When Did Intellectuals Become "the Elite/Establishment"?

Started by Shiranu, March 18, 2019, 12:28:16 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Shiranu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qAgmpX6c4U

While I feel like his opening remarks about the fact that 58% of self-identified Republicans believe that Universities have done more harm than good for America (and this is a trend that can also be found in places like the UK) are worthy of a thread all their own, I'm more interested in the body of what he says.


The core argument is, essentially, that in a country that has more millionaires and more billionaires in positions of power it is college professors, authors, and predominately middle-class/lower-middle class citizens who are the elite and who need to be opposed. The irony in this is that it is literally the people with all the power and all the money who push this narrative and who are elected by people who are nominally opposed to excessive power.




This leads into some conjecture...


What strikes me as interesting is that in many ways the times we live in do not parallel just The Dark Ages (which weren't as Dark as people made them out to be), but more specifically and accurately it parallels what we know of the Bronze Age collapse. The world 3000-some years ago was incredibly similar in many ways to what we have now... cultures that valued art and architecture, that had leisure time and enough wealth for cities to be not just giant slums of peasants but instead hubs of luxury goods/entertainment/intellectualism, and most importantly an extremely bureaucratic set of states that were likely multicultural and highly dependent on one another (which lead to one failing causing the rest to fall in turn).

I wonder if all that time ago the Mycenaeans, Hittites or Egyptians had sects in their society that said almost the exact same thing then as we do now... about how it would be multiculturalism or globalization that would be the death of society, that it was the intellectuals who strayed from the gods who would bring about destruction or that their societies needed to become more insular and isolationist to survive despite living in a global economy that prohibits that from happening.

I wonder if they were so busy dealing with infighting that they remained oblivious, or at least incapable of dealing with, the sea people that invaded their states and sent the West into a thousand years of fractured states and constant bloodshed. Did they see the writing on the wall and ignore it, or ever think that the best choice might have been to work together?

While on a technological level we have reached heights humanity barely could dream of even 50 years ago (much less 3000), in many ways the societies of these states were living a human life very much the same as we do. The Dark Ages was the fall of a unified state, but the Bronze Age Collapse was the collapse of a "global" (or semi-global) economy, and the destruction it left in it's wake was far worse than the collapse of the Roman Empire. If it took 1000 years to recover from this event, how long will it take humanity to recover from a truly global collapse like we now stare at? Could humanity recover?

"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Baruch

Intellectuals, in the West, start with a few nut cases in Greece.  Thales, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Xenophanes.  It starts with rejection of religious tradition (the Greeks didn't have religious authorities like they had in Egypt).  Rejection of tradition was punished (see Socrates, punished by citizens, not priests).  These intellectuals have usually been seen as irrelevant or useful fools by the authorities.  With the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution ... it was clear that intellectuals are a threat to any status quo, but a source of ideas that bring technology and medicine.  The colleges are a cargo cult.

So today, are intellectuals elite?  No, they are like Renaissance artists, working for kings and popes.  That and egomania.  See Michelangelo.  Though perhaps artists are more important than intellectuals ;-)  There were probably Mycenaeans who were saying "The Trojans Did Nothing Wrong" ;-))  Your video seems updated Sans Cullote.

The Mycenaeans  were Republican?  That is quite some projection.  Yes, society expands until it cannot, then it collapses.  And each cycle is different.  Population excess, disease, systemic disruption, resource depletion, environmental degradation.  See "Collapse" by Jared Diamond.  Democrats want to undo social expansion, really?  They are simply arguing over who is in charge of the excess.  If their "back to nature" movement was real, they would drop their clothes, and go live in the forest with Euell Gibbons ;-)

Got the book, here is the video ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyry8mgXiTk

The barbarians may be simply exploiting a weakness, not causing it.  Alaric the Goth was pro-Roman, until they left him no choice, but to sack Rome.

Yes, the elites are oblivious.  They always are (since they aren't tied to the peasant reality).  The Roman elite in Trier (W Germany) in early 400s, were busy in the Roman baths, when the Germans crossed the Rhine.  That is where they died.  Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we may die.

