REPLIES TO THE CURRENT QUESTION

Last week, when this site was launched, we posted the first of our "current questions":
Why is it that intellectuals often support the worst causes?

We received many excellent replies.  Instead of editing them, we decided to print them in full.  If yours is not here, we extend our apologies. A technical glitch can happen.

We encourage all of you to write again.  There's a new "current question" up.

Your replies:

Ken Crawford writes:

Quite simply, they feel, and have felt since ancient times, that THEY deserve to run things. This means they will naturally oppose any current ideology/governing principle which is controlled by anyone other than them. When that which they backed fails, it's because it was done wrong; something which would not have happened if THEY were in charge.

Ken

Eric Millard writes:

We associate "Intellectuals" as left-wing liberal. So the real question is: Why do liberals often support awful causes? Liberals tend to think of themselves as better than others.  The general masses are not to be trusted.  Thus they support causes that control people's lives; communism, big government, socialized medicine, etc.  

But mostly liberals want license.  They want license to be free from any guilt, burden, responsibility and discipline for basic life matters.  The gay liberal wants license to commit homosexual acts without guilt. The elite intellectual wants license to free himself any responsibility for leadership, thus he gladly hands responsibility to the state and tries to convince us that it is wise. The feminist liberal wants to be free from guilt and responsibility and the burden of raising a child, so she supports abortion on demand and wants society to tell her that killing her child is ok.  The free-loving liberal wants license to have sex with as many people as he can because he has no self discipline, knows it, yet doesn't want to feel guilt for his actions.

So it comes down to this: Intellectuals are smart people. And smart people are expected to be society's leaders and set examples for others.  Those who wish to free themselves from the burden of being smart have chosen modern day liberalism as their escape.

Thank goodness not all intellectuals are liberals.

Eric Millard
Royersford PA

Mitch Strand writes:

think the answer to this and many other questions is one of poor definitions of terms. We refer to people who stay in college all their lives as intellectuals. How much real intelligence does it take to play the political game for seven years until you become tenured and unfire-able? Yes, they study and churn out books, but are they really smarter? Think of the person I’ve just described: a college professor who rarely encounters students anymore, likely supported by a grant or a rich patron, accorded immense respect without really creating anything but opinions people accept because they think they are not in the same league, brains-wise. What real interaction with economic realities does a person like that face?
 
Out of what they believe is kindness, “intellectuals” would seek to guarantee that way of life for all people, of wages disconnected from economic worth, of promotion based on the whim of a committee of peers. That’s a working definition of communism. As for supporting those who would murder us, well, a lot of hip, telegenic “intellectuals” need a hook to keep them getting invited to talk show panels. In the talk show format, as in reality TV, the hook is usually saying something outrageous. Say something crazy and nobody questions your thought processes: they’re too busy getting angry or marveling at how profound you are.
 
That’s what I think. I think so-called intellectuals who embrace these “causes” are mostly con artists looking to keep the con running. They usually end up getting caught, and what’s so smart about that?
 
Mitch Strand, A/R

 

Phil Trubey writes:

Academia doesn't actually do or produce anything concrete.  They don't make
things.  They don't (usually) influence events.  They teach others that do
things, but by themselves, they are fairly impotent.  This may create a
feeling of impotence making them natural enemies of the powerful and
champions of the weak.  And the only powerful they know well is their own
government or the captains of industry.  Note that this applies to
professional journalists as well.

As an aside (not in response to your question), I've often thought that a
high school level course entitled "How The World Works" is sorely needed.  
What is a corporation?  Who owns it?  What do the various governments do?  
What are the essential steps in manufacturing an iPod?  How does an author
write a book?  Go through all the socio-economic levels on our society
starting from street dwellers to billionaires and analyze how they got
there.  Etc.  Perhaps a you-tube series or a DVD series would be more
accessable (and more likely).  Just a thought.

 

David Jenista writes:

I believe the fundamental cause is that they extrapolate local expertise to
global expertise.  “I am highly educated, therefore I understand…”  In
actuality, and particularly with the collapse of true “liberal education” in
our universities, these people are highly trained specialists
(anthropologists, lawyers, mathematicians, etc.).  They have little
appreciation for the accomplishments of western civilization and can’t
comprehend basic level “A is not non-A” logic.

This leads to gross over-simplification of problems and issues.  To take the
most basic of economics as an illustration:  The market pricing mechanism is
first and foremost a communications mechanism that provides billions of
supply-and-demand messages every day.  It is incredible arrogance to believe
that central planning can displace all of that data and still provide an
efficient national economy.

