I notice that a lot of your posts are reruns from (many)other forums. I also notice that you post as if you are lecturing us, ignoring responses and continuing as if you were standing at a podium with written notes in hand.
But is Barzun abstruse for the sake of it? I don’t mean dressing up two-bit ideas with $10 words, like some mediocre academic. I mean does he make you work harder than you need to just to penetrate his prose? And do you see value in that, other than a sort of rough elitism?
I don’t see value in making prose impenetrable just for the sake of obfuscation. Indeed, much of the abstruseness in postmodern literature, film, criticism, et cetera appears (to me) to exist simply for the sake of concealing the fact that it is intellectually bankrupt. By being so obscure that even its practitioners can’t break it down in to fundamental themes or principles that make sense it becomes the devil’s handmaiden of anti-intellectualism; a parody of complex thought that both friend and foe take with a ridiculous degree of seriousness.
Now, it can be fun and often instructive to make the presentation of an idea or story overly complex, use veiled references, and otherwise embed symbolism and irony. Writers like Umberto Eco or David Foster Wallace author deeply layered novels from which the primary enjoyment is teasing out the various references, doing the necessary research and side reading, and stringing them together to see what the author is really saying underneath the apparent nonsensical plotting. This is the literary analogue of a crossword puzzle or logic problem, and it’s neither to everyone’s taste, nor does this make it innately superior to other well-but-linearly-written books. It does, however, force the reader to use all of his or her faculties and draw upon a wide variety of knowledge, excercizing your mind in ways that most people are not challenged in everyday life.
Regarding Barzun, I’d hardly classify him as an elitist academic snob. Among his well-known passions were the sport of baseball and the genre of mystery fiction (in which he won an award from the Mystery Writers of America for a reader’s companion book). And his prose can hardly be described as impenetrable. Briefly paging through The House of Intellect, he uses language that is on a mature high school level, but rarely uses obscure terms or applies foreign language to introduce a concept, and when he does, he follows it with a very clear explanation of what the term actually means in the context in which it is used. How his prose, or rather the ideas within it, could be aptly described is dense; he compacts down a complex thought into a single paragraph that a less astute writer would fill a page or an entire essay with. And he makes no bones about expecting you to keep up; he’s not writing for a USA Today audience, or even the readers of Time Magazine; he clearly expects you to sit down and ponder what he’s saying, not just skim over it quickly while waiting for your latte order and then repeat it endlessly to coworkers like it’s some kind of revolutionary insight.
Barzun’s main line of criticism in the above mentioned book–if I were to be daft enough to try to summarize it in a sentance–is against both the commercialization of the term and concept of “education”, and the seperation from education the notion of intellect and philosophy; that students are not required, encouraged, or often even permitted to fully exercise their native intellectual talents in a way that exceeds the expectations of the system or creates the appearance of differentiation with their peers. Oh, sure, most public school systems have an honors course, or some special program for the “brighter” kids, and some teachers with the complementary intellect and natural talent at instruction can make great strides at encouraging students to exercise their intellectual abilities. But even in that best case, the bulk of students are permitted to slumber their way through the educational system–often through the collegaite level–without developing the necessary critical thinking and logical analysis skills that are vitally important to making any real sense out of the world. And so they fumble around through life, reading USA Today, watching The Discovery Channel, and listening to pundits express political and social views that are entirely unfounded by empricism or experience without doubt or question.
Barzun makes you think about what he’s saying, and figure out what you think about it, rather than feeding you simplistic opinions that you can mindlessly regurgitate at appropriate social opportunities. Is that “rough elitism”? And if it is, should that really be regarded as a bad thing? It is unacceptable to expect others to aspire to some degree of knowledge and understanding beyond their own provincial existence, or at least be permitted to enjoy one’s own intellectual interests and challenges without derision?
Stranger
Well, actually . . .
But you’re right, of course, in that it is not a conclusion your data could justifiably support.
As stated, a truism, hardly worthy of discussion.
You are not in another forum. You have not provided any context for your “response.” (In fact, it appears that none of your “responses” in this thread have actually been in response to what others have posted here.)
We don’t really object to the odd philosophical treatise, here, but we do expect some actual give and take discussion with other posters, not simply supercilious (and unexplained) assertions that they have, in some way, demonstrated your claims.
Either engage the other posters in a good faith effort to explore your essays, or take your essays to a message board more conducive to solipsism.
[ /Moderating ]
There may be anti-intellectualism out there but I’m not seeing a case for it here. If anything, I’m seeing a case being made for over-intellectualism - the deliberate aiming of language over your intended audience’s head. I recall a professor I had who wouldn’t say things like “that’s true” - he’d instead say something like “the content of that statement exhibits verisimilitude”. We’d spend as much time deciphering his words as we spent on the actual thoughts behind them. He was able to maintain an artificial superiority of intelligence by handicapping the rest of us. If you truly want to educate somebody, convey the information to them in the manner which they will best understand it - which usually will be simply and directly.
That’s not a recent habit. One of Doc Savage’s men, from the early '30s, did exactly the same thing, so it was a joke 75 years ago.
You realize that posts which don’t respond to what others have said are a form of anti-intellectualism also?
