Intellectuals & Society - Thomas Sowell

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
There has probably never been an era in history when intellectuals have played a larger role in society. When intellectuals who generate ideas are surrounded by a wide range of others who disseminate those ideas-- whether as journalists, teachers, staffers to legislators or clerks to judges-- the influence of intellectuals on the way a society evolves can be huge. Trying for years to understand the nature of that influence eventually led me to write the book "Intellectuals and Society," which has just been published.

Intellectuals generate ideas and ideas matter, whether those ideas are right or wrong, and they matter far beyond the small segment of society who are intellectuals. Ideas affect the fate of whole nations and civilizations. Nowhere is that more true than in our own times, when some people make suicidal attacks to kill strangers who have done nothing to them, as on 9/11, because the attackers are consumed with a set of ideas-- a vision-- and driven by the emotions generated by those ideas and that vision.

http://magazine.townhall.com/idiots


Whether in war or peace, and whether in economics or religion, something as intangible as ideas can dominate the most concrete things in our lives. What Karl Marx called "the blaze of ideas" has set whole nations on fire and consumed whole generations.

Those whose careers are built on the creation and dissemination of ideas-- the intellectuals-- have played a role in many societies out of all proportion to their numbers. Whether that role has, on net balance, made those around them better off or worse off is one of the key questions of our times.

The quick answer is that intellectuals have done both. But certainly, for the 20th century, it is hard to escape the conclusion that intellectuals have on net balance made the world a worse and more dangerous place. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the 20th century was without his supporters, admirers or apologists among the leading intellectuals-- not only within his own country, but in foreign democracies, where intellectuals were free to say whatever they wanted to.

Given the enormous progress made during the 20th century, it may seem hard to believe that intellectuals did so little good as to have that good outweighed by particular wrong-headed notions. But most of those who promoted the scientific, economic and social advances of the 20th century were not really intellectuals in the sense in which that term is most often used.

The Wright brothers, who fulfilled the centuries-old dream of human beings flying, were by no means intellectuals. Nor were those who conquered the scourge of polio and other diseases, or who created the electronic marvels that we now take for granted.

All these people produced a tangible product or service and they were judged by whether those products and services worked. But intellectuals are people whose end products are intangible ideas, and they are usually judged by whether those ideas sound good to other intellectuals or resonate with the public.

Whether their ideas turn out to work-- whether they make life better or worse for others-- is another question entirely.
The ideas that Karl Marx created in the 19th century dominated the course of events over wide portions of the world in the 20th century. Whole generations suffered, and millions were killed, as a result of those ideas. This was not Marx's intention, nor the intentions of many supporters of Marxian ideas in countries around the world. But it is what happened.
Some of the most distinguished intellectuals in the Western world in the 1930s gave ringing praise to the Soviet Union, while millions of people there were literally starved to death and vast numbers of others were being shipped off to slave labor camps.

Many of those same distinguished intellectuals of the 1930s were urging their own countries to disarm while Hitler was rapidly arming Germany for wars of conquest that would have, among other things, put many of those intellectuals in concentration camps-- slated for extermination-- if he had succeeded.
The 1930s were by no means unique. In too many other eras-- including our own today-- intellectuals of unquestionable brilliance have advocated similarly childish and dangerous notions. How and why such patterns have existed among intellectuals is a challenging question, whose answer can determine the fate of millions of other people.
 

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
Ideas are such intangible things that it is hard to believe that they have had a huge impact on the lives of people who are not intellectuals and who, in many cases, have paid little attention to those ideas. Yet both secular and religious ideas have moved the emotions of many-- and have moved leaders who moved armies.

When we look back on the Spanish Inquisition, on the Crusades of the past and the Jihads of the past and present, we see chilling examples of the effects of ideas. But the secular ideologies of the 20th century killed millions more people in Germany, Russia and China-- and similarly in pursuit of higher goals, even if those ideals were used cynically by those with power, as in the past.

