Many of the above comments, and especially the main entry, seem to hail intellectualism, in its “true form,” as being something that requires open-mindedness and curiousity, without resorting to something of a polemic.

At the same time, intellectualism must be put to use in the everyday world — and as such, why shouldn’t it be done in a variety of forms? For instance, let’s say someone releases an article in the NYT that advocates some kind of welfare reform. In order to advocate effectively (and to reach the public) it might have to derail the staus quo welfare legislation. The article should support its own case well, and might even bring up some good points regarding the status quo, but it should also attempt to refute it. Sometimes, especially in the political arena (where intellectual discussions often reach their critical, if slightly less sophisticated, level), ideas should become somewhat harsh, even if on the verge of a polemic. I just wouldn’t rule that out, because when push comes to shove, the point must be made.

Granted, polemical arguments may not be considered intellectuality in its “purest form,” but this is the real world, and as long as the argument is thoughtful and does not promote gross generalizations, hatred, etc., I don’t see why it cannot fall under the umbrella of intellectualism.

I do, however, see a bit of a false dichotomy in the idea that making sure that production of things that work well might eliminate the possibility of personal growth on the part of the builders. Couldn’t the builders continue their education and learning without being also forced to modify existing designs? I think so.

I’m not advocating a push to always make things in new ways, merely suggesting that it is beneficial for us all to at least understand that other ways exist and what their benefits and costs may be.

Great comments so far everyone! Thank you!

So to stay with Stevens article, while I think it was cool that the Phoenicians sailors got so far away, it was also necessary for some Phoenicians to stay at home and build reliable ships. And if the shipmakers had created every ship in a unique, creative way, who knows how many ships would have been lost at see due to ship design errors?

Of course I also appreciate creative ship design, but that should be done with experimental ships that are then tested in known waters first. Meanwhile, the other “production ships” must still be built and repaired, and _someone_ has to do that dull job so that others can explore, no?

Note, I am an intellectual myself and love knowledge (I devour hundreds of audio books and podcasts a year), so I’m not speaking as accuser, I’m speaking as someone that constantly needs to keep the above in check because intellectualism is both a blessing and a curse that constantly needs to be kept an eye on.

If intellectuals as a whole, saw the curse in their blessings, then anti-intellectualism wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

Just my 2 cents.

This is a great little post, and so true.

I feel similarly, and especially so in the case of personal development. It frustrates me the number of people that never get over insecurities or ineffective behaviours and attitudes they’ve learned in childhood and teenage years. There are so many middle-aged adolescents out there, and I believe a good deal of them are running the world, pushed forwards not by concern for the well being and advancement of humanity as a whole, but instead for their own ego, or need to satisfy some emptiness within them that they never bothered to really consider why it is there.

You might be interested to check out http://www.thevenusproject.com, homepage of a project that looks at alternative societal models. There’s all kinds of wonderful inventions there that are based upon common sense approaches to technology and psychology, which supercede all personal motivations.

I’ve just joined the linux community and I love this air of free thinking that surrounds it all!

It’s one thing to think, study, reflect, speculate, or ask and answer questions about a wide variety of different ideas. It is another thing to do so without attacking people’s beliefs. To use religion as an example. It is not Intellectual to say “God does not exist” and anyone who says it, regardless of how smart they are (or think they are), is not an Intellectual. It is Intellectual to say something like “I don’t believe in God because I find science and evolution to be more probable”. You will find many hard-line atheists who do attack others beliefs (and think it’s their duty to do so) who are just SURE they are Intellectuals. They are not. Often they’ve just jumped from one side of the “ignorant fence” to the other.

In short, Intellectualism suffers from posers. Those claiming to be (or who are believed to be) Intellectual but do not really fit the description.