For those with shorter attention spans ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkMP328eU5Q

The Bronze Age didn't end in W Europe/Britain until 500 BCE.  The coming of the iron working Celts and Teutones.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Unbeliever

It's in the interest of the filthy rich to dumb down the voting population. They've been at it for a long time, and their methods are succeeding. They know that stupid, uneducated people are much easier to manipulate than fact-based voters, that's why trump said "I love the poorly educated." Unfortunately, as Rushdie pointed out, it isn't just America that has been dumbed down, but most of the world.

I'd really like to read his book that he mentioned, The Golden House.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Baruch

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/sep/16/the-golden-house-salman-rushdie-review

But the Left is the scorpion of the parable.  The Kekistanis are the frog.

Bonfire of the Vanities?  Definitely!  Big city America, what could go wrong?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

drunkenshoe

#4
I accept the general premise, but the connections are myopic to me. But may be I missed your point. Because you are describing bourgeoisie in a nutshell. Bourgeoisie before the modern state?

The general approach to the problem of Bronze Age Collapse is the climate change of some sort of besides other casues and reasons. In my opinion, it could be a natural state of stagnation and collapse. I mean, they thrived for a long time since the neolithic, but then rached a natural limit with what they can do with what they have. Until the iron, actually the steel and a certain number of people, there is not much else to do. And when the other, natural circumstances have changed, it went bad.   

However, when you say multiculturalism, it is nowhere near what we understand, so I don't get the comparison. First of all there are no places, aside from big cities, to be from. There is no understanding of nation. And where do you come from, who you are is a very distorted situation. A simple example closer to us, if you time travel back to Constantinopolis and ask people from a house in the city that who are they, they'd tell you they were Romans. (I am sure you know that the name Byzantine is a made up name in 19th century. Like Renaissance...etc. Dark Ages...)

Further than that, if you dig sources, you'll see that tribes or certain size of people from certain clans are named after their distinguishable various characteristics. Physical, style of fighting, dealing in trade. Literally there are clans called, crooks, liars, warriors, honest, hotheaded, tall& thin ones, sturdy & longhaired ones. And actually there are sources that claim a lot of adjectives and names in tongues that cannot be traced back to any specific lingual roots are coming from these names given in dead languages.
   

Quote...cultures that valued art and architecture, that had leisure time and enough wealth for cities to be not just giant slums of peasants but instead hubs of luxury goods/entertainment/intellectualism, and most importantly an extremely bureaucratic set of states that were likely multicultural and highly dependent on one another (which lead to one failing causing the rest to fall in turn). ...

Established cultures vs nomadic cultures.

But when you say art, leisure time, intellectualism, entertainment...these have very different functions and meanings. And mostly 'modern' concepts.

Art. Have you ever heard a concept called First Art? It's basically used to describe the fact that we can't ever know when human first created art. But because we are living in the hyper modern era and has some sort of a linear idea of art's adventure, we have an eye of what to or value as art we percieve it in a very alien way. And you know that it is not 'art' as in valued for its own sake. That's so young even for us.

Leisure time. For whom? Cheftains? Ollaves? The Druid or the Shaman? The midwives and healers?  There is no leisure time as we get it today in the period in question. There is a certain, strict calender people live according to or they wouldn't be able to survive. May day, harvest, all hallows' eve ...etc. But they are functional dates in a year that mark a significant event in daily life. their life is completely in sync with nature. That's how the regard themselves too. Intellectualism requires questioning that. Even for a cheftain. It's going against the tide and you need a lor of different circumstances for that. But what for. It doesn't have a functionality as we understand it. What are they going to do with it.

Understanding of leisure time as in to do, produce something completely different than your chores, duties...just for the sake of it, you have to travel 'forward' in time. That 'luxury' belongs to any kind of aristocracy besides the royalty. By aristocracy, I don't necessairly mean just the traditional aristocracy. This is important because this is the point that supposedly ties the intellectualism to the elite.

In an age everything is made and produced by hand, if you are not anywhere in this chain, you are either dirt poor and dying or at the top of it where people make it for you. Then you have leaisure time. To do anything. Learn languages (Elias' famous quote) to draw, to paint, write, invent...etc. More importantly, the education and knowledge for the sake of knowledge that that would enable you see things altogether; as a whole. In a certain period that's the rotalty and the aristocracy and much later it is the bourgeoisie.

We don't even use the word any more because the middle class has stopped being the 'bourgeois' long time ago. But with the French Revolution (what happened during the revolution is irrelevant in this context, Baruch) comes building the the circumtances for opportunity to claim a kind of life; not just working to survive or with basics, but enjoy, to do things in life, explore, learn, create and even making contributions. What is this in its ore basic form. It's 'freedom'. Again for the one who can afford it.

