The Book Club: Intellectuals by Paul Johnson with Allen Estrin | The Book Club
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 เม.ย. 2020
- Thinkers from Karl Marx to Noam Chomsky have shaped political thought and transformed societies. On this episode of The Book Club, Michael Knowles and PragerU’s executive director, Allen Estrin, discuss Intellectuals by Paul Johnson and how the book highlights both the brilliance and dangers of intellectuals’ impact on humanity.
In our fast-paced world, it’s tough to make reading a priority. At least it used to be. At thinkr.org/ they summarize the key ideas from new and noteworthy nonfiction, giving you access to an entire library of great books in bite-size form. Read or listen to hundreds of titles in a matter of minutes: start your free trial today at thinkr.org/
How are we so lucky in this generation that we have videos like this available for free. So grateful for this. Thank you Prager U
I love the PragerU Book Club! I wish that the videos were longer and more in depth.
Is it just one video per book/month.... That's very low.... They need to up it, I'm still in Ch 3 but I expect more videos till the end of the month in this book
In depth...Freudian slip eh?.
I’m modeling my children’s book club after PragerU ☺️
“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
― George Orwell
Nice way to quote a guy who supported nationalization of land.
0:45 "Unaided intellect". Intellect can be aided by education and peer review. Secular intellectuals are on the rise because religion can not be falsified (not empirical); lack evidence.
0:50 Morality is subjective. In my subjective opinion, intellectuals are good since practicing science and philosophizing about the world can be useful.
1:45 The distinction between intellectuals and thinkers is meaningless since an intellectual use their intellect via thinking.
4:00 Intellectuals have high readability levels because in the pursuit of knowledge precision (via extensive vocabulary and sentence structure) are important. An easy to understand author does not necessarily say the author has substantiated arguments.
5:40 Intellectuals became earlier with philosophers for centuries. Rousseau is right that tradition is not intellectually substantiated since most tradition is based on (at best outdated science) and at worst unempirical pre-scientific understandings of the world.
6:35 Rousseau valued reason as experience (in non scientific contexts, which I doubt Rousseau would oppose) is anecdotal. Most so-called wisdom was unempirical religion. Once again, morality is subjective. Pointing out the perceived hypocrisy of a person does not debunk their arguments. You never gave the context why he abandoned his kids since there is usually more to it than the Father being a jerk.
8:40 This counts as an ad hominem to call Rousseau immature instead of being irresponsible instead of pointing out the lack of substantiation of his arguments. Also, it is fallacious to extrapolate his personal life to his undefined positions concerning the state.
9:10 The crisis in education has been the mediocrity of the system, though forgetting the costs of higher education to low income people is an issue. Public education for high schoolers has been a thing since the 1910s so not much of an increase of the supposed increased dependence on the state for education.
9:35 The reason for the advocacy of free of direct charge (at point of service) pre-school and higher education is because some people cannot (otherwise) afford such education, meaning they do not have other economically viable options outside of state education.
9:50 The reason why local communities no longer educate kids is because of the increase of an education profession that are specialized in educating kids, and the increase of public education is to provide education for those who cannot afford it.
10:35 Biography is not sufficient since pointing out that a person has an immoral personal life, once again does not debunk their philosophical arguments.
11:30 It is possible to disdain the personality of workers while also believing they deserve a better life. Most workers are mostly under-education but that is more out of economic issues that should be overcome. Marx worked as a philosophy professor and journalist which count as real jobs, so that is inaccurate. Anecdotes do not mean one's positions are correct. Also, Marx, as they said, lived in mediocre-at-best housing, barely better than most workers. Engels wrote about his anecdotes of working class people in the 1840s.
12:30 Ideas can delve into material conditions, which can affect people's lives. Also, saying intellectuals do not love people contradicts the previous statement that intellectuals have a love for humanity.
12:45 Advocating for collective ownership of the means of production is not derived from self-interest. Same with Rousseau on state intervention.