If there is any lesson in the history of ideas, it is that good intentions tell you nothing about the actual consequences. But intellectuals who generate ideas do not have to pay the consequences.

http://magazine.townhall.com/sarahpalinrogue

Academic intellectuals are shielded by the principles of academic freedom and journalists in democratic societies are shielded by the principle of freedom of the press. Seldom do those who produce or peddle dangerous, or even fatal, ideas have to pay a price, even in a loss of credibility.
Who blames Rachel Carson, an environmentalist icon, because her crusading writings against DDT led to the ban of this insecticide in countries around the world-- followed by a resurgence of malaria that killed, and continues to kill, millions of people in tropical Third World countries?

Even political leaders have been judged by how noble their ideas sounded, rather than by how disastrous their consequences were. Woodrow Wilson-- our only president with a Ph.D.-- was an academic intellectual for years before entering politics, and his ideas about a war to end wars, making the world safe for democracy, and the right of self-determination of peoples, have been revered in utter disregard of what happened when Wilson's notions were put into practice in the real world.

No one today takes seriously the idea that the First World War was a war to end wars, and many now see it as setting the stage for a Second World War. Indeed there were those who predicted this result at the time. But they were not listened to, much less lionized, like Woodrow Wilson.
Like many intellectuals, Woodrow Wilson assumed that if things were bad, "change" would automatically make them better. But the autocratic governments in Russia and Germany that Wilson abhorred were followed by totalitarian regimes so oppressive and murderous that they made the past despots look almost like sweethearts.

As for the self-determination of peoples, that turned out in practice to mean having whole peoples' fates determined by foreigners, such as Woodrow Wilson, who joined in the dismemberment of empires, with dire consequences in the 1930s, as Hitler picked off the small and vulnerable newly created nations, one by one-- an operation that would have been far more dangerous if he had had to face the larger empires of which they had been part before the First World War.

To this day, we are still living with the consequences of carving up the Ottoman Empire to create far more unstable and dangerous states in the Middle East.
But Woodrow Wilson's words sounded great-- and that is what he and other intellectuals are judged by.

It may seem strange that so many people of great intellect have said and done so many things whose consequences ranged from counterproductive to catastrophic. Yet it is not so surprising when we consider whether anybody has ever had the range of knowledge required to make the sweeping kinds of decisions that so many intellectuals are prone to make, especially when they pay no price for being wrong.

Intellectuals and their followers have often been overly impressed by the fact that intellectuals tend, on average, to have more knowledge than other individuals in their society. What they have overlooked is that intellectuals have far less knowledge than the total knowledge possessed by the millions of other people whom they disdain and whose decisions they seek to override.
We have had to learn the consequences of elite preemption the hard way-- and many of us have yet to learn that lesson.
 

medicineman

New Member
Ideas are such intangible things that it is hard to believe that they have had a huge impact on the lives of people who are not intellectuals and who, in many cases, have paid little attention to those ideas. Yet both secular and religious ideas have moved the emotions of many-- and have moved leaders who moved armies.

When we look back on the Spanish Inquisition, on the Crusades of the past and the Jihads of the past and present, we see chilling examples of the effects of ideas. But the secular ideologies of the 20th century killed millions more people in Germany, Russia and China-- and similarly in pursuit of higher goals, even if those ideals were used cynically by those with power, as in the past.

If there is any lesson in the history of ideas, it is that good intentions tell you nothing about the actual consequences. But intellectuals who generate ideas do not have to pay the consequences.



Academic intellectuals are shielded by the principles of academic freedom and journalists in democratic societies are shielded by the principle of freedom of the press. Seldom do those who produce or peddle dangerous, or even fatal, ideas have to pay a price, even in a loss of credibility.
Who blames Rachel Carson, an environmentalist icon, because her crusading writings against DDT led to the ban of this insecticide in countries around the world-- followed by a resurgence of malaria that killed, and continues to kill, millions of people in tropical Third World countries?

Even political leaders have been judged by how noble their ideas sounded, rather than by how disastrous their consequences were. Woodrow Wilson-- our only president with a Ph.D.-- was an academic intellectual for years before entering politics, and his ideas about a war to end wars, making the world safe for democracy, and the right of self-determination of peoples, have been revered in utter disregard of what happened when Wilson's notions were put into practice in the real world.

