Is the US an anti intellectual country?

in·tel·lect ([FONT=verdana, sans-serif] P [/FONT]) Pronunciation Key (
ibreve.gif
n
prime.gif
tl-
ebreve.gif
kt
lprime.gif
)
n.
    1. <LI type=a>The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding.
    2. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. See Synonyms at mind.
  2. A person of great intellectual ability.
The direction of the discussions is, imo, more a perception of the word. The acquiring of knowledge is based on an academic tradition which is only for a few. As many already said; do and don't talk, while abstract thought is a key word for intellectualism.

intellectual workers engaged in creative literary or artistic or scientific labor
Click to expand...

This too hints towards a tradition of acquiring knowledge via the literary way. I have to admit that I might be biased on this, but that's what an opinion is for.
It should als be made clear that one of the latter isn't better. sing an empirical route to get things done is a trait many scientist do not have (this too is from personal experience from my uni-time) Intellectualism can make one ridgid in his problem solving abilities. I reckon that, as always, the combination of both is the best of two worlds.
 
major liability said:
Well, since we have free speech it's hard to be anti-intellectual, though I suppose if no-one wanted to listen to your rants it could be interpreted as such.
Click to expand...

:cheers:

I think that America is not necessarily anti-intellectual (though certain prominent groups and organizations in the country are), but it is becoming decidedly closed-minded.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree on America as a whole being close-minded. Look at how many societal changes have taken place from say. . 1950 to present. From tolerance to the way we dress, to the acceptable way a child is punished, to the way people interact socially etc.

On the other hand, I do agree if you are only applying that comment to certain groups and organizations within America.
 
Last edited:
Just to make sure..... but what is your definition of anti-intellectual? I myself, look at it in an academic way; key words are knowledge, analysis and deep thought. But I read many other interpretations so before I go on, please explain what is meant by it. The definitions given earlier are not really kept in account.
 
And there are some who believe that a true "intellectual" is an over educated nitwit.:sarc: Someone who has been "educated" far beyond the level of his intelligence, and far beyond his ability to understand what he has learned.
 
Anti-Intellectual.

In my definition, it is defined as: 1. Immediate conclusions without using the scientific approach and logical reasoning. 2. Narrow minded, no cultural appreciation 3. Against creativity.
 
The unibomber was considered very intelligent and most of his victims were considered intellectuals since they were in academia and business executives.
 
I think most of the people who call the US anti-intellectual are either grossly uneducated about the history of sociatal intellectualism or just have stupid ideas and no one wants to hear them so they retreat into the ivory tower of "well obviously I'm just so far BEYOND them, that's why they don't like what I have to say"
 
Well I don't mind what you have to say WD, it's just a tat generalizing.
But I wonder why all of a sudden the people who have been saying: don't wait so long, let's do it" or "The Euro's do nothing but talk while we have to act" and many more of these exclamations.... they are the ones who say that they are intellectuals.
Also I'd like to stress that being intellectual is just added value, while intelligence is more then enough. So you have this very big group of people in the US who pride themselves on getting the job done and being practical. And suddenly you are intellectuals as well! That just don't match...

(Once again, intellectualism is just a means and not a goal. Being intellectual doesn't make you any better.)
 
Unfortunately, "intellectual thought and discourse" is all too often used as a justification for the lack of moral and/or physical courage needed to make difficult decisions, and act upon them, even when the evidence supporting such decisions is unimpeachable.
 
localgrizzly said:
Unfortunately, "intellectual thought and discourse" is all too often used as a justification for the lack of moral and/or physical courage needed to make difficult decisions, and act upon them, even when the evidence supporting such decisions is unimpeachable.
Click to expand...

Rrrright.
 
localgrizzly said:
Unfortunately, "intellectual thought and discourse" is all too often used as a justification for the lack of moral and/or physical courage needed to make difficult decisions, and act upon them, even when the evidence supporting such decisions is unimpeachable.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. All to often people say something along the lines of "Why didn't they talk about it more?" Spend a year talking about it. What more is there to discuss? If you can not cover all the various aspects of a situation within a years time and come to some sort of conclusion then there is not much left to do but act, or talk more. Meanwhile whatever brought the talks on in the first place is still happening.

It is nice to resolve disputes through intellectual/intelligent means other than physical conflict. But too many people would drag it out as long as possible to prevent the majority from seeing that nothing is going to change by talking.

A Scenario for you:

Country A was told by the UN to let peacekeppers in to help provide humanitarian aid and for weapons inspections etc and sanctions against that country would ease. Country A said sure. 3 months later the peacekeepers and otheres were kicked out under threat of violence. Sanctions were increased. Country A let them back in. 3 months later same thing. This happens for several years and nothing is ever really accomplished by the peacekeepers or the humanitarian aid and the sanctions never really hurt the government, only the people. Tell me when is the time to act? Do we apply more "intellectualism" to the problem?

There is only so much talking that can be done before you will have to walk the walk that you have been talking.
 
Marinerhodes said:
It is nice to resolve disputes through intellectual/intelligent means other than physical conflict. But too many people would drag it out as long as possible to prevent the majority from seeing that nothing is going to change by talking.


There is only so much talking that can be done before you will have to walk the walk that you have been talking.
Click to expand...

Semper Fi, sir!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top