tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post6107819986146532576..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: Public IntellectualsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-30928216099034537752008-02-23T17:41:00.000-05:002008-02-23T17:41:00.000-05:00Paraphrasing:Sneering, "Their books sell like soap...Paraphrasing:<BR/><BR/>Sneering, "Their books sell like soap!"<BR/><BR/>"Like you wish yours did."<BR/><BR/>Here's to Rand's books selling like soap 50 years later!Jeffrey Perrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-42837798090802778262008-02-22T11:50:00.000-05:002008-02-22T11:50:00.000-05:00HI, Anonymous: While I was researching Sparrowhawk...HI, Anonymous:<BR/> <BR/>While I was researching Sparrowhawk and the 18th century, I came upon numerous anecdotes of the period's leading thinkers and intellectuals discussing (condemning, appraising, praising, wondering) Immanuel Kant's papers, which were widely distributed in the various schools of thought and salons. So, he wasn't an unknown; quite the contrary, he was very well known, and David Hume, for example, not only read his papers but treasured the compliment Kant paid him. So, Kant was more "public" than most people realize, and not as cloistured as "legend" has it.<BR/> <BR/>Also, don't be so harsh on pundits. Many of them make more astute observations of the scene in politics and so on than do "official" intellectuals. From my perspective, there are different grades of "public" intellectuals, from "pundit" all the way up to say the caliber of Rand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-28458309885924233172008-02-22T10:50:00.000-05:002008-02-22T10:50:00.000-05:00This time a working link.This time a working <A HREF="http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/intellectuals/results.htm" REL="nofollow">link</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-69807346349683716982008-02-22T10:49:00.000-05:002008-02-22T10:49:00.000-05:00No, Ed, you're wrong about Kant. He was definitely...No, Ed, you're wrong about Kant. He was definitely not a public intellectual. He was a cloistered intellectual. He wrote lots of technical treatises. Dewey wrote about contemporary politics, literature, art, educational theory, and he even helped found The Nation. <BR/><BR/>Of course you're right that both were destructive. That's not my point. My point is that there is a difference between these three things: pundit, public intellectual, cloistered intellectual, and you're not recognizing it. Pundits are paid hacks who make little cultural difference. Cloistered intellectuals have social impact only in the long term. Public intellectual have significant cultural impact in the short term. <BR/><BR/>So we need more *good* public intellectuals, not just pundits. Who are the public intellectuals today? Not the facile pundits you mention. Take a look here: <BR/><BR/>http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/intellectuals/results.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-1870289005944234312008-02-20T17:17:00.000-05:002008-02-20T17:17:00.000-05:00Many of the "public intellectuals" can now be foun...Many of the "public intellectuals" can now be found online, I would think.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-90535668935075232702008-02-20T11:03:00.000-05:002008-02-20T11:03:00.000-05:00Anonymous: Judging Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, et...Anonymous: Judging Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, et al. by contemporary standards of brilliance, originality of thought, and articulation, they are modern "public intellectuals." I was typing off the top of my head. <BR/><BR/>As for giving Dewey short shrift, what you say is true, but then, Kant was equally prodigious in the volume of his writing, commenting on a variety of subjects. So, I would treat Kant with the same short-shriftness as I would Dewey. They've both done us a lot of damage because they were so "intellectual." And I didn't want to embark on a sideline essay on Dewey. Ed ClineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-21182525750548003112008-02-19T16:24:00.000-05:002008-02-19T16:24:00.000-05:00Most pundits are simply not intellectuals. They're...Most pundits are simply not intellectuals. They're hacks. Case in point: Maureen Dowd. You've got to have an intellect to be an intellectual. The same probably goes for dozens of right-wing pundits who dutifully trot out talking points. You give short shrift to John Dewey, but however much we may disagree with him, he was a public intellectual par excellence, writing voluminously on every subject, relating everything to his pragmatist philosophy. We should have more public intellectuals like Dewey, in that regard. They just shouldn't be pragmatists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com