12:50 Most people did not bath back then due to a lack of indoor plumbing for showers.
12:55 Intellectuals think and argue about the debatable meaning of truth (which has yet to be settled by philosophers). What facts did Marx disregard, he economic positions were derived from Adam Smith and David Ricardo.
14:00 Classes of easy circumstance refers to those who are wealthy since many people view their economic positions as by products of circumstance. Sure, Marx was paraphrasing but not misleading. Sounds like a quote mine.
15:22 Conditions cannot be measured due to data, also the actions of parties and unions helped. Marx believed that capitalism is better than feudalism. This day, real wages in the US have been stagnating, not increasing.
17:00 The reason why those who advocate for revolution is out of cynicism for current structures. They are aware of the consequences, but accept as necessary, in a long sense, not “attention seeking”.
18:00 Cuban was probably misinformed about Cuba by comparing it to Yugoslavia, where workers did democratically control their workplaces via co-ops (despite Yugoslavia being a single party).
19:00 Most people died due to centralized planning, which was not really specified by Marx along with the death penalty while millions die under capitalism (lack of access of healthcare, food, and water).
20:00 I doubt a person who described imperialism as the white man’s burden as a genius, even for his time. Also, his stance on imperialism was talking about re-fashioning of the world.
20:15 Religion has not been demonstrated, so their advocates do not advance the world.
20:30 Philosophy is not the same thing as religion.
20:40 He stated before that intellectuals focus (“love”) humanity in a broad sense, which contradicts the claim of not caring for people.
20:50 Tyranny of ideas is bad when the ideas are bad, not good ideas.
21:00 Imaginative is not a good quality for a discussion about philosophers, and the intellectuals discussed studied philosophy, so they are legitimate philosophers.
21:30 Most philosophers talked about how the world worked in practice and proposed alternatives.
@@jstevinik3261 Only a silly Marxist clown would that much effort into lies, half-truths and nonsense. Congrats!.
@@jstevinik3261 you really have to be an idiot to think that quoting someone requires oneself to share the same values on every issue. What a joke.
@@johnhunter812 Which lies and half-truths?
I'm still on Chapter 4.
Henrik Ibsen: 'On the Contrary!'
Hey, PragerU, could you sometimes invite the author to discuss the books?
Bookclub needs to be an hour. It not long enough!!!
Agreed! ❤
I always wanted to join a book club that read great books, but everyone I have joined want to read trash. It is such a joy to find this book club!
Please make these longer! They’re so good!
Michael, you’re doing an awesome job with this series! Keep it going!!!
Thomas Sowell has entered the chat
Yeah. How can you have this discussion without mentioning Sowell's great work on the subject. Odd.
Reading his book basic economics. The guy is a genius
Wow what an education in 20 min! Thx! 👍👍👍
absolutely recommend this book to everyone... an intellectual is someone who cares about ideas not people. About humanity, not humans. Look how awful and phony these intellectuals were in their private lives.
Victor Davis Hanson is pretty awesome, btw,
Dude, is that book easy to read?
Loving this series! Definitely need to read these books before too long. Keep it up Knowles
Paul Johnson's short biography of George Washington was a good one.
How about a heads up for the next book on the horizon so we can be prepared as well
Rousseau, the "great intellectual" who disagree with himself, who say something in the morning, and its contrary the evening ... The father of totalitarism ... a shame for us, French people.
Shame for you, as a French, not to understand him.
Love to see stuff about books! Even betted with this group! Keep it up!
This series is so good. I hope you keep going.
After waiting so long I missed the live stream by 30 minutes.
At least now it's here. Time to watch. XD
Thank you for today’s video. I’ve learnt quite a bit and found the dark side of intellectuals according to Paul Johnson. I’m definitely going to get the book.
Wasn't the floating island of Laputa populated with Intellectuals in Gulliver's Travels?
To be honest, this is what I always look forward to with PragerU, the Book Club💙💛
I guess I need to read this book now. Great video!