No one today takes seriously the idea that the First World War was a war to end wars, and many now see it as setting the stage for a Second World War. Indeed there were those who predicted this result at the time. But they were not listened to, much less lionized, like Woodrow Wilson.
Like many intellectuals, Woodrow Wilson assumed that if things were bad, "change" would automatically make them better. But the autocratic governments in Russia and Germany that Wilson abhorred were followed by totalitarian regimes so oppressive and murderous that they made the past despots look almost like sweethearts.

As for the self-determination of peoples, that turned out in practice to mean having whole peoples' fates determined by foreigners, such as Woodrow Wilson, who joined in the dismemberment of empires, with dire consequences in the 1930s, as Hitler picked off the small and vulnerable newly created nations, one by one-- an operation that would have been far more dangerous if he had had to face the larger empires of which they had been part before the First World War.

To this day, we are still living with the consequences of carving up the Ottoman Empire to create far more unstable and dangerous states in the Middle East.
But Woodrow Wilson's words sounded great-- and that is what he and other intellectuals are judged by.

It may seem strange that so many people of great intellect have said and done so many things whose consequences ranged from counterproductive to catastrophic. Yet it is not so surprising when we consider whether anybody has ever had the range of knowledge required to make the sweeping kinds of decisions that so many intellectuals are prone to make, especially when they pay no price for being wrong.

Intellectuals and their followers have often been overly impressed by the fact that intellectuals tend, on average, to have more knowledge than other individuals in their society. What they have overlooked is that intellectuals have far less knowledge than the total knowledge possessed by the millions of other people whom they disdain and whose decisions they seek to override.
We have had to learn the consequences of elite preemption the hard way-- and many of us have yet to learn that lesson.

Yes you have yet to learn, that's for sure.
 

medicineman

New Member
So you're saying that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant? That's some ego you got there medman. :joint:
Uhhh, where did you see the word ignorant? I may believe Rick White is an Ignorant prick, But in point of fact, I haven't actually called him that. I believe Rick is actually some form of psychotic abnormalia, No feelings or emotions, just a money making machine. I could be wrong, but my giant Ego says I'm not. I also believe this is a common malady of those on the right. Sometime, when you have nothing better to do, pick up a few books on aberrant behavior, I'll bet you'll find the definition fits. I have to go now, take my Giant Ego for a walk.
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
Uhhh, where did you see the word ignorant? I may believe Rick White is an Ignorant prick, But in point of fact, I haven't actually called him that. I believe Rick is actually some form of psychotic abnormalia, No feelings or emotions, just a money making machine. I could be wrong, but my giant Ego says I'm not. I also believe this is a common malady of those on the right. Sometime, when you have nothing better to do, pick up a few books on aberrant behavior, I'll bet you'll find the definition fits. I have to go now, take my Giant Ego for a walk.
I think ignorance was implied from your statement. Conservatives think they are right, liberals think that they are right. How nice would it be if one side actually was right and the other was actually wrong? Maybe shit would actually run the way it's supposed to in government, maybe not. :joint:
 

medicineman

New Member
I think ignorance was implied from your statement. Conservatives think they are right, liberals think that they are right. How nice would it be if one side actually was right and the other was actually wrong? Maybe shit would actually run the way it's supposed to in government, maybe not. :joint:
Or maybe, a little from both sides could make a palatable mix. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, that may seem like an oxymoron, but I believe it could work if people actually tried to get along. What I see on the right is unbridled greed. My question is this: How much income is enough? Is it 200K, 500K, 10 Million, 50 Million, a few Billion? The problem is this: there is only so much money in circulation. The top 10% have 82% of the money. That leaves 18% for the other 90%. Seems like a highly unbalanced situation to me.
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
Or maybe, a little from both sides could make a palatable mix. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, that may seem like an oxymoron, but I believe it could work if people actually tried to get along. What I see on the right is unbridled greed. My question is this: How much income is enough? Is it 200K, 500K, 10 Million, 50 Million, a few Billion? The problem is this: there is only so much money in circulation. The top 10% have 82% of the money. That leaves 18% for the other 90%. Seems like a highly unbalanced situation to me.
Unfortunately there is no answer that will satisfy everybody or even a comfortable majority. There have always been people throughout history who are driven to make money and aquire material wealth. Some are content with a little and some aren't. It comes down to individual personalities. And we all know that birds of a feather tend to flock together. I simply don't believe in trying to equalize everything. The balance of things has shifted heavily in favor of the elites or so it would seem. The people have a great collective power and most don't even realize it; the constitution of the United States of America, and more specifically the right to vote. We have got to reel our politicians back in a bit and remind them who's really in charge. ;-)
 