While before there was this person put up there by 'god' to reign; 'superior' by birth everyone else to serve him and live in that system in their place, entitled to determine what is what art or science, leaves its place to -very painfully and slowly- various individuals who can actually make art or science,lol. Because people are not equal in talent and intelligence and being an artist or a scientist cannot be determined by a fanstay creator. (Thinking about a clans, the dynamics of a cheftain reigning over and determining what's what is a bit more ethical imo than kings after him, because it's more primitive than that. He simply says 'hey I am stronger than you and that's why I'll rule. Becausde I can crush your skull if we fight." That's the biggest currency of the day for someone to rule. It's the 'superiorty'. I am caricaturising of course.) 

[The problem of person and society; individuality and modernism. Any philosopher, thinker, writer, artist, scientist in known history we pay attention to this day, we do because they literally battled with this problem. Some lost their minds on it. It's a never ending drama. Well, the latest chapter we arrived as humanity lacks any kind of dignity, but that's not the objective anyway.]

It's not a coincidence that process is followed by the greatest inventions, discoveries and revolutions in science and art occured some time after this change settled. But something else happened. Individality was born. And that is where the rubber meets the road as you guys say. Because at the beginning, the world was an epic unknown forest. Everything needed to be explained, unknown...etc. there was somany things in reach of the common individual. The world was mysterious. I mean, if we are coming by the Prometheus, on the stormy night Frankenstein's Monster was born, it was already finished. :p

Now, not so much. Not been in a long time. We have everything we have to survive at an hand's reach. We have standards. Most importantly, we don't need to learn and contribute to thrive; create something to be individuals any more. Everybody is an individual now. Everybody is entitled to anything possible.


But then Republicans do not have a place anywhere in this picture, first because they are not the 'elite' which means superiority and high quality which they don't have; secondly, exactly like the religious groups, any kind of education higher than primary school is a threat to their existence. That's the reason of retardisation of high school education in the US, who did that? Which was exported here. The difference between the private high school education I got and the present one has a gap between equal to one in state school and a prepatory private one ffs. And I attanded an average 'college' as we call them. These people are just rich. And money can do almost everything.

Same all around the globe. Someone who can actually ask an independent, honest uestion is a threat to two specific groups in this world. The right and the religious, pot and the kettle. Here the religious party at the power, often openly express their dismay of university graduates and say that 'they are harmful to us, because they don't want, trust or like us'. Seriouısly, this has been said many times from big media organs by certain individuals. What a fucking surprise!


So it doesn't mean anything at all. Most of these people have no idea what is a university. They actually think that university is a place people go to have an education to have a job and that's it. LOOOL That's the very essence of right; thinking backwards. It's a third woprld country thinking.     

They are in power right now and all this bullshit seems like a serious, real discussion. It's nothing but 'I don't like universities, they are baaaad, because they don't support our notions'. Pffft. Aw, really?

---------------------------------------------

I am putting architecture aside from all this. Because the idea that the basics of architecture is born in established cultures open to discussion and a traditional Western notion. 

You probably heard the name, Gottfried Semper? He is a 19th century architect who explained the principles of architecture with primitive tribes and as you may guess was not really popular in his age. His idea in particular sense, cannot be proved by direct evidence, but it is brilliant and helped a lot to the understanding of architecture in much broader sense . It's usually called Semperian Thought as a whole. (It fels like I have written about him here, years ago. I don't remember in what context.)

I think you would find him interesting. You could also get the picture of how the Western elite has regarded architecture and why? That would give you a lot of sense about the connection related to the subject here.       
"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Baruch

In early societies you had priesthood, royalty and bureaucrats (literate).  There weren't any military class yet, because aside from royalty, there was no standing army, just militia.  I think the priesthood and bureaucrats would count as bourgeoisie.  That might not count as obsolete Marxist historiography.  The bourgeoisie are still, 5000 years later, the enablers of the 1% ... though their demography has broadened ... with standing military and literate mercantilism.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

drunkenshoe

Quote from: Baruch on March 19, 2019, 05:49:37 AM
In early societies you had priesthood, royalty and bureaucrats (literate).  There weren't any military class yet, because aside from royalty, there was no standing army, just militia.  I think the priesthood and bureaucrats would count as bourgeoisie.  That might not count as obsolete Marxist historiography.  The bourgeoisie are still, 5000 years later, the enablers of the 1% ... though their demography has broadened ... with standing military and literate mercantilism.