I do lots of crossword puzzles, so I have a nice, large, vocabulary. But the number of words one knows is not all that relevant. Using the correct word to express a thought precisely counts a lot more than knowing the names of lots of Hawaiian wildlife. I read the submissions of non-English speakers to technical journals and conferences, and I frequently see the wrong word used, and can understand why the author made the mistake. English has so many subtleties that I’m amazed anyone can do as well as they do.
I think that anti-intellectual bias may be the dominant ideology in America.
How does one identify a bias that is very common within a society? How does a fish identify humidity? That is a problem.
I would say that almost all remarks opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach display a bias. It appears to me that very few of us are acquainted with an intellectual. I cannot remember being acquainted with an intellectual outside of my college experience. If that is the norm then any attitude toward intellectual concerns must come from emotional bias.
I have for several years been trying to describe a very simple concept, i.e. disinterested knowledge, I discover that almost no one can grasp this simple concept. I can only assume that it must be so alien to our culture that it is beyond our ability to imagine someone seeking knowledge just for the pleasure of understanding.
There is a web site that discusses this matter. The conclusions support the following view: http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/WhyAntiInt.htm
Humans have curiosity but such curiosity is of low level and loosely motivated. In the US curiosity and study are directed at utilitarian matters.
No I wasn’t. Could you elaborate? I guess it is little wonder that if anti-intellectual bias was as dominant in our society that I would also suffer this bias and not recognize it.
You are correct. Learning words through cross word puzzles does not give one the comprehension of words in the manner that reading does. Learning how to use words cannot be learned through such means as looking them up in a dictionary or by puzzles. It is the meaning that we personaly attach to words that are important. The dictionary gives us the meaning of words but it is when we create the meaning that is another matter. We are meaning creating creatures.
Alternatively, if no one seems to understand what you are saying, it just might be possible that your idea is either flawed or irrelevant, of course.
Given the way that you have spread your message across an enormous swath of the internet, if your message had value, you should have encountered some number of people who could understand it. This would lead me to believe that either your message is wrong or that you lack any skills to convey it.
Given the large number of people I know who are very much interested in seeking knowledge for the pleasure of understanding, I suspect that you guard your idea as a private treasure and that if any person does not say the right words to persuade you that they have joined your adventure, you then dismiss them and add them to your list of people whom you believe don’t really get your message.
So what countries do you consider to be intellectual countries? Canada? Mexico? Cuba? Russia? Japan? France? Sweden?
It seems to me to be a sort of provincialism to imagine that America is some sort of colossus of anti-intellectualism. It’s simply American exceptionalism in reverse. We’re either the best, the toughest, the handsomest, the smartest, the friendliest, and the most honest, or we’re the greediest, stupidest, most gullible, most violent, most depraved. Only an American or possibly an Englishman could be so provincial.
I thought all Brits were intellectuals.
Well, except the soccer hooligans maybe.
Don’t forget us chimney sweeps, Guv’nor!
First of all, I distinguish an interest in learning from intellectualism. One can get all As, and learn all the facts required, without being an intellectual. I’ve already agreed that there is a bias against learning as opposed to sports, say. I was lucky. The high school I went to was so big (a graduating class of > 1500) that those of us who cared about learning were somewhat isolated. In our little corner of the world, being a jock (except for golf) was considered as out of it as being smart is in many places.
True intellectual activity, on the other hand, doesn’t involve just reading and writing, but rather includes a discussion of the issues with others - questioning their positions and defending your own. Think about the high level stuff you have read. Much of it not only posits a point of view, but addresses those of others. Contrast that to politicians who never open themselves up to address opposing views. Just writing what you think is important without responding to others is just mental masturbation - it might feel good, but it isn’t very productive. Letting your ideas get challenged hones them also - or even might cause you to change them.
This might be your problem right here. The meaning we attach to a word is not important - it is how we communicate the meanings and thoughts we have through words. That’s one of the reasons technical or academic papers are so hard to read - the meanings of certain words are very well defined, and a layman can easily be confused. If you write a paper assigning your meanings to words with well understood meanings without very good reasons, your paper will get rejected.
You have to consider the impact of your words on your audience, or else you might as well not use them at all.
I hardly guard my discovery. I ride through the land trying to spread the word.
Imagine that you and many other colorblind people live on this isolated island. All inhabitants are colorblind from birth and know nothing about color; there is no word for color in their vocabulary.
Assume Fred is a health nut who exercises constantly and is always advising others to start a strict exercise routine for their health. Fred is well liked but most people on the island think that he over emphasizes the value of exercise.
One day after pursuing a specific exercises routine Fred become conscious of color. He is shocked and frightened and discontinues the exercise. Many weeks later curiosity gets the best of him and he returns to the exercise routine and there again appears the perception of color.
Fred experiments with this matter and concludes that when he performs the afore mentioned exercise routine he can perceive color constantly.
If you were Fred would you inform your friends and acquaintances of this occurrence?
How would you explain this perception to others?
How would others respond to your efforts to explain what happened?
Picture me as Fred in this little fantasy. Picture that my inspiration is not color but an intellectual life. Twenty-five years ago I stumbled upon what I now call the self-actualizing self-learning hobby. I accidentally discovered the power and importance of self-learning and my message to all who will listen is ‘get a life—get an intellectual life’.
Socrates is my ideal here. I am asking everyone who will listen that they become critically self-conscious. I claim that if society does not become more intellectually sophisticated our species will not make it for another two hundred years.