Please, Mummy, I want to be an intellectual when I grow up

There has been a certain amount of discussion recently on the subject of intellectuals and their worth, and indeed, on what it is exactly that goes to make up an intellectual.  They have arisen mainly because of the commonly held belief that Mrs. Palin is as thick as a sack of spanners.  Some of the posts have been considered and illuminating, like the one written by my e-pal, Malcolm Pollack; whilst others have been hilarious, like the hoopin' and hollerin' from the commenters on the site of another of my e-pals, 'Sister Wolf', whose average age appears to be about 141/2, either that, or they're retards who have been given computers as a sort of therapy.  There is extra delicious humour to be derived from the irony that these nobodies with no brains are attacking a woman who has at least achieved a considerable ambition and reached high political office whilst simultaneously bringing up a large family.  Even 'Sister Wolf' herself reduced me to giggles when she offered up as an example of an intellectual - wait for it - William Burroughs!  Yeees, quite; a debauched, drunkard, druggie woman-killer who was once a member of the Church of Scientology. She's a card, that 'Sister Wolf', and who says 'the Yanks don't do irony'? 

But let us return to the question of what it is that defines an intellectual. 'Sister Wolf' describes them, in an unlinked quotation, as "a person interested in ideas and comfortable with complexity".  I would agree with the first clause of that proposition, but I'm not sure that being "comfortable with complexity" is quite the right phrase to describe the anguish of some great thinkers as they struggle to reconcile that which is frequently contradictory and unreconcilable.  Still, "interested in ideas" is, I think, a good description.  Malcolm goes to Google for assistance and is provided with this:

• "An intellectual is one who tries to use his or her intellect to work, study, reflect, speculate, or ask and answer questions about a wide variety of different ideas.
• a person who uses the mind creatively
• involving the faculty of knowing, perceiving, reasoning, reflecting."

Well, so far, so good, but does it actually help when we consider the basic question of whether or not 'intellectuality', if I may use that word, is a definite requirement in a politician. First, it must be asked exactly how much and how wide should this indulgence in complex ideas go?  Does it necessitate, say, grappling with quantum physics, the origins of language, the details of the Punic wars and the influence of agriculture in the history of man.  Dr. David Deutsch, for example, knows more than almost anyone in the world about the first of the above, but I doubt if he knows that much about the others.  Does that qualify him to be a political leader, or disqualify him?  I, on the other hand, know a miniscule bit about all of them because I, too, am interested in ideas, but does that make me a suitable candidate for prime minister?  (Don't answer that, 'Teabag'!)

Perhaps, then, it is the subject matter of these ideas that is important.  In other words, if you have an excellent grasp of, say, history, geography and economics then, prima facie, you appear to have all that is needed to qualify as prime minister or president.  Unfortunately, even a slight knowledge of history will inform you that all sorts of hugely well-educated intellectuals have achieved high office and failed miserably.  To pluck a couple of 'doozies' from the pack, consider if you will the late Sir Anthony Eden who served as a distinguished Foreign Secretary in Churchill's Cabinet and was therefore possessed of experience as well as a detailed knowledge of history, geography and geopolitics and yet who plunged to disaster once he was given the top job.  Also, consider (because I am just reading all about him), the late Emperor Hirohito of Japan.  An exemplary scholar, a man of wide interests including philosophy, history and marine biology, a man who had been trained from boyhood for the top job, and yet this man with deliberate malice afore-thought took his nation into a total and utter disaster. Oh alright, then, here's a third for the benefit of my American readers - President Wilson - a brilliant lawyer, a Ph.D., a masterful political operator, but a total disaster in too many ways.

I could go on but it seems to me that a background of scholorship is no guarantee of intelligence.  On a personal note, I have come across far too many examples in 'Blogdom' of highly educated idiots garlanded with degrees and Ph.Ds for me to take anything other than a sceptical view of university (so-called) education.  I have no idea if the educated Mr. Obama will be a successful president, not does he, nor does anyone else.  Equally, I have no view as to how successful or not Mrs. Palin might be should she realise her ambition.  I say again, it is the job that maketh, or breaketh, the man, or the woman; and perhaps the single most important requirement for all of them to possess is that rare but blessed ability to learn quickly from mistakes.  Unfortunately, until they make them, we will never know.  Sleep well!

NB: My links are to Wikipedia which does not imply my total trust in their judgments but which I offer up as a quick, general briefing.

Comments

[ortega]

Yes, intelectuals despise the likes of Palin who, at least, get elected. They, confortable with complexity as they are, wait that another gets elected and then nominates them.

Maybe you'll like:

http://kennethandersonlawofwar.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-class-palin-and-obama-note-to-peter.html

[David Duff]

Ortega, please see my post above.

