I find it harder and harder to believe intellectuals influence society at large. They are good at organizing into abstractions (words) what men have already acquired through instinctive action, i.e., culture. So, people like Machiavelli, while intelligent and cultured, cannot organize society. This seems obvious to me because terms like the left or right, or liberalism vs. conservatism mean very little and have no relevance to the real world.
The framers of the Constitution and Rights of Man created an artificial world of abstractions not least of which is the idea that humans are primarily creatures of reason. Or that the universe or humans can be objectively understood. That right there is clearly a false assumption. Sure, humans discovered laws of gravity, electricity and the orgon box but they hardly seem more sane than pre-modern people. If anything, liberalism has unleashed Frankenstein monsters upon the world. The pre-Socratic Greeks would have called it hubris, overweening pride, which invites nemesis, or revenge from the gods. One could say that the current political discourse is similar to pre-moderns labeling the opposing group as demonically possessed, or satanic, but couched in scientific language. The Reign of Terror was the first instance of this objectification of the world. It has merely taken more subtle forms today.
I think you are well-meaning but trapped in a false dichotomy. You say "I find it harder and harder to believe intellectuals influence society at large" but then lament the effect intellectuals have had on society, saying, "liberalism has unleashed Frankenstein monsters upon the world."
I encourage you to think through what you call "abstractions" or "reason." Could these kinds of words be applied to the ideas and things you yourself like?
For example, I like aristocratic and traditional ideals. These, also, are abstract and universal. Aristocrats have long prided themselves on their sound reasoning--indeed, they are the ruling class that concerns itself with metaphysics and theology, unlike what we are suffering under today.
Yes, I suppose that does look like a double bind. It's like telling someone to be free. I suppose aristocratic ideals are abstractions in a sense. But, "rights", natural or otherwise, are not based on the real world. Whereas aristocratic behavior or ideals seems to me to be more organic, reflecting a natural human desire for beauty, honor and divine order.
Here's a comment on Paul Johnson's, The Intellectuals, at Amazon, which is kind of what I'm attempting to get at:
"Henry James receives a brief mention but does not get a full chapter in the book because, as Johnson writes, unlike the others, he rejected the notion that the world and humanity could be transformed by ideas conjured up out of nothing. For James the inherited wisdom of civilization was the only reliable guide to human behavior."
That, and a lot more, is written by Kindle Customer, second review in Top Reviews from the United States. Paul Johnson was also an artist so he tended to deal with objects which is another point I wanted to make.
I just got this in an email [A perfect example of the point I'm trying to make.]:
Dear Rumble Users,
As you might already be aware, we recently went public with how Inspire Brands and Dunkin Donuts discriminated against the entire Rumble platform in an email they wrote to us. In that email, they refused to advertise on Rumble because of the "right wing culture" of our website.
In response to this overt discrimation againt Rumble and its users, we are asking for everyone's support in switching their Dunkin Donuts coffee to Rumble's Official Partner, 1775 Coffee.
I find it harder and harder to believe intellectuals influence society at large. They are good at organizing into abstractions (words) what men have already acquired through instinctive action, i.e., culture. So, people like Machiavelli, while intelligent and cultured, cannot organize society. This seems obvious to me because terms like the left or right, or liberalism vs. conservatism mean very little and have no relevance to the real world.
The framers of the Constitution and Rights of Man created an artificial world of abstractions not least of which is the idea that humans are primarily creatures of reason. Or that the universe or humans can be objectively understood. That right there is clearly a false assumption. Sure, humans discovered laws of gravity, electricity and the orgon box but they hardly seem more sane than pre-modern people. If anything, liberalism has unleashed Frankenstein monsters upon the world. The pre-Socratic Greeks would have called it hubris, overweening pride, which invites nemesis, or revenge from the gods. One could say that the current political discourse is similar to pre-moderns labeling the opposing group as demonically possessed, or satanic, but couched in scientific language. The Reign of Terror was the first instance of this objectification of the world. It has merely taken more subtle forms today.
I think you are well-meaning but trapped in a false dichotomy. You say "I find it harder and harder to believe intellectuals influence society at large" but then lament the effect intellectuals have had on society, saying, "liberalism has unleashed Frankenstein monsters upon the world."
I encourage you to think through what you call "abstractions" or "reason." Could these kinds of words be applied to the ideas and things you yourself like?
For example, I like aristocratic and traditional ideals. These, also, are abstract and universal. Aristocrats have long prided themselves on their sound reasoning--indeed, they are the ruling class that concerns itself with metaphysics and theology, unlike what we are suffering under today.
Hope this helps.
Thanks for your reply.
Yes, I suppose that does look like a double bind. It's like telling someone to be free. I suppose aristocratic ideals are abstractions in a sense. But, "rights", natural or otherwise, are not based on the real world. Whereas aristocratic behavior or ideals seems to me to be more organic, reflecting a natural human desire for beauty, honor and divine order.
Here's a comment on Paul Johnson's, The Intellectuals, at Amazon, which is kind of what I'm attempting to get at:
"Henry James receives a brief mention but does not get a full chapter in the book because, as Johnson writes, unlike the others, he rejected the notion that the world and humanity could be transformed by ideas conjured up out of nothing. For James the inherited wisdom of civilization was the only reliable guide to human behavior."
https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Marx-Tolstoy-Sartre-Chomsky/dp/0061253170/ref=sr_1_1?crid=H90ACTYS2F6D&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Ezy3ZaoubXs-U5Z5JJtt6Yt_6_G3dDgHe9FgSZdnN0-ndQPTA3gaAP4IKLldn5qO1ieUQfUdEbhlydfiReHL0gyvTTFss4CxAc0Ju08EDgNsVCFJ4doQ8gLMba-nB3bg_CPXtdXsEX5HgrkLx_ZSP18RZYjl9hqtWWgxZFGHupaQ7WpFqNGfglkingiuTwdEIApD3H8-4DyhI2Sc8FnITPFuNvJToM_Ps0JdaspkAB0.l3ZayKPb0iRW34xuSNBAUeVCmuVXddVsmiixotMuNLM&dib_tag=se&keywords=paul+johnson+intellectuals&qid=1727971678&sprefix=paul+johnson+intellectua%2Caps%2C1455&sr=8-1
That, and a lot more, is written by Kindle Customer, second review in Top Reviews from the United States. Paul Johnson was also an artist so he tended to deal with objects which is another point I wanted to make.
I just got this in an email [A perfect example of the point I'm trying to make.]:
Dear Rumble Users,
As you might already be aware, we recently went public with how Inspire Brands and Dunkin Donuts discriminated against the entire Rumble platform in an email they wrote to us. In that email, they refused to advertise on Rumble because of the "right wing culture" of our website.
In response to this overt discrimation againt Rumble and its users, we are asking for everyone's support in switching their Dunkin Donuts coffee to Rumble's Official Partner, 1775 Coffee.