The formula for writing a Paul Johnson book is to make a really good point with a whole bunch of fascinating people and always one person who just obviously does not belong in the list. it's been awhile since I read intellectuals so I can't remember who the obvious person who doesn't fit is but it definitely had one. Is that the book where he included Mae West?
One of my favorite sitcoms is “Frasier.” If you ever want to laugh at intellectuals watch it.
I love that show 😂
Paul Johnson is the ultimate teacher.
“He met reality”...gold.
In the context that you’re using “intellectual”, I think “philosopher” should be used. Intellectual suggests an open mind and unbiased study of understanding yet doesn’t, while philosophers are more nuanced deep-thinkers. Many “intellectuals” today are rigid thinkers and of biased opinions. I don’t consider them intellectuals. Not in today’s standards. (Btw I consider Peterson an intellectual and a philosopher. Ditto for Sowell)
As someone who likes to over intellectualize and went to an ivy league school - intellectualism is overrated. Like any other pursuit - the vast majority of spent energy doesn't go anywhere. But unlike the common outcomes of other fields - like small business - the mediocrities of intellectualism don't contribute productively, they wreck the good ideas and productivity of other fields!
Wow this was a really complicated way of saying too much time spent in a book and not enough experience in the real-world makes you practically worthless.
That comment is (problematic) haha, I'm sure you'll appreciate that little joke if you indeed spent time with ivy league intellectuals.
@@kendalbridges897
Reminds me of an old saying. So and so is so heavenly minded they are no earthly good.
Intellectuals do serve a useful function, BUT they are to kept away from the leavers of power. They get close to power...more often than not Nothing Good Happens.
@@stevenwiederholt7000 my dad always said the last words on Earth would be
"it worked"
On a side note help fight misinformation about the woohoo flu. It is not a pandemic and has a mortality rate of approximately 0.8% to 0.3% here is a little ammo to back that up
th-cam.com/video/rMWdPRhu_p8/w-d-xo.html
@@kendalbridges897
When this story broke I did something Really Crazy. I looked at the numbers and at the population size, and 2 words popped into my head..Rounding Error.
Here in Mn. Pop. 5.6 Million as of today 160 people have died....Rounding Error.
Johnson's Intellectuals always makes me think of the poem "The World State" by G. K. Chesterton;
Oh, how I love Humanity,
With love so pure and pringlish,
And how I hate the horrid French,
Who never will be English!
The International Idea,
The largest and the clearest,
Is welding all the nations now,
Except the one that's nearest.
This compromise has long been known,
This scheme of partial pardons,
In ethical societies
And small suburban gardens-
The villas and the chapels where
I learned with little labour
The way to love my fellow-man
And hate my next-door neighbour.
Look at all of those post-it notes in Michael's book! Let's see more colors next time :D
This is powerful stuff. Thanks so much for covering this book in a dignified fashion.
I'm open to the claim that we should be suspicious of an intellectual's arguments (not discount them offhand, but be suspicious) if he doesn't practice what he preaches. But I'd prefer to get familiar with the person on his own terms first, rather than having his ideas mediated through someone else. I've never read The Social Contact, War and Peace, or anything by most of the other intellectuals covered except for Marx and Ibsen. Knowles, you've spent a lot of hours defending Columbus, Washington, etc., from ad hominem attacks and inviting people to read the primary sources. I'd rather have had the Book Club look critically at some of these people's work before this one ರ_ರ
That was exactly my thought. You can’t group all of these people and their ideas in one group and claim that they were horrible people by modern standards. I’ve read War and Peace and some other works of Tolstoy and this man evolved throughout his whole life and reflected on his own wrong actions based on 19 century culture and life circumstances in Russia. He was ahead of his time morally, but in 21c he would be considered sexist, racist and what not. If we start examining actions of founding Fathers by today’s standards we can come to similar conclusions. No one argues that preaching without doing is wrong, but many of these people don’t fall in the same category as Russo and Marx.
