Sunday, August 29
Intellectuals and society
Laura wants a debate on intellectuals in general and their value to society. I am not happy with the broad scope as provided in the Mirriam-Webster dictionary:
Main Entry: in tel lec tu alThat's basically everyone who's not working manually, and yes, it would be me, too.
Function: adjective
1 a : of or relating to the intellect or its use b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : RATIONAL c : requiring use of the intellect
2 a : given to study, reflection, and speculation b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect
Let's take a look at Wikipedia instead:
An intellectual is a person who uses his or her intellect to study, reflect, and speculate on a variety of different ideas. In some contexts, especially journalistic speech, intellectual often refers to academics, generally in the humanities, especially philosophy, who speak about various issues of social or political import. These are so-called public intellectuals - in effect communicators.
Much better. Now, how about value? The only way to measure value, the sole method of testing it is to put it in the marketplace. "In neoclassical economics, the value of an object or service is often seen as nothing but the price it would bring in a open and competitive market. This is determined primarily by the demand for the object relative to supply." If want to debate the value of intellectuals, we have to examine how they are doing in a competitive environment.
Thomas Jefferson, whom Laura cites as one of thinkers whose "thousands and thousands of words still evoke debate and leave questions unanswered. Because there is disagreement on their philosophies, because no definitive goals are reached, Tomas would prefer that they have kept their thoughts to themselves?" He was a political philosopher and he wrote a lot. He was also the third president of the United States. He might have left many questions unanswered, but he was unafraid to test them in the marketplace of ideas, and practiced what he preached. In other words, he was unafraid of accountability. He stood by his words.
Then there's a legion of other intellectuals, tenured professors at state-run colleges and universities across Europe and elsewhere, journalists, think-tank associates, people who are free to say and write anything without having to practice it. It's difficult to assess their valuie outside the academia. Karl Marx never ran for office, never ran a business. He had an influence nevertheless, and the world would have been a better place if he hadn't been born in the first place. What I am saying is that personal involvement is necessary, and intellectuals who fail the reality check should reconsider their career priorities.
This is an ongoing argument and in order to keep it interesting to anyone else, I'll continue in my upcoming posts and show some real-world examples.
"the sole way to value something is to put it to the marketplace," wrong. I value my friendships, my family, and my time. You can put those in the marketplace. How'd we get to economics? You're changing the focus again Tomas.
posted by Laura on 29.08.2004, 10:06