![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This is sad...
Dec. 9th, 2009 01:27 pmhttp://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-8-2009/gretchen-carlson-dumbs-down(still can't figure out how to properly embed Daily Show here)
Dec. 9th, 2009
"Intellectual" vs "Educated"
Dec. 9th, 2009 03:12 pmПеревод на русский можно найти тут. За наводку спасибо ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
abcdefgh
I want to post an excerpt from the TimesOnline review of the book Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone? by Frank Furedi dated back to the 2004. Past the thoughts on the book the reviewer discusses "intellectual" vs "educated" man. I think it's a very interesting reading.
The review itself is here
As an Englishman, I am bothered by the term “intellectual”, which came late to our language. Humane education was shaped in our country by Coleridge, Ruskin, Arnold and — in the political sphere — Macaulay, Gladstone and Disraeli, people who would have described themselves as educated men, but not as intellectuals. The intellectual is a synthesis of French bohemianism and Russian nihilism. Intellectuals have an inveterate tendency to be on the Left and to turn on dissenters with a venom that no educated person could comfortably endorse. Much of the decline that Furedi is describing in this book could be described in another way, as the gradual vanishing of the educated person as the goal of education, and its replacement by the intellectual instead. Intellectuals are critics of the established order; they are on the side of the victim, and against the bourgeois normality; they repudiate discipline, authority, family, tradition, and nothing gets up their nose so much as the calm forgiving acceptance of human imperfection. And, as we know from the cases of Marx, Lenin, Mao, Sartre, Pol Pot and a thousand more, they are dangerous.
Moreover, intellectuals value their oppositional and transgressive stance far more than they value truth, and have a vested interested in undermining the practices — such as rational argument, genuine scholarship and open-minded discussion — which have truth as their goal. They will seize on the relativist arguments — even if they are as shoddy as Foucault’s or as empty as Rorty’s — as they will seize on any kind of mumbo-jumbo that silences the critic and furthers their subversive aims. And when they take hold of institutions they form a “confederacy of dunces” whose first aim is to exclude anyone who thinks out of line.
That is why university departments in the humanities and social sciences are now such grim, bigoted places, and why Furedi, who must have one hell of a time in the University of Kent, still tries to claim the status of a left-wing intellectual, and to conceal as best he can the truth, that he is a genuinely educated (and transparently conservative) man.
abcdefgh I want to post an excerpt from the TimesOnline review of the book Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone? by Frank Furedi dated back to the 2004. Past the thoughts on the book the reviewer discusses "intellectual" vs "educated" man. I think it's a very interesting reading.
The review itself is here
As an Englishman, I am bothered by the term “intellectual”, which came late to our language. Humane education was shaped in our country by Coleridge, Ruskin, Arnold and — in the political sphere — Macaulay, Gladstone and Disraeli, people who would have described themselves as educated men, but not as intellectuals. The intellectual is a synthesis of French bohemianism and Russian nihilism. Intellectuals have an inveterate tendency to be on the Left and to turn on dissenters with a venom that no educated person could comfortably endorse. Much of the decline that Furedi is describing in this book could be described in another way, as the gradual vanishing of the educated person as the goal of education, and its replacement by the intellectual instead. Intellectuals are critics of the established order; they are on the side of the victim, and against the bourgeois normality; they repudiate discipline, authority, family, tradition, and nothing gets up their nose so much as the calm forgiving acceptance of human imperfection. And, as we know from the cases of Marx, Lenin, Mao, Sartre, Pol Pot and a thousand more, they are dangerous.
Moreover, intellectuals value their oppositional and transgressive stance far more than they value truth, and have a vested interested in undermining the practices — such as rational argument, genuine scholarship and open-minded discussion — which have truth as their goal. They will seize on the relativist arguments — even if they are as shoddy as Foucault’s or as empty as Rorty’s — as they will seize on any kind of mumbo-jumbo that silences the critic and furthers their subversive aims. And when they take hold of institutions they form a “confederacy of dunces” whose first aim is to exclude anyone who thinks out of line.
That is why university departments in the humanities and social sciences are now such grim, bigoted places, and why Furedi, who must have one hell of a time in the University of Kent, still tries to claim the status of a left-wing intellectual, and to conceal as best he can the truth, that he is a genuinely educated (and transparently conservative) man.
(no subject)
Dec. 9th, 2009 05:01 pmThe president of the USA will be not only be protected by secret service agents, the Norwegian police, a pair of F-16 fighters, plane AVAKS, but also a ring of mobile launchers of rockets SL-120 AMRAAM. Rockets can destroy any the suspicious air object in radius of 25 km around of capital of Norway. I shall remind you, that the president Obama is going to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Isn’t that ironic??
viabebe4ka
via
bebe4ka