@@konchokkadro7436 *Rousseau
Marxx never let facts get in the way of his agenda. Sounds like communist democrats today. They all had horrible hygiene. Just like protifa today. Intellectual = Dirt bags.
I ordered 2 from Amazon. Thank you.
An on point quote (from the bad guys in a game I play): "Our genius will pave the way forward. May all who are worthy be improved!"
Hey, Michael. Please do one of these for Thomas Sowell’s Knowledge and Decisions or his A Conflict of Visions. And PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do another for Robert Nisbet’s The Quest for Community.
wonderful book and wonderful discussion thank you God
Paul Johnson is a must.
@MichaelKnowles Can you do Mere Christianity?
Reminds of a book called Architects of the Culture of Death
Thank you so much for more education
Great review, haven't read the book..., but will certainly do it, Thanks...
COMMENT 2 of 2.
The solution to all of this is the 12 Step Philosophy, which came about around 1930 when AA was born. What the four words “as we understood him” in Step 3 accomplished is that they successfully synthesized religion and secularism. Those four words opened up the definition of the word and concept of “god”, and THAT accomplishment is a game changer.
And the 12 Step Philosophy is growing every day. So don’t worry and Fear Not! Help is coming. Relief is on the way!
This is really GOOD. Thanks, Rachel Maddow. You are looking Dapper today...
Great discussion, thank you!
I had a CEO tell me to never trust a slob. People that never maintain their cars interior, leaves laundry everywhere and just dirty dishes about. As I have worked many places it hold very strong to not trust these people. Now it's a rule to follow.
Speed Reading: don't repeat the words to yourself.
Reading Comprehension: lack of Reading Comprehension usually caused by not understanding or misunderstanding one or some of the words.
LOVE historian Paul Johnson!!!
Is that easy to read?
I would love to hear what Michael Knowles thinks of Life of Pi by Yann Martel! Martel says that the battlefield for good is not in the open but in the small clearing of every heart. I think that contrasts well with the intellectuals whose inner/social lives never reflected their outer/intellectual lives.
I read Johnsons books years ago before I even knew who he was. The early days of audiobooks. I ran with a CD player the size of a discus. :)
I took a class called Literary Theory at a private Christian college, and we presented Marxism in a positive light as well as in a negative light. We also read "Hard Times" by Dickens, and I would love to see Michael or others on the Daily Wire talk about that critique of capitalism.
I studied HT back in the early 80's in a history module within an art history degree and as I have got older, I have become less sympathetic to Dickens anti-fact rhetoric. He was responding to the worst excesses of the industrial revolution in Northern towns with Preston Lancashire as the template for 'Coketown'.
Clicked for Knowles, was not disappointed.
Added to my Audio Book list, and I plan to check out thinkr.org Thank you for both of the recommendations, and God bless!
Very nice, going to read this book.
Please add a link to a purchase of the book!
These are the best comments that I've ever read under a video. So many of them are way off topic...
This is awesome!
So interesting! Thanks a lot!
Great Review. Thanks!
What’s the next book? I’d like to read ahead. Down the road read some Plato, Aristotle, Boethius, The Federalist Papers, Kafka, Saul Bellow.
A new mentor???? *leans closer then settles back in chair. "Proceed." 🧐
Liking the look and sound of Allen Estrin too. A twofer mentor special. *Winning*
Wow this was great!
You were probably offending me 90% of the clip and made a lot of good points. 🤘
Though I think we can extrapolate from fundamental truths, I agree that extrapolations can become detached from reality.
Thanks, I just bought it.
The so-called intellectual, philosophical leaders throughout the last few centuries all promoted the supremacy of the state, but when you think about who overwhelmingly populates government positions from the highest level down to the lowest, faceless bureaucracy, they typically are fairly incompetent people who work in government because they could not be as successful, relatively speaking, in the private sector, or make as much money.
And this sometimes goes all the way to the top just like we’re seeing now in the White House with a doddering old man with very few accomplishments in Congress since 1973 but a whole lot of insults to minority communities (including Clarence Thomas 30 years ago during his Supreme Court appointment hearings) and yet still look where he is, even if he doesn’t know it.
