion.

Honestly I've seen more honest and grounded opinions on ATS, just because some experts can pull a Phd and a thesaurus out of their @$$ doesn't mean that the sentiments shown by the 'non intellects' are any less valid.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I have much contact with the general public. They clearly need enlightenment. I'm happy to offer it to them. However, it is a careful process involving delicate egos.

originally posted by: gentledissident
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Nice point. Now, I'm off to play with my Star Wars toys. Don't call them dolls!


EDIT: I see Star Wars as anti-propaganda propaganda. One reviewer of the prequels said the story is unoriginal. He stated that it was copied from history books. I hope he was being sarcastic.

It is, it's called "the hero's journey". It's basically the oldest story known to man. We change the characters, set and setting -- but it's always a very similar story. It's also called the "monomyth".

In narratology and comparative mythology, the monomyth, or the hero's journey is the common template of a broad category of tales that involve a hero going on an adventure, and in a decisive crisis wins a victory, and then comes home changed or transformed.[1]

Wikipedia

This helps illustrate the point visually:


LOTR, Star Wars, Harry Potter...even Batman all follow this same simple progression of story telling.

So, if you want to tell or write a good story, simply follow that pattern. Everyone else does it and makes a butt-load of cash. We humans for some reason really enjoy stories that follow that pattern.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Sure. I was commenting on the politics. My guess is that people like stories about heroes because there is a shortage.

a reply to: gentledissident

And there always has been, and will be. I think that pattern of story telling is as old as cave men sitting around a fire.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Joseph Campbell would agree with you.

a reply to: gentledissident



Indeed. I have been trying to read James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake for 5 years. I can't get more than 10 pages in before getting lost. The book is holographic in depth, as many things are being said with just one sentence.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: angeldoll
Our written language is going to hell also. I read somewhere that in another couple of decades we wouldn't recognize our written languages, as they are becoming more and more abbreviated into something like "text talk'. And think of it even going to pictures to express yourself. I mean, think emoticons! Sad, really.

As long as the people of the day understand what is being written how is that exactly sad? The Egyptians used pictures to express things. They seemed to get by fine for thousands of years. Though I likely think your prediction is an exaggeration. As much as text speak is taking over, traditional typing and grammar are still king.

Just curious for someone complaining about the death of our written language, what are different uses for their, there, and they're?

It isn't about the media being used; it's about the complexity of the language. Hieroglyphics used the pictograms to symbolize sounds the same way we use each character if I'm remembering correctly.

But to give you an example of how language use and intelligence has declined, look at the metaphysical poets. Most modern poets are free-verse poets. They tend to eschew metering and poetic forms in their work choosing instead to work mainly with language itself, shades of meaning and the like. The metaphysical poets adhered to not only meter, but also form in their poetry AND the true masters also packed their poems full of literary allusion, on top of the standard language work. In order to get the most out of a metaphysical poet, you have to be extremely literate and well-read.

There are layers on top of layers in there. It makes modern free verse seem a bit sparse at times.

originally posted by: ketsuko
It isn't about the media being used; it's about the complexity of the language. Hieroglyphics used the pictograms to symbolize sounds the same way we use each character if I'm remembering correctly.

Well as it stands, English is one of the most complex languages in the world. The only ones more complex are the far eastern ones, so I'm sure if we started using pictures to express things it would be equally as complex.

But to give you an example of how language use and intelligence has declined, look at the metaphysical poets. Most modern poets are free-verse poets. They tend to eschew metering and poetic forms in their work choosing instead to work mainly with language itself, shades of meaning and the like. The metaphysical poets adhered to not only meter, but also form in their poetry AND the true masters also packed their poems full of literary allusion, on top of the standard language work. In order to get the most out of a metaphysical poet, you have to be extremely literate and well-read.

Look, I understand that intellectualism in this country is on the decline, but you can't analyze one artform and determine that because it doesn't live up to the arbitrary quality you've assigned to older art that it somehow isn't as good. GOOD art shines through regardless of the techniques employed.

While I'm not as versed in the history of poetry, I DO study the history of music along with musical theory. Historically in music, there were all sorts of musical compositions that went into orchestral music. In modern music the most popular forms of music are simple AB (verse/chorus), AABA form (popular in ballad songs) or variations of those schemes (like modified AABA which puts a verse/chorus structure for each of the A's in an AABA song); but even then there are still WILDLY complex musical pieces that don't deviate from those simple structures. Musical theory has just evolved away from musical form, that doesn't mean the complexity has decreased. For instance, go listen to some Prog rock for some complicated music.

When I see people complain about a decrease in the quality of artwork in modern times, one of two opinions about that person pop into my head. 1) They are old, 2) They aren't as clued into that art's scene as they think they are, or 3) both.

There are layers on top of layers in there. It makes modern free verse seem a bit sparse at times.

Again, this isn't poetry, but here is a breakdown from Robert Hunter talking about the meanings behind Franklin's Tower.
Robert Hunter explains Franklin's Tower

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I didn't say there was no value there did I. I only said that when you had to consider the sheer amount of masteries involved to write a really good metaphysical poem and also understand it. It made free verse look a bit sparse. That's not the same as saying, "All free verse sucks rocks!"

a reply to: ketsuko

I'm just saying that art's complexity has evolved in different ways then just the layers of meaning that you are talking about. That was what I was trying to explain with my music example. Did you read that explanation from Robert Hunter? It outlines that Franklin's Tower is actually rather deep with several different meanings to him in ADDITION to him leaving room for the listener to form his or her own opinions on what it means.

Franklin's Tower's song structure is just simple versus/chorus (AB). It's just a repeat of the chords AGDA over and over again for both the verse and the chorus, yet when you read the lyrics there is SOOO much meaning behind it, and this disregards all the ways that the Grateful Dead played with and altered the song in their live shows. Again the chord pattern is rather basic, yet can be SO complex if played right.

a reply to: BlueAjah

People used to write much more formally.. People were also much more formal during those time periods..


We could say then, that the problem perhaps is lack of formality..

A lack of Love destroys, but Love is healing. Love is intelligence and Wisdom, so it is a lack of Love that's leading to unloving behavior like gun violence and racism. Love brings Appreciation and Kindness towards others.

originally posted by: NthOther
Is love an intellectual concept?

Is fellowship an intellectual concept?

Is compassion an intellectual concept?

Those are the things we are lacking. I don't see how intellectualism will help us develop any of those things in the slightest.

There's an obvious subtext here, given the language being used. "Anti-intellectualism".

Can you see it?

Intelligence,

Definition of Intelligence according to The American Heritage Dictionary:


Intelligence (noun)

a. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge; b. the faculty of thought and reason; c. Superior powers of mind;

a reply to: tony9802

Intellectual..

Definition of Intellectual according to The American Heritage Dictionary:

Intellectual: adj.

a. Of or relating to the intellect; b. Rational rather than emotional; c. Appealing to or engaging the intellect;

a reply to: tony9802

Intellectualism..

Definition of Intellectualism according to The American Heritage DIctionary:


Intellectualism: noun;

1. Exercise or application of the intellect; 2. Devotion to exercise or development of the intellect;

IMHO the problem is deeper than ignorance it's generations since the greatest generation who have willfully not grown up and taken responsibility in society that our grandparents were forces to do through the great depression and WW2.
a reply to: searcherfortruth