 

Eric Parker writes:

I've got a pal, a PhD type, who is one of the more analytical thinkers I've
ever encountered (and I get a lot in this line of work).  He is able to
grasp, inherently much better than I, complex thought processes whether they
involve numbers or philosophical concepts.  Not exactly an intellectual of
the caliber you would read about in, say, Paul Johnson's fun book about
intellectuals, but I think the premise will work.

He is  6'6", 260 pounds, played rugby in the day and is at home putting a
new roof on a house.  I think there are few intellectuals who can put a roof
on. That's the crux of my answer to your first question.

Best regards,

ep

 

From John Anderson:

My take:
 
In very few cases have I seen intellectuals also have a sense of humility. They have used their brain power to either beat down others or to rationalize to themselves why they did not come out on top. Thus they generally seem to believe that what they think is correct and appropriate for everyone else and that most people are beneath them and need to be told what is best for them. Not having faith in one's fellow man can lead to many problems.
 
I truly enjoy your writing. Thanks for starting a blog.
 
John Anderson
Florida

 

"Benedick Blogger" writes:

Mr. Katz,
 
Congratulations on the new endeavor.
 
I've often mused that intellectuals choose their causes poorly as a result of compulsively "questioning assumptions" in pursuit of novel insights.  "Deconstruction" becomes habit-forming.  It may prove useful in pressing the bounds of physical sciences ( e.g., second-guessing what we really "know" about sub-atomic particles), but its intoxicating effects yield headaches in social "sciences."
 
Hence we end up seeing otherwise perfectly rational minds question the assumptions that, say, human economic activity is motivated by self-interest or that private property rights are inexorably connected to liberty.  Next thing you know, intellectuals end up endorsing collectivism or worse.  I believe much of what makes conservatives conservative is our comfort with such assumptions that have served us well over very long periods of human history.
 
Best Regards,
Benedick

 

From Jonathan Elliott:

A writer asked this some years ago: Why is it that intellectuals often support the worst causes?

For decades we've seen too many members of our educated elite - professors, authors, Nobel laureates - lend their support to appalling causes like fascism, Soviet communism, even suicide bombers.  But why?  Aren't these the people who should know better?

One thing I've noticed about academics is there love for theory and system, which vie with their love for standing at the edge. You put up with the drudgery of getting ahead in academic life because you want to be on the cutting edge of things. One thing fascism and communism in particular have used to sell themselves is their avant garde nature -- they're the wave of the future. In addition, they promise systematic change based on all-encompassing theories. Thus all the bases are covered by such philosophies.

For right now academia sees radical islamism as a third-world revolutionary movement -- I'm betting the average academic has Osama conflated with Frantz Fanon somewhere in the recesses of his mind. Still, there's no real theoretical structure to radical islamism yet, at least not one accessible to western academics. Once such a theoretical system is assembled and promulgated the academic left will swoon.

 

From Wyatt Webb:

Hello Mr. Katz

Let me first throw some praise your way for your contributions to the  
PowerLine blog. I am a huge fan of theirs and have really enjoyed  reading
what you've had to say.

As to your current question, I think the answer lies in something  that
sounds mundane: human nature. The fact that we call them  intellectuals
implies that we have singled them out as being better  students of whatever
they study and generally more intelligent. The  fact that they accept the
title of intellectual means they believe  those implications to be true. So,
right out of the box, we have  created an aura of I-know-better-than-you and
I'm-better-informed- than-you around these folks. This plays into the human
ego in a big  way. And, I would argue, once someone has inflated your ego,
you will  do anything to keep it that way.

Now, when you're riding the ego train, the last thing you want to be  seen
doing is agreeing with the masses. Too much of that will  diminish your
standing as an intellectual. After all, if you admitted  you agreed with the
masses often enough, how are you any different?

Herein lies the trap. The intellectual needs to vocally advocate a  minority
position in order to stand out from the crowd. His ego will  drive him to
believe and support sketchy ideas merely because he  KNOWS he's smarter than
everyone else. His ego will also drive him to  believe that the masses
cannot be right, therefore something other  than the majority opinion must
be the way to go. His job is to simply  justify it with his superior
intellect, even if that means hurling  academic gibberish at the layman in
an effort to force agreement via  fear of the superior intellect.