Nice.
I have my own book list.
I read a lot and approve of this video
Paul Johnson is an honest writer
Love da Book Club!
I disagree with almost everything these guys say about intellectuals, some of their points about them are flawed in my view. However, The Book Club is one my favourite things on TH-cam right now. I don't need to agree with every single thing a person says to enjoy a good conversation.
Now do the Satyricon. Pweese?
I think it depends on what you mean by intellectual. Contrary to popular belief, not all intellectuals are secular. C. S. Lewis, for example, was a great example of a religious intellectual. Intellectuals think deeply about society, but they don’t always adopt a secular worldview.
C S Lewis would probably be categorised as a thinker, as they say in the beginning of the video.
@@gustavoafragoso And why the hell "intellectual" is categorized as something bad?! It is like being pragmatic is good but being opportunistic is bad. Being energic is good but being emotional is bad. I think that the title sells the book. By the way, most of the things he said about Rousseau were not true or they were taken out of the context. That was not really "intellectual" thing to do.
@Ezekiel 37...Rousseau lived off the wealth of others , abandoned his illegitimate kids to the local “hospital,” and then became an expert on child-rearing. Yes, he also philosophized about other things in his “spare” time but he doesn’t rise to greatness in my book, but maybe yours.
@Ezekiel 37, but I will add that we, living now, tend to inject our nowadays thinking, norms, etc, into the people we read about hundreds and thousands of years ago. So we need to be careful, but he still doesn’t rise to past philosophers and thinkers that I highly revere.
@@wade0921 I labeled their categorization of word "intellectual" as something bad as bad. I did not say anything about Rousseau except many things they said were taken out of context. From what I hear I can say that man (the writer) never read Rousseau. You can find him good or bad, but you are not allowed to lie about him. Rousseau never stated that we should annihilate our past nor destroy our legacy nor practiced such idea in his life. Nor he believed in true benefit of technological progress. Nor he stated that the state should educate our children. Nor he had communist state in mind, but rather city-state ruled by will of the citizens. Nor... Sorry, but read the man before you write about him.
Cleverness only works with timing
Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.
Haven't heard a thing and already a comment and a like
Keep u the good work Michael...love reading and i will read this book
Have Victor Davis Hanson on for Who Killed Homer
What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason!
how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how
express and admirable! in action how like an angel!
in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the
world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me,
what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not
me: no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling
you seem to say so.
For some time, I had been reading up on intellectuals and intellectualism. To respond to the idea that I might be "anti-intellectual", I could reply that I am "anti-arrogance" because so many self-proclaimed intellectuals are arrogant. Today, I would dismantle that further, including how there is a "requirement" that an intellectual is politically left, morally liberal, atheist, and so on. (I understand that for a while in Europe, the "intellectual class" was looked upon for direction by governments, but I'm uncertain of that.) Of course, whether I have the mental, educational, and other qualifications to be considered intellectual, I am immediately disqualified. Why? Glad you asked. I am a Christian, biblical creationist, Conservative - being a white male works against me as well. Fortunately, I am not interested in the approval of people like that. Now if you'll excuse me, I have more creation science material to write. -Cowboy Bob Sorensen
0:45 "unaided intellect". Intellect can be aided by education and peer review. Secular intellectuals are on the rise because religion can not be falsified (not empirical); lack evidence.
0:50 Morality is subjective. In my subjective opinion, intellectuals are good since practicing science and philosophizing about the world can be useful.
1:45 The distinction between intellectuals and thinkers is meaningless since an intellectual use their intellect via thinking.
4:00 Intellectuals have high readability levels because in the pursuit of knowledge precision (via extensive vocabulary and sentence structure) are important. An easy to understand author does not necessarily say the author has substantiated arguments.
