Why do we conservatives hold intellectuals...

-Self | epigone73

[epigone73]

quick question, been bothering me for ages.

Given that the average leftist is a barely verbal barbarian, why do so many conservatives not relish our own cultural superiority?

I mean, for G-d's sake, why defend a culture the practice and refinement of which we seem to deride? ("eggheads", "intellectuals," "philosophers" seem to be terms of contempt.

The left, and others outside us, want to bring us down as a whole. It is all well and good to smash the faces of the barbarians, and even necessary and commmendable to do so, but why do we so often turn against those who are our natural allies, i.e., the conservative thinkers and scholars. Trust me, they need our help and support.

[Riley]

I know plenty of lefties who are articulate. It's just a shame that they cannot see more clearly on issues of substance.

If I had 'genie-in-a-bottle' political wish, it would be that, when debating a liberal, when they have clearly lost a point, they'd have the integrity to admit it, instead of the blank look and the changing of the subject that I always see from them.

[epigone73]

come now, wouldn't a troll be a little more clumsy about his business?

No, I'm quite sincere. I have noticed, even among my fellow conservatives in the academy, a certain disdain for our studies.

everyone wants to man the barricades against p.c., but no one (with a few exceptions, of course), tries to present a coherent version of what we are fighting for. We all know what we are AGAINST, but there seems to be a real reluctance to discuss what we seek to defend and uphold.

(And abstractions like "liberty," "democracy," etc. don't cut the mustard, I'm afraid. Fine, Liberty for what, if it's liberty.

Democratic self-government? Maybe, but it depends on the demos, if you know what I mean. The mayor of Mogadishu is not a legitimate leader because of a ballot count, anymore than sharia is acceptable because a mass of savages vote for it.

What I'm getting at is this: we need to do some serious soul-searching on these and other questions if our other efforts are to succeed. Action uninformed by principle is not a slogan I wish to endorse.

[Begin]

seminar poster

Spot-on assessment. It reminds me of the lady who called Rush Limbaugh, claiming to be a Republican, only to slip up mid-call: "I've been a registered dem- uh, Republican my whole life."

[epigone73]

Love the sentiment, and the expression, but I would like to think it's misplaced.

[Riley]

What I'm getting at is this: we need to do some serious soul-searching on these and other questions if our other efforts are to succeed. Action uninformed by principle is not a slogan I wish to endorse.

1. What, in your view then, are 'our efforts'?

2. To which actions do you refer, that are uninformed by principle?

[epigone73]

"seminar poster"?

Your suspicion does you honor, but I've got Straussian bona fides here. (Student of one of Leo's from his Chicago days.)

And this is exactly the sort of thing that bothers me so much.

[JRandomFreeper]

We've stated our principles. They are in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and countless other documents. That is what we want. We don't need to contiue 'studies' after the solution is found. It only denigrates the correct solutions that have already been found.

And, by the way. Absolutes exist, slick. Refute that.

/john

[T'wit]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your point. Conservatives rightly hoot at self-anointed "intellectuals" who hold ditsy views and couldn't make it as a burger flipper. But at the same time we certainly value intelligence (e.g. William F. Buckley jr., Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell). The thing is, a true intellectual has to do better than say, "Gee, I'm smart." He has to have a sound moral compass, lest his thinking go bad.

When pseudo-thinkers put their faith in the fads and fancies of the time instead of in timeless moral values, they are lambs for the slaughter. It's much easier to con them with bizarre theories than it is to fool a simple man of the soil or of the sea. As Chesterton noted, if a man will not believe in God, the danger is not that he will believe in nothing but that he will believe in anything.

[epigone73]

1) i would hope that our efforts are directed toward political and social restitution and reconstruction. We've been hammered from within and without for quite some time now, and I think our culture could use some maintenance, at least. Ideally, a counter-revolution, even if only an intellectual one.

2) Action uniformed by principle: For us to defeat our enemies, at home and abroad is not sufficient. The necessity for survival is of course paramount, but i repeat: what are we defending? OUr Christian heritage, the enlightenment, the Rights of Man? These things may all be noble, but they are in many respects mutually contradictory, and i think some of our woes are caused by elements in our own intellectual pedigree.

why crush the left and the Wahabbists only to be done in by atheists, to simplify somewhat?

[epigone73]

Wouldn't dream of refuting the existence of absolutes. but as to the content of these absolute truths, well, reasonable men may differ.