So, again, I believe so-called intellectuals support some really  awful
causes primarily because of a lack of humility. The real  intellectuals are
those who analyze ideas purely on their merits and  back them up by actual
facts and not opinions or convenient theories.  A real intellectual isn't
afraid to admit that the masses may be right.

Thanks for the thought-provoking question and good luck with the blog!

Wyatt Webb

 

From "Podrazik":

The worst causes are generally totalitarian agendas and ideologies--which
isn't a coincidence.

These intellectoid Walter Mitty's display a conceit that they have all the
answers.  And, by virtue of their superior intellectual trappings, all
lesser mortals should prostate themselves before their superior intelligence
and ideas.  Unfortunately, in the free market of ideas, most of these
"solutions" wind up being laughably stupid and are thusly discarded.

Therefore the only way to make their ideas heard is to impose some sort of
thought control.  It follows that only through such totalitarian ideologies
(i.e.: Islam, communism, fascism) that a free exchange of ideas can be
suppressed to allow their "superior" ideas to dominate.

 

From Ron Kean:

After the 30 Years War, people were soured on religion.  Religious leaders
were discredited.  In Germany a group of academics arose touting the concept
of 'reason' - thus the Age Of Reason.  Borrowing from Plato's Republic, they
invisioned the State as ultimate authority with Military, Peasant, and
Leader groups with 'reason' the uniting factor replacing God.

Marx came out of this community.  Maybe loosely organized, maybe a secret
group, they thought they could overturn the existing order and create a new
world, a new era, one world borderless.  Through publications, writing, and
infiltration, they have and continue to defy their Judeo Christian heritage
and embrace that which is contrary to it.

Ron Kean St. Louis MO

PS I came here from PowerLine.  Good Luck.

 

Bill Palmer writes:

Mr. Katz,

What all these bad choices have in common is the fantasy that if you had the
power of the State, you could do something really big. Like most people,
intellectuals want a world in which they have a greater role with all that
means for greater significance (not to mention money, power and position).
This is why most of them favor socialism—a socialist society is a managed
society. Managed by whom? By people like them. They are the Mandarin class.

In a democratic/market society (what the Left calls Capitalism) the major
decisions are made by the market, by the interactions of millions of people.
No one is in charge. Intellectuals don’t have as large a role in such a
society. They have freedom but freedom doesn’t give them purpose or meaning.
So they are attracted to all these “isms” that give them the illusion they
can save and/or transform the world. People who are trying to save the world
almost always make the world worse. (The major exceptions are those saving
the world from the world savers.)

Bill Palmer

This is from "Scherzophrenic:

Welcome to the blogosphere, sir! Right now, I am reading Sinisterism: The
Secular religion of the Lie
<http://www.amazon.com/Sinisterism-Secular-Religion-Revised-Updated/dp/14327
05466/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1199740576&amp;sr=8-1> .  
It discusses the main philosophy ofFascism, Nazism, Socialism and
Communism...and you may even include Islam in the mix...and they all have
one thing in common. They are all in opposition to Christianity and Judaism.
And all had the weight of support from the intellectuals past and present.
Perhaps the brainrot can be traced to Lucifer himself. Think of the
arrogance and pride and condescension of the intellectuals....all leftists
of one sort or another, and you have a good description of the Angel of
Light. At any rate, Pride goeth before the Fall, and its always the grunts
in the ditch what has to clean up the mess.  The foolishness of God is wiser
than the wisdom of men.

Jauhara, Infidel Baker of Haram Goodness for over 25 years!

 

Ken Willis says:

One of the best explanations I've seen is contained in the essay by Ignazio
Silone in the book, The God That Failed.  At least at to European
intellectuals, especially their attraction to Communism in the early 20th
Century, Silone's essay is enlightening.  Conditions were and are so
different in America I don't know that Silone's reasoning would apply here.
 Maybe American intellectuals don't have the same reasons, but they want to
appear cosmopolitan by emulating something European.

Silone's statement on page 99 of the 2001 paperback edition from Columbia
University Press might be his short answer to the question. It's a
redemptive form of rebellion for those of a lively spirit who have found
traditional religion arid and exhausted.  The new god fails, of course.  A
free and ordered society does not emerge out of ardent political causes.  

 

JLewis writes:

First, because they aren't really intellectual.
 
Secondly, because they are educated beyond their intelligence.
 
Those two together produce deadly results.

 

Sam Indorante sends this message:

Mr. Katz,

1960 was the first political campaign I remember.  I was in first grade and
had much more important things to think about!