I don't think, they wouldn't count as bourgeoisie, because they didn't have a choice in what they do. It is a duty; not even a job. Job is a modern, bourgeoisie concept. Yes, certainly they had privilages in rank. But that goes for a lot of roles.

If you wipe out the Dutch, French and English aristocracy; the later bourgeoisie those cultures created from the modern history, nothing much would be left behind. There wouldn't be the French and English languages to begin with. They suck. Yeah they all do, I agree with it wholeheartedly. That's not the point. 

Who is the example of aristocracy and the high bourgeoise in the US today? Kim Kardashian and Kanye or Bill Gates? Or anyone who is just worth around 500 million dollars?

For someone who is supposedly against anything Marxist, you often reflect the distorted outlook his fanatic followers have while strictly  assuming the opposite. :)
 


"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Baruch

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 19, 2019, 06:41:29 AM
I don't think, they wouldn't count as bourgeoisie, because they didn't have a choice in what they do. It is a duty; not even a job. Job is a modern, bourgeoisie concept. Yes, certainly they had privilages in rank. But that goes for a lot of roles.

If you wipe out the Dutch, French and English aristocracy; the later bourgeoisie those cultures created from the modern history, nothing much would be left behind. There wouldn't be the French and English languages to begin with. They suck. Yeah they all do, I agree with it wholeheartedly. That's not the point. 

Who is the example of aristocracy and the high bourgeoise in the US today? Kim Kardashian and Kanye or Bill Gates? Or anyone who is just worth around 500 million dollars?

For someone who is supposedly against anything Marxist, you often reflect the distorted outlook his fanatic followers have while strictly  assuming the opposite. :)


Your historiography is hopelessly Marxist.  I will stick with Thucydides.

And as a cultural-maven ... your empirical evidence is myopically contemporary.  Not necessarily wrong on its own merits.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

The rich are not like most people.  They have a strange way of looking at the world.  Reality does not intrude on their world very much.

If you are very rich, your children just seem to "naturally" get into the best schools from pre-K to post-graduate.  Even if they don't deserve it, they get in.  They are in the right neighborhoods with the right starter schools and move on the the right universities (because their parents went there).  When they graduate, their parents mention to equally-connected friends that they would like son or daughter to spend a few years as an intern (because they don't actually NEED any income of course).

After interning with successful people, they DO learn a lot.  I'm not saying that they are not usually qualified.  Experience does really matter.

Well, suppose you played chess with a friend a lot.  You would get good at it.  But suppose your "friend" was a Top 10 player.  You would get REALLY good at it.  Maybe not a contender for top tournaments, but surely better than your average player.  That's how it works.

It's the same in life in general.  If you aren't actually stupid, exposure to talented people gives you an advantage.  You can become quite experienced at whatever your mentors are skilled at.

That's how the rich used to get richer.

The problem comes when the rich decide that no one else gets to have much of a chance to have those same experiences EVEN then others show a talent for a subject.  The rich people do NOT like competition.

So what do they do?  Well, they start by lobbying (bribing) politicians to withdraw public funds that allow many people to attend college.  Saddling them with lifelong student debt "keeps them down" for decades.  The children of the very rich never have that debt burden, so they?

And then there are the obscene and anti-societal profits earned by some industries that they can only support by heaping money on politicians who need it to stay in office.  I'll give some examples:

Pharmaceuticals - 2 billion
Finance - 4 Billion
Energy - 3 Billion
Agriculture - 1 Billion
Defense - 1 Billion
Communications - 3,5 Billion

From https://represent.us/action/theproblem-3/

So when you discover that something costs a lot, there is a reason.  The very rich can afford those things.  Most of us cannot.  When just living can drain all your savings, you have to hope that politicians with outlandish claims that they will help you win.  Even when they never help you.

The solution is to actually recognize which politicians are going to do anything to help you.  Follow the money...  If they get their campaign money from big companies, they aren't going to help you, no matter what they say.  If they get it all from small donors, there is a chance.

Just some thoughts...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

But ... didn't you say you wanted to be dictator? (sarc).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.