5:40 Intellectuals became earlier with philosophers for centuries. Rousseau is right that tradition is not intellectually substantiated since most tradition is based on (at best outdated science) and at worst unempirical pre-scientific understandings of the world.
6:35 Rousseau valued reason as experience (in non scientific contexts, which I doubt Rousseau would oppose) is anecdotal. Most so-called wisdom was unempirical religion. Once again, morality is subjective. Pointing out the perceived hypocrisy of a person does not debunk their arguments. You never gave the context why he abandoned his kids since there is usually more to it than the Father being a jerk.
8:40 This counts as an ad hominem to call Rousseau immature instead of being irresponsible instead of pointing out the lack of substantiation of his arguments. Also, it is fallacious to extrapolate his personal life to his undefined positions concerning the state.
9:10 The crisis in education has been the mediocrity of the system, though forgetting the costs of higher education to low income people is an issue. Public education for high schoolers has been a thing since the 1910s so not much of an increase of the supposed increased dependence on the state for education.
9:35 The reason for the advocacy of free of direct charge (at point of service) pre-school and higher education is because some people cannot (otherwise) afford such education, meaning they do not have other economically viable options outside of state education.
9:50 The reason why local communities no longer educate kids is because of the increase of an education profession that are specialized in educating kids, and the increase of public education is to provide education for those who cannot afford it.
10:35 Biography is not sufficient since pointing out that a person has an immoral personal life, once again does not debunk their philosophical arguments.
11:30 It is possible to disdain the personality of workers while also believing they deserve a better life. Most workers are mostly under-education but that is more out of economic issues that should be overcome. Marx worked as a philosophy professor and journalist which count as real jobs, so that is inaccurate. Anecdotes do not mean one's positions are correct. Also, Marx, as they said, lived in mediocre-at-best housing, barely better than most workers. Engels wrote about his anecdotes of working class people in the 1840s.
12:30 Ideas can delve into material conditions, which can affect people's lives. Also, saying intellectuals do not love people contradicts the previous statement that intellectuals have a love for humanity.
12:45 Advocating for collective ownership of the means of production is not derived from self-interest. Same with Rousseau on state intervention.
12:50 Most people did not bath back then due to a lack of indoor plumbing for showers.
12:55 Intellectuals think and argue about the debatable meaning of truth (which has yet to be settled by philosophers). What facts did Marx disregard, he economic positions were derived from Adam Smith and David Ricardo.
14:00 Classes of easy circumstance refers to those who are wealthy since many people view their economic positions as by products of circumstance. Sure, Marx was paraphrasing but not misleading. Sounds like a quote mine.
15:22 Conditions cannot be measured due to data, also the actions of parties and unions helped. Marx believed that capitalism is better than feudalism. This day, real wages in the US have been stagnating, not increasing.
17:00 The reason why those who advocate for revolution is out of cynicism for current structures. They are aware of the consequences, but accept as necessary, in a long sense, not “attention seeking”.
18:00 Cuban was probably mis-informed about Cuba by comparing it to Yugoslavia, where workers did democratically control their workplaces via co-ops (despite Yugoslavia being a single party).
19:00 Most people died due to centralized planning, which was not really specified by Marx along with the death penalty while millions die under capitalism (lack of access of healthcare, food, and water).
20:00 I doubt a person who described imperialism as the white man’s burden as a genius, even for his time. Also, his stance on imperialism was talking about re-fashioning of the world.
20:15 Religion has not been demonstrated, so their advocates do not advance the world.
20:30 Philosophy is not the same thing as religion.
20:40 He stated before that intellectuals focus (“love”) humanity in a broad sense, which contradicts the claim of not caring for people.
20:50 Tyranny of ideas is bad when the ideas are bad, not good ideas.
21:00 Imaginative is not a good quality for a discussion about philosophers, and the intellectuals discussed studied philosophy, so they are legitimate philosophers.
21:30 Most philosophers talked about how the world worked in practice and proposed alternatives.
COMMENT 1 of 2.