medicineman

New Member
Unfortunately there is no answer that will satisfy everybody or even a comfortable majority. There have always been people throughout history who are driven to make money and aquire material wealth. Some are content with a little and some aren't. It comes down to individual personalities. And we all know that birds of a feather tend to flock together. I simply don't believe in trying to equalize everything. The balance of things has shifted heavily in favor of the elites or so it would seem. The people have a great collective power and most don't even realize it; the constitution of the United States of America, and more specifically the right to vote. We have got to reel our politicians back in a bit and remind them who's really in charge. ;-)
The question now becomes: Who is we? Is it the tea party, the far left or do we as a society, head to the middle? You on the right presume to see Obama as a socialist. I see him as a centrist, leaning a little left, but not even half enough. The Public option would have been a much better plan for the health care bill, IMHO. No Mandate, just an ass kicking to the insurance crooks. Now we have a giveaway to those same crooks with a mandate, crazy shit. We need to reign in lobbyists, actually make it illegal. The lobbyists are flooding Washington with anti-regulation money now for the banking and wall street boys, those crooks. Without adequate regulation and enforcement, those industries are headed down the same path as before, steal from the poor and give to the rich. Pretty soon there will be nothing left to steal.
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
The question now becomes: Who is we? Is it the tea party, the far left or do we as a society, head to the middle? You on the right presume to see Obama as a socialist. I see him as a centrist, leaning a little left, but not even half enough. The Public option would have been a much better plan for the health care bill, IMHO. No Mandate, just an ass kicking to the insurance crooks. Now we have a giveaway to those same crooks with a mandate, crazy shit. We need to reign in lobbyists, actually make it illegal. The lobbyists are flooding Washington with anti-regulation money now for the banking and wall street boys, those crooks. Without adequate regulation and enforcement, those industries are headed down the same path as before, steal from the poor and give to the rich. Pretty soon there will be nothing left to steal.
Totally agree about lobbying. It needs to be done away with and called what it really is; bribery! :cuss:

I'm libertarian so I want to see smaller govt. The bigger it gets, the less efficient it becomes and things tend to go wrong more often than they go right. Big govt. and too much control is usually what sets the stage for the wrong individual or group to sieze control and do harm. I won't give you a history lesson because you must know some relatively recent examples of such characters. bongsmilie
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Thomas Sowell is one of the very brightest ppl alive n the United States today.

Maybe Med Man doesn't like what he says.... because he's black? :lol:

Blacks aren't supposed to think this way. :wink:


The left have no data to post...because it's all points to.... ur doing the wrong thing.

Obama delays our recovery....
 

Patrick Bateman

Active Member
Thomas Sowell is one of the very brightest ppl alive n the United States today.

Maybe Med Man doesn't like what he says.... because he's black? :lol:

Blacks aren't supposed to think this way. :wink:


The left have no data to post...because it's all points to.... ur doing the wrong thing.

Obama delays our recovery....
lol Yes the socially liberal are generally known for their hatred of blacks

So the goal of this thread is to promote a book which essentially devalues those who are educated in Academic settings?

The perpetuation of misinformation is certainly more dangerous than intellectuals in positions of influence as is evident in the current state of the United States
 

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
Medman is too stupid to even realize I didn't write the OP. Really; he thinks I wrote it, just read his posts. BTW, I wish I was a money making machine. For now, I'll have to settle for some what comfortable fledgling business owner.

Bateman is a hoot. He boils down and condemns a book written by Thomas Sowell in a single sentence without having ever read it. If you are trying out for the moron Olympics and really want to win the gold, that is a great way to start.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
:lol: Believe me, no one takes Med man seriously.... he's a loon. And a rude one...but I guess it goes together. He's unarmed....
 
Top