We are all blind to at least some of our faults, and the smarter we are, the greater our abililty to rationalize away our faults, or even turn them into our "strengths". So it doesn't become overt and undue racism, it becomes justified by genes, or scores, or history, or whatever.

As is true in the legal world, it's not discrimination that is the issue, it's undue discrimination. If an intellectual can convince him or herself that it is DUE discrmination, then it can't be "racism", or the demonizing of "other".

What do you rationalize away, CD? You are an intellectual, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Beyond that same shadow is the certainty that you have faults and prejudices about which you are either blind, or actively rationalizing your position.

Inquiring minds want to know. :)

Jake

but i suspect the answer has to do with matters too personal for this blog. (how's that for a cop out? ;-)

It was a rhetorical question, at least to the extent the question intruded upon your privacy. I expect no anser, unless in giving that answer you illuminated an insight important to you.

I am safe, of course, as I make no claim to intellectualhood. > ; )

Jake

Intellectuals do not sow, neither do they reap. They seek ease and comfort and make a great display of how hard their minds and their mouths are working. It's up the the intellectual to turn the privilege into something of (nonmonetory) value. I say this as an admission as much as an accusation. I earn something like a living indoors, without too much heavy lifting.

Which is my way of suggesting that regardless of what some intellectuals might pretend, they are not members of an exclusive club. Like it or not, intellectuals must accommodate such dubious personalities as William Buckley, Henry Kissinger, George Gilder, Milton Friedman, and even such dilettantes as Donald Trump and our clueless president (hangin with the eggheads and explainin what he thinks about Churchill, about God).

Unfortunately, the racists have been active members of the intellectual club since long before you were born. Our anonymous friends at Wikipedia provide a pretty wide overview of intellectuals' involvement in developing and preserving racism. The institutionalization of racism was an intellectual enterprise. Just look at all the busy doctors (reverend and otherwise) and lawyers who painted respectability over the basest behavior.

I'm not sure that the intellectual gig isn't so sweet and shady that it doesn't include an intrinsic temptation toward racism, or some other ism that keeps the rude masses from either crashing the party or shutting it down.

I think we need another name. "Intellectual" was born of compromise and remains tainted by it. You say, "part of being an intellectual is accepting facts and analyses even when they don’t fit with your social or political agendas." It's the honest, rigorous thinkers who deserve attention and respect and who help us to open our minds. Is there some term better than, say, "honest intellectuals" that we can use to marginalize the racists?

I don't know, I've met quite a few intelligent people in my time, and they can pretty much argue whatever points they wish to. But whatever blindness is at issue, the underlying strata is one of contempt. I'm reminded of the Herbert Spencer quote at the end of the Second Appendix of the AA Big Book

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

From where I stand, a lot of the isms out there emerge from that very swamp of nonreflective derision.

thanks. i'll try to remember to use that instead. very few right wing intellectuals are also rigorous thinkers.

But your last statement leaves me a little cold - it comes out like the "some say" of which Bush is so fond. So, what isms do you have in mind? Clearly the pejorative isms, such as racism or facism, meet your criteria, but what about other isms? Atheism, or Deism, or Monotheism, or example.

Cast us some bones, and say what isms you mean (or at least an example list).

As for MB and "honest intellectuals", well, all intellectuals are dishonest to one extent or another - at least to the degree they lie to themselves, and who does not lie to themselves firstest and mostest? So what we'd LIKE to observe is an intellectual actually struggling with their prejudices, not just rationalizing them.

Hell, the Republicans glory in their prejudices. So I think we can agree on "despicable intellectuals" - you can be a Republican and an intellectual, but only if you intentionally blind yourself to your own hypocrisy. We certainly have sufficient examples of that particular brand of dishonesty.

Jake

Discuss (and discussed for the last several thousand years).

Wagner was a most vile racist. Yet nobody would argue, I think, that he is the equivalent of Leni R (can't spell, alas).

Is the world better off, or worse off, with Wagner's music in it? I argue better -- who knows why the muse descends on one person rather than another?

So, I guess my answer is: Alas no. Though it is easier to be a good orator if you are good, it is not necessary. See Hitler...

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.