Glad you liked it!
I recommendo you to have a look at other posts of KA. Much of them are quite worthwhile. He also writes at

http://opiniojuris.org/

Best regards.

[Malcolm Pollack]

To be sure, David, I think it is safe to say that even if intellectual breadth and a richly furnished mind were necessary qualifications for political leadership, nobody is suggesting that they are sufficient. Certainly I'm not.

But we do live in a staggeringly complex and interconnected world, one in which a great many cultural, ideological, economic, strategic, and tehnological influences are in play -- and I think it is not too much to ask that the leaders of the more powerful nations might at least take some interest in understanding what they are, and be able to communicate their views in coherent sentences.

I would also prefer that the occupants of my nation's highest offices not be in thrall to some of the most simplistic and childishly exoteric religious superstitions on offer anywhere in the world, but I realize that may be some way off. This is still America, after all.

[Sister Wolf]

Thanks, Malcolm Pollack. I too would like my leaders to be able to speak in coherent sentences. After the last eight years, it seems more of a necessity than ever.

As for my commenters being "nobodies" and "retards," oh my! How does one distinguish bewteen nobodies and somebodies?? "Retards" is a fun term, except when one's children have been bullied and hurt by it. My youngest has a genius IQ and is highly gifted, but the label of retard was a brutal consequence of attending a neighborhood school with "normal" kids.

So you might want to reconsider where and when you use that term.

William Burroughs WAS an intellectual! Read some of his essays! A drug addict and deviant, yes, no argument there. But that doesn't preclude being an intellectual. Think Marquise de Sade.

[David Duff]

'Sister Wolf', you disappoint me! I thought you were made of sterner stuff and that whilst you, quite properly (or in your case, sometimes improperly!), exercise your right to 'dish it out' with extra helpings of vitriol, I thought you were able to take it on the chin when some of it comes back. "Retards" is not a "fun term", it means what it means, people with retarded mental abilities which describes exactly and precisely most of your commenters.

And you pile absurdity (de Sade) upon nonsense (Burroughs) in extolling the virtues(?) of intellectuals as requirements in a political leader. Would you actually vote for either of those two, er, gentlemen to be the president of the United States? Personally, I would infinitely prefer Mrs. Palin to either of those two.

[Sister Wolf]

No no, I'm not extolling the virtues of those two writers as being suited to the presidency, although it's difficult to imagine either one of them making a worse mess than George Bush has done.

I would sooner elect either of them as governor of Alaska, though, since I imagine both as being poetic enough in their sensibilties as to value the continuing existence of the polar bear more than a barrel of oil.

[David Duff]

"the continuing existence of the polar bear more than a barrel of oil."

Well, in an ideal world, of course, one would like both but if it has to be one or the other then I can only say, "Sarah, git the guns!"

I say that out of self-interest but I would remind you gently, 'Sister', that its oil that powers hospitals, old people's homes, transport systems, factories, farm machinery all of which are crucial to the well-being of poor people. Nice, well-to-do, middle-class folks like you and me might be able to afford astronmically expensive energy from wind farms (that only work when the wind is neither too strong or too weak) but poor people need the cheapest energy they can get - and I use the word 'need' in its truest sense.

To paraphrase a famous quote, do you want to see 'the lamps going out all over America'?

Commenters both here and over at your place keep remarking on how complicated the world is, which is why they insist on having intellectuals to lead them. Energy policy is ferociously complicated and loaded with the dread fear of unintended consequences, which is why I shall watch with interest as your intellectual(?) new president matches ideology with practicality! Or, to put it another way, how many people will vote 'Dem' in four years time when their fuel bills have gone through the roof all in the name of, er, CO2?

[Sister Wolf]

Well, duh, I knew you'd pick the oil.

The creatures of this earth are not less important than humans, and here is where we will REALLY differ.

I would prefer humans to die out before they finish destroying the world for all living things.

[David Duff]

"I would prefer humans to die out before they finish destroying the world for all living things."

And would you like to start with, say, your own children?

[Sister Wolf]

No, sir, it is my most cherished hope to outlive both of my children.

However, should a sudden famine wipe us all out, I would still prefer that animals inherit what's left of the earth that human's haven't yet rendered uninhabitable.

[David & Son of Duff]

But I don't know of any part of the earth, nuclear test sites excepted, that have been "rendered uninhabitable" by, say, the last 1o,ooo years of human history. What I do know of is zillions and zillions of square miles of earth that are now very habitable, er, and you're living in part of it today. Shame on you!

Just curious, but why do you hate humankind so much whilst simultaneously showing great sympathy for individuals?

I assume your first sentence in which you implied that you hoped your children would die before you was either irony or misplaced syntax. Personally, I keep telling 'SoD' (Son of Duff) that I am determined to be a burden! He reckons I have been practicing for forty years.