They dedicated their lives to being an intellectual (while not being interested in the truth) because their work (and theories) relieved them of the pain their dysfunctional upbringings placed in their bodies.
18:20 / 22:45
Where is Paul Johnson these days? I have not seen his writing since 2016
He died a few years ago.
@@andrewmattison7000 he just died this past week
Another book that is great is Faith of the Fatherless.
Rousseau was just echoing Plato on education, strange for a presenter on Great Books to miss that..
Intellectualists vs Voluntarists: back to the Middle Ages...
I take offense to this, as I am an intellectual. (Not the kind he's talking about though. I just like to learn.)
Thank you for the video. I have a couple of disagreements: 1) America is actually a fairly anti-intellectual country; I don't think the admiration for intellectuals you cite actually exists outside academia; 2) that's a narrow definition of "intellectuals," and there are many intellectuals who would not fall under this umbrella; it seems as if this is a book about a certain type of intellectual, not all intellectuals. I appreciate the discussion, though.
Is the Author the same who wrote, "A History of Christianity?"
The same.
Yes. And a history of the jews, modern times, birth of the modern, history of the United states, and more
There was a cautionary tale about the late Paul Johnson by Leonard Wolf to Maynard Keyness not to make him an editor. He had a piercing insight into the true nature and color of Paul decades ago.why do I have to read a book written by morally deviant( he was paying a substial sum to a lady to flog him for 20 solid years). He had no moral grounds to critize in his scaberous books Bertand Russel, Tolosty, Chomsky, among several others.
To come from a broken home due to a majority selfishness personalities, I know through experience that the deprived Aptitude of success can drive people to desperate acts, I like to call a symptom of king madness. It's Financial obesity that is becoming an epidemic in a operant society. We are not free to our ancestral indigenous ways, but to be capitalized in hierarchy, socially and on the ladder. These ethics are socialcentric to manage intellectual levels. We are fixed to these disruptions. Without good there could not be bad, w/o the intellectual design there would not be agreement or disagreement. The levels of compromising are a difficulty due to the misunderstanding of the understatement in which could drive civilization into a riot. Upmanship is socialcentricism & ethnocentric, cause till today, certain organizations only help their color of the skin and not others. So why help them with socialism, when socialism is to manage this multicultural environment. It is a cruel world, the contemporary depiction
Critical thinkers seek truth, intellectuals seek to manipulate.
Ah, must be why many band musicians identify as intellectuals.
2 minute add in this video! Why?
Bills need to be paid.
My brother is an intellectual
Johnson history books : Modern Time, the world from the twenties to the nineties. The Birth of the Modern world society 1815-1830
What these men all had in common was an intense, hateful atheism. Their profound hatred of God rested on the nature of his creation; a universe that required hard work, and the endurance of emotional and physical suffering to survive. This they simply could not abide, and therefore, resolved to better their creator. Their pride rivaled Lucifer himself. These men were bitter, resentful, blackhearts who have brought great suffering to the world.
Hypocrisy at its finest. Paul Johnson had an 11-year extramarital affair (finally outed by his mistress, Gloria Stewart). Yet he points the finger at others. The pot always did call the kettle black.
Not quite the same thing as abandoning your children.
It doesn’t matter now. The plan worked. Everyone is obediently throwing away their businesses, jobs, and rights rather than thinking critically about our current situation.
When you can't win on the ideas you attack the persons
And yet ideas can not remain merely abstractions. Do these ideas have "cash value" in our everyday lives? Does living out our ideals produce in us deep, vibrant souls, or does it rather leave us sin-sick and despairing?
Joes shortcut to Literature.Who needs to read all those words? Let Joe distill it all down for you into a few paragraphs, saving you hundred or even thousands of hours otherwise wasted processing over wordy literature. :D
Awesome
The fact that an intellectual also happens to be a bad person says nothing about the validity of his theories.
Karl Poppers critique of intellectuals was much more reasonable
Why is Tolstoy in this group? He was not an "intellectual". He was a Christian.