I grew up in Kankakee, IL just about an hour or so south of the University
of Chicago.

I grew up watching Chicago TV and watching the evening news with my dad.  
Little did I know that I was getting an education in "Machine Politics" as I
watched Mayor Daley hold court with the media. You remember Paul Douglas,
and I remember "Old Man" Daley.

I am a soil scientist for the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service
and an adjunct Professor of Soil Science at Southern Illinois University.   
Living in a university town has exposed me to both intellectuals  and pseudo  
intellectuals.  Unfortunately I have met more of the latter.

The faculty is overwhelmingly liberal and are full of themselves.  There is
a secret language and code that is used in all conversations.  Questioning
and criticism of conservative beliefs is welcomed, and questioning and
criticism of liberal beliefs are met with sighs and cold shoulders.  
Thoughtful questioning and argument are foreign to this place.  At first I
thought they were just being rude, but then I finally realized that they do
not know how to have a respectful discussion.   They have never been taught
the art of  respectful argument!  They have only been taught one side of an
issue, and unfortunately the issues usually represent the worst causes.

Enough for now.  I will close with some words of wisdom from my adviser for
my M.S. degree in Soils at the University of Illinois.  He told me to never
fear the true intellectuals.  He followed by saying it is the pseudo
intellectuals that you have to watch out for.  Boy was he right.

Best Wishes,

Sam

 

 

Wyatt Webb writes:

Hello Mr. Katz

Let me first throw some praise your way for your contributions to the  
PowerLine blog. I am a huge fan of theirs and have really enjoyed  reading
what you've had to say.

As to your current question, I think the answer lies in something  that
sounds mundane: human nature. The fact that we call them  intellectuals
implies that we have singled them out as being better  students of whatever
they study and generally more intelligent. The  fact that they accept the
title of intellectual means they believe  those implications to be true. So,
right out of the box, we have  created an aura of I-know-better-than-you and
I'm-better-informed- than-you around these folks. This plays into the human
ego in a big  way. And, I would argue, once someone has inflated your ego,
you will  do anything to keep it that way.

Now, when you're riding the ego train, the last thing you want to be  seen
doing is agreeing with the masses. Too much of that will  diminish your
standing as an intellectual. After all, if you admitted  you agreed with the
masses often enough, how are you any different?

Herein lies the trap. The intellectual needs to vocally advocate a  minority
position in order to stand out from the crowd. His ego will  drive him to
believe and support sketchy ideas merely because he  KNOWS he's smarter than
everyone else. His ego will also drive him to  believe that the masses
cannot be right, therefore something other  than the majority opinion must
be the way to go. His job is to simply  justify it with his superior
intellect, even if that means hurling  academic gibberish at the layman in
an effort to force agreement via  fear of the superior intellect.

So, again, I believe so-called intellectuals support some really  awful
causes primarily because of a lack of humility. The real  intellectuals are
those who analyze ideas purely on their merits and  back them up by actual
facts and not opinions or convenient theories.  A real intellectual isn't
afraid to admit that the masses may be right.

Thanks for the thought-provoking question and good luck with the blog!

Wyatt Webb

 

Bhagwan Satiani sent this:

just got to your site thru powerline which I read regularly I believe the
answer is : ego I was taught that even saints have a last hurdle before
getting to God. Ego, These people think they know everything and need to
tell the masses that what they pick as their cause is the right one and all
others should follow behind them. They are almost always well established,
have gained their fame and even if they are proved wrong, it is usually
years later and they do not live to see their awful picks. This true of
these ‘intellectuals’ in any part of the world. They do not have any ‘skin
in the game’ at all. They also almost invariably have lost all contact with
regular folks. I do think they really believe in their causes for the most
part. Their ego would not let them think otherwise! Try picking the most
well know people that fit the bill and apply my answer.

Bhagwan Satiani ohio

 

Lee Earle comments:

Hubris.

Those within academia or otherwise anointing themselves as the  intellectual
elite assume that literacy is equivalent to wisdom.   Therefore, the 'little
people' (the 'masses', the 'proletariat', the  'fly overs') obviously are
incapable of knowing what's good for  themselves.

By extension, the untidy, often superficially irrational and chaotic,  
democratic process doesn't fit the scholar/academic's quest for linear  
predictability and regularity of outcome.  In the common vernacular,  "It
ain't logical."

The core of leftist rationale is the idea of control - of the economy,  of
behavior, and ultimately of thought itself (see: Multiculturalism  and
Political Correctness).  Who better to make the decisions and pull  the
levers than those for whom the messiness of self-government is  anathema?