[epigone73]

love old G.K. Eliot: (paraphrasing) "If you will not worship G-d, then you will most certainly serve Hitler." As for the intellectual faddists, they would be Jacobins, bolsheviks, rosicrucians, depending on their time and place. what concerns me is that the left has captured the cultural and intellectual high ground (not my own expression, but can't remeber who said it first). They are educating untold numbers of otherwise reasonable people with their pernicious nonsense, and i do not see a concerted effort -- notwithstanding horowitz -- to do anyhting about it.

[Riley]

I repeat my question, and await your reply sans nebulous generalizations.

1. What, in your view then, are 'our efforts'?

2. To which actions do you refer, that are uninformed by principle?

Specifics, please.

[gcruse]

Given that the average leftist is a barely verbal barbarian, why do so many conservatives not relish our own cultural superiority?

Check your premise.  Academia teems with leftists who may be wrongheaded, but they are highly verbal, intelligent people.  If conservatives aren't smart enough to take the commanding heights of education, their impact on culture will be areas the leftists see as unimportant.  I'm not sure what conservative culture is, but if it is intolerance, religious bigotry, statism, and eager to surrender liberty for security, then it's not superior.

[JRandomFreeper]

May I refer you to Kipling's 'Gods of the Copybook Headings'? Reasonable men will not differ that fire burns, water is wet, or that socialism is an evil political system.

If a second-rate poet from a century ago gets it, and things haven't changed.... I think the conservative point of view is pretty sound.

I can also make the case based on sociological evolution, but there's not much point. You see, I'm just a cook, not a philosopher. And conservatives expect even their cooks to be educated.

/john

[epigone73]

1) I am not proposing a concrete plan of action, but I had always been under the impression that conservatives have wanted to restore and re-affirm the best aspects of our culture and civilization. Sound scholarship has always been a part of that, but i see it on the decline in favor of "transgressive" narratives and other madness.

2) As for the uninformed by principle, I will ask again; what are our principles? Are we a Christian culture, enlightenment heirs, Romans in blue jeans? It is not enough to defend our culture relexively, we must assert it in all of its rich variety.

To sum up:

1) no program or plan -- but thinkers don't have plans, and those who do are evil or follish;

2) What principles then are to inform our action? If we stick to the bill of rights as some divinely-revealed document, do we not slight the learning and wisdom of our founders? (No, the Constitution is not a 'living document'; strict construction is the order of the day.)

[epigone73]

"Academia teems with leftists who may be wrongheaded, but they are highly verbal, intelligent people."

But these same types orient their lives, and wish to orient ours as well, by a set of unexamined beliefs. we must not fall into the same disorder.

[Riley]

I will ask again; what are our principles?

Yes, that is what I'd like you to answer. What, specifically are 'our' principles? Again you evade. The mark of a troll.

Are we a Christian culture, enlightenment heirs, Romans in blue jeans?

And what exactly, specifically, does this mean to you? What do you stand for?

[epigone73]

Kipling was by no means second-rate. somewhere less than 1st, but certainly better than second.

As for socialism, etc., need I remind anyone here that such movements wdid not materialize from the ether, but were the bastard children of our own enlightenment.

fine, socialism is evil, we all agree. Now, two questions:

1) What makes it evil, and any alternative more desireable?

2) Since Socialism was born in the west, and was really a sort of impatient and militant version of the Enlightenment,
does this mean that this, too, is worthy of conserving? If not, then what about the enlightenment, which birthed socialism and our own freedom? they are related, you know. (see Esau and Jacob for a similar phenomenon)

[gcruse]

But these same types orient their lives, and wish to orient ours as well...

This differs from conservatives wishing to infuse the levers of state power with Christian religiosity, just how? 

...by a set of unexamined beliefs.

Taking beliefs on faith is the same as taking them unexamined. 

we must not fall into the same disorder.

Liberty is messy, capitalism red in tooth and claw.  It's how progress is made..

[JRandomFreeper]

but thinkers don't have plans, and those who do are evil or follish;

Once again I refer you Kipling. And his poem 'If'. Thinkers do plan, and planners think, else nothing gets done. Philosophizing for the sake of philosophy is akin to mental mastu.... something beneath even a cook.

What do you think about Aristotle's logic? Have you found a flaw within it? How about Plato? Does Plato present logical problems?

To be truthful, I can't remember a leftist that could actually follow Aristotle's logic. Lots of engineers I know follow it without a problem.

/john