Talk:Anti-intellectualism
This article has such barely-veiled contempt for the attitudes described in it. Populism is a "temptation" of democracy? (Presumably an evil temptation that must be resisted.) Anti-intellectual attitudes are "mired in internal contradictions" because there is more than one type of anti-intellecutalism? DanKeshet
- Well, maybe. (I think it was better than what it replaced. :-) Still, I think it's wrong to present "faith based world views" contrasted on similar "views" from "scholarship," as if they're somehow equal alternatives, or even talking about the same thing. The real problem as I see it is exactly that: religions make claims about natural history, the provenance of religious writings, and so forth, which makes them open to unwanted contradiction by people outside the tradition. Moreover, the way it reads now, omitting the credit for literacy and traditional art, strikes me as even more hostile to religion, a parodistic, one-sided view, than what I had originally wrote there. -- IHCOYC 16:19, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Why would we not present religious and secular intellectual worldviews as "equals"? Does NPOV mean "degrade religion"?
- Also, I thought the bit about religions being responsible for learning and how religious people own many books sounded very paternalistic, especially considering that you used the phrase "in fairness to religion...". It sounds like we're saying that intellectualism is a goal and religions are good insomuch as they facilitate it and bad insomuch as they prevent it. Could you imagine in an article on intellectuals: "Intellectuals, through their emphasis on book learning, tend to degrade and destroy the spiritual side of life. In fairness to intellectuals, though, their dogged pursuit of literacy has resulted in more people being able to read scripture." That's how the bit on religion sounded to me. DanKeshet 16:33, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- If you or someone else can write it better, do it. I do think that it should somehow point out that art, literature, and a lot of scholarship and other cultural endeavours are indeed related to the "spiritual side of life," rather than being somehow opposed to it; and that historically religions have done more to foster these things than oppose them. The conflicts tend to lie in the natural sciences and historical scholarship. -- IHCOYC 16:41, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I like your new version better, and I think what you just said here, that much of scholarship and religion are mutually compatible belongs in the article. I just don't want the article to "take sides" in the dispute, if there is one, between some religion and scholarship. DanKeshet 16:54, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I tried a change I hope others find an improvement. Also, I am troubled by the section on pragmatism, which actualy sounds pretty iognorant -- Perice, Dewey, and James were real intellectuals! SLR
- Perhaps the kind of "pragmatism" in the article does need to be distinguished from philosophical pragmatism. -- IHCOYC
What's with the "Anti-intellectualism is found in every nation on earth, but has become associated in particular with the United States of America" BS? How NPOV is that? Anti-intellectualism is a broad phenomenon. It is not NPOV to talk about this in terms that either state openly and at least in slightly veiled form that all anti-intellectualism has to do with America and Christianity. -- Watcher
I am removing this thing: "For example, in 1843, Bayard R. Hall wrote of frontier Indiana, that "(w)e always preferred an ignorant bad man to a talented one, and hence attempts were usually made to ruin the moral character of a smart candidate; since unhappily smartness and wickedness were supposed to be generally coupled, and incompetence and goodness." " This way out of context and makes no sense here, other than for the purpose of pouring dirt on all things American. There are plenty of realistic examples of anti-intellectualism in American popular culture without this particular pearl.
This here statement: "When Richard Nixon evoked the virtues of a "silent majority," he indicated by implication that he was governing with their interests in mind, as opposed to the interests of a minority that was unrepresentatively vocal and loud in their beliefs." has nothing to do with anti-intellectualism. Who says that the silent majority was somehow anti-intellectual? The silent majority surely included plenty of very intelligent and educated people who remained just as silent as the average Joe.
Ok, I am finished editing it for today. I think now it is much more informative and not nearly as POV as before. Nevertheless, that may be my POV :) so feel free to weigh in. -- Watcher
Forrest Gump image
The Forrest Gump DVD cover image placed in the article by User:Ihcoyc is problematic for two reasons.
- While the character in question was "simpleminded", there's no indication that he was actively anti-intellectual in his views.
- The use of the image is potentially a copyright violation.
I'm reverting the edit for now. Discuss? - Korpios 00:16, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)