Lee Earle

Gregory Koster writes:

Dear Mr. Katz: Because they seldom have to face any personal consequences
when their sausage is being made. Academia is nothing more than generosity
that is on an expense account. How loudly do you think Ward Churchill would
broadcast his idiotic views if, as a consequence, he really faced being
heaved in a dungeon, complete with rubber hoses, castor oil, and
thumbscrews? Instead, no matter how obnoxious and imbecilic his views and
plagiarisms, he drags down a fair salary, and all the media attention his
sordid mind craves. Bah. Or look at Erwin Chermerinksy, a law prof at Duke
who has switched his views on presidential impeachment 180 degrees ("can't
be done" when Clinton was in office to "what are we waiting for, he's
guilty" now that Bush wears the sword of George Washington.)  Does he suffer
from this shameless posturing, which would make a weathervane envious? Not
at all; he's praised to the skies as a "constitutional scholar" by the likes
of "law-professors-are-thicker-than-water" Hugh Hewitt, as just the man to
be the new dean of the University of California - Irvine's new law school.

The long version of this answer has been set down well by Paul Johnson in
his book INTELLECTUALS, case studies of frauds and how they prospered, from
Percy Bysshe Shelley, to Lillian Hellman. Profitable reading.

Sincerely yours, Gregory Koster

 

Todd McClaren sent this:

I  believe, in large part, it's due to the fact that they're so isolated
behind the curtain of intelligentsia, and have so little experience with The
Real World.  College professors, for example, spend half their time talking
with other college professors who share their views, and the other half
sharing those views with people barely old enough to be called adults.  They
expand their theories with their peers toward utopian conclusions, rather
than testing to see if any of them actually work.

Remember the old story of the difference between "in theory" and "in
reality"?

A son asks his father the difference, and his father gives him an
assignment:  "Go ask your mother if she'd go to bed with George Clooney for
five million dollars."

A few minutes later the boy comes back.

"Mom hemmed and hawed, but eventually she admitted that all that money would
be a good thing for the family so she probably would."

"OK, now go ask your sister if she'd go to bed with Brad Pitt for five
million dollars."

A few minutes later the boy comes back.

"She said 'Of course she would,  He's so hot, and with that money she'd be
set for life'", the boy says.

"So that's the difference," Dad says, "In theory we're sitting on ten
million dollars.  In reality, we're living with a couple of whores."


Todd McLaren Laguna Niguel, CA

 

Tom Schulz sent this:

Why?

Because for at least 40 years, they have been stroking their own egos with
the thought that they are different, and human nature is NOT a force of the
universe.

PEACE!  What a wonderful idea!  Let’s just ignore the whole history of the
world, and pretend that we are smarter than ANY one of the billions of
people who has lived before us. Of course, we may have to eliminate a “few”
people who don’t agree with us, but the realization of our vision is worth
taking the lives of “some” dissenters. We will just be “nice”, except to
those who have no revolutionary fervor. THEM we can do without.

Ain’t it eerie that no one in the history of the world has ever thought of
this before (Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro, Bin Laden -  none of them)!

Tom Schulz

 

Alan Weick wrote this:

Intellectuals have a hard time coming to terms with democratic principles.  
Inherent in the democratic ideal is the rule of the marketplace whether for
goods and services or ideas.  The intellectual believes that he is superior
to the masses and that his ideas should rule.  Plato's Republic is their
greatest political tract and Smith's The Wealth of Nations their anathema.  
That is why Socialism is most admired by the Intellectual Class. The
Collectivist philosphy (i.e Socialism) is inherently top-down in its
implementation. This implies that there is a cadre of superior intellects
telling the rest of us what is good for us.  The intellectual believes he is
going to be part of the class that does the telling. That the Nazis and the
Facists had there initial and most enthusiastic support from the
universities is most telling.  Since the intellectual is superior to the
masses it is his duty and right to be in charge.

This is why the give and take of democratic politics along with the give and
take of the marketplace drives the intellectual nuts. Your average tenured
academic is earning a low six figure salary while his inferior (in his mind)
hedge fund manager or software king is earning 100 times that.  To him this
is most unjust.   Your average academic believes he should be anointed as
part of the ruling class based upon his superior intellect.  This is why
intellectuals support movements that are coercive.  The only way to order
the world justly in his mind is turn the natural order of democracy and
market economies on its head.

