RE: writ large, the last dregs (some back wash)

>Arrogance concerning intellect is often the result of thinking ones self as
right since some sort of intellectual reasoning was used.
>
I'd like to constrast this with a statement in your other post before I
directly address it:

>I think you are confusing my idea of an Intellectual, with some one who at
some particular time is actually engaging their intellect.
>
eh...which is it? In your second post you seem to be arguing that
people are going on reputation, not reason, while in your first post you
seem to be arguing that intellectuals think they're right because "some
kind of intellectual reasoning was used."

Fact is you're all over the place here, and when I address one group of
your statements you say I'm misrepresenting you, then appeal to your
other group of statements. You really need to pay more careful
attention to your words. I tend to fail to edit, but my ideas are
generally consistent from post to post.
Jim

You are right concerning me being unclear. The "some
kind of intellectual reasoning was used." was just the simple idea that many
people rationalize their thoughts, of course there is valid form of
reasoning but whether reasoning is valid or not is the underlying issue that
I have talked about at other places. I am not trying to be a moving target
just tend to use words in more than one sense and failing to keep it clear
for you.
Daniel

Now, back to your original statement:

>Arrogance concerning intellect is often the result of thinking ones self as
right since some sort of intellectual reasoning was used.
>

Everyone that makes any kind of assertion thinks they're right, Daniel.
 You think that your statements about "intellectuals" are right and mine
are wrong, and you generally try to make rational appeals (I would say
the basis of your appeals are indeed rational, if misapplied -- I really
don't disagree with most or even all of your value judgments). What
exempts you from accusations of arrogance? Why hasn't it ever occurred
to me, for that matter, to accuse you of arrogance when you do that very
thing?
That's just how people think.
Jim

This all applies to me as well, I am not exempt but I appeal to the areas in
my thought life where my arrogance is checked with external kicks in the
ass, it keeps my ears open not necessarily my mouth shut. I don't have a
problem with some one who thinks their assertion is right the problem comes
when a false confidence in fallible or limited reason results. Intellect is
enshrined as a Goddess and no one sees her warts, actually our warts that
she can reflect if we look. I admit that I am fallible and that all that I
say needs to be checked. I am arrogant at times, but the fact that I know
that I am, helps me not to take my assertions (and myself) to seriously
(dogmatically), hence less fear of being wrong more boldness and a
willingness to say things and be publicly corrected. I didn't invent this
stuff it is human nature, the guy with beam in his knows what a beam in the
eye looks like. It seems that arrogance is addressable, even the guy
without legs can understand what walking is. Humility doesn't consider the
source it considers what is said and replies with full knowledge of it's own
limitations. I am not accusing any individual of arrogance, I am saying
that it exists and it undermines many things including intellect but some
who reject any universal values could careless, and well ok they don't care,
that is arrogance. Again, we clearly see the need for checks on Enron but
not in other places; some are blind and persist in it (everyone is at some
time) because why? no money is involved? Nothing is consumed? Because
intellectual inquiry is free from selfish motive? Arrogance exists to a
greater extent where there is not an external kick or external motivation to
care but hey I am beating the dirt under the dead horse by now. Error
breeds error and arrogance is an error that must be addressed, preferably
externally. I may be wrong but so could you. I am not the physician who
can heal myself so I rely on you to pull the thorn when indeed the thorn
exists. There are some who would all chuck this into the trash can and call
it self righteous, ok, take Nietzsche's self will and rule the world, its
all about the power any way, right? Again, I choose not to walk alone I
enjoy discourse. I use my intellect and I reason but my trust in them is
limited. Some can call it hypocritical intellectualism, yea, who has the
right to say anything?
Daniel

Now, when you say:

>The intellectual who ignores the infallibility of his intellect or under
values it displays arrogance and since it often ignores the external check
then it becomes disconnected from reality.
>
It's really hard for me to disagree. Of course that's true. I just
don't think this is the case _all_ or _most_ of the time.

Who are these intellectuals that place all their trust in intellect?
 Can you show me one?

Let's review the catalog.

Intellectuals:

    are arrogant
    are disconnected from reality
    exclusively trust their intellect
    use social credibility gained from their status as intellectuals to
    cover up bad reasoning
    rely too much on reason
    think they're always right because they use reason

Come on :). Isn't this a bit much to ascribe to an entire class of people?

Jim

I guess it depends on what you mean by class, or whether thought or deed
defines you or both. Again like Robbie says, if meaningful generalizations
can be made about non intellectuals then how does sawing off this branch
keep you from falling? I don't want any one to fall but alas that is not my
choice, and besides what would we laugh at?

Daniel
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Apr 30 15:55:52 2003