 

Scott Robinson writes:

Intellectuals, almost by definition (left or right) take the view  that they
know better than everybody else. Thomas Sowell has dubbed  it, the "Vision
of the Annointed." In parallel, dictators and autocrats (emperors and kings)
claim  imprimatur from sources such as the gods or in the case of Marxists,  
history which if course intellectuals understand better than  everybody
else. Unfortunately, this approach often leads to Hayeck's  "Fatal Conceit"
which in many cases is fatal for a lot of everybody  else.

 

Jeff Pope sent this:

Jeff

First, enjoyed the first read and i will come back and see what happens.
Good luck!

As to your question, look at the words these people use to describe
themselves: intellectuals, elite, progressive, etc. What does it take to
join this club? Simply that others who describe themselves in the same
manner agree that your are one of them. Do you have to be intelligent? No.
Do you have to be inordinately informed or knowledgeable about the many
facets of world affairs, culture, politics, etc? No.You merely have to
belong to a few self-ordained professions AND you must be good with the
language- and you must be impressed with comes out of your own mouth. Having
others in the profession acknowledge your membership in this elite group
ensures purity of ideology. A conservative journalist is almost never
referred to as intellectual. This club is only open to liberals.

I have enjoyed (sometimes) email exchanges with news media and edcational
personalities (whose names you would recognize) several times. Were they
recognizably intellectual, elite in terms of insight or perspective?
Certainly, and disappointingly, not. They were, however, acknowledged as
such by others self-ordained as belonging to thier club. Nancy Hopkins was a
great example.

Jeff Pope
Mount Prospect, IL

Just realized I didn't address the specific question. Assuming my hypothesis
that the group is populated largely people of ordinary abilities elevated to
elite staus by only by profession, ideology and self recognition, one needs
look at their own circumstances to see where they come from. They are elite
in their own minds, but periferal players in real terms. They would support
rule by the few, the wise because elites really are better than the masses,
the non-elites. Conversely, the noble struggles of the poor masses, say the
islamist radicals, is a struggle to support becuase it is against the
powerful few who are not in their club. Consider the view of the world you
might adopt if, on the one hand you considered yourself to be smarter, wiser
and more able than so many powerful, successful and wealthy people around
you who are not in your intellectual class. Revolt against those people
surely would be righteous.

Sorry for the length.

 

Dale Stratton writes:

Glad to see your new blog, good luck!
  
Intellectuals believe they are intellectuals. Being such, they know better. So they tend to be counter-intuitive. Any position that will be popularly held is unworthy of their comment, so they latch onto issues that require multi-step reasoning and digging below the surface. It also helps if they can dig into information resources where most folks don't have access.
  
Primarily, they have been told of their superiority throughout their education, and, if they stake out positions that are, curiously enough, in line with "serious" media, they can become popular. They have the opportunity to be sought out for comment if they buy into a leftist meme and give substantiation to it.
  
It is all just human nature, really. They feed their own perceived intellectual superiority, and become the most popular kid in class. It makes them feel good.
  
 Dale Stratton

 

David Jones says:

Bill

The term "intellectual" is usually attained from the realm of Academia. Need
we say more?

Dave J.
Cincinnati OH

 

Rick in Maine writes:

Experts say it's because intellectuals often know, far better than us
normal dimwits, that only experts and intellectuals can decide which
causes merit our support. Got that? Sheesh.

-Rick in Maine

 

Finally, Brian Kuhn commented:

I've long subscribed to the belief that in the rarified realm of our intelligentsia, the modern day interpretation of what makes one wise is based on a bedrock and deeply flawed principle - that to be truly wise one must dismiss what is true. The more relativistic view one has of this world and the events that define it, the more wise he or she is deemed to be by the elite circles of academia and liberalism. To be deemed wise in those circles is the ultimate mental aphrodisiac. Hence, having willingly sloughed off the armor of truth (and moral conviction, I should add) -- when slithering in such circles a person tends to blissfully lose sight of what is right.

That whole social stratum ‘tis a snake consuming itself (and it's loving every tasty bite along the way).

Of course the answer to your question is this: Intellect does not a wise man make. As a matter of fact, I would argue it can be a hindrance. So many angles, so many views, so many sides, so many shades. The more you know, the harder it is see through the chaff. That is why history remembers and pays due homage to those who have graced our world with their clear intellect and obvious wisdom. They are few and far between, burning bright in the annals of history due to their rarity.

 

THANK YOU ALL.