However this is not really the case with people offering advice on how to deal and manipulate govt apparatus…i.e. subsidized or wanna be subsidized political intellectuals / acamedicians. If these people offer ideas for use in manipulating the lives of millions upon millions of people from their office - I would imagine the consequences for failure ought to be severe.
If an acamedician is subsidized b the government it ought be required for his donations and political affiliations to be transparant - particualrly in any subject that deals with society. Furthermore if he is registered to a political party and is, for example, and historian - he should only write the Republican/Democrat/etc view of history.
The left ought to be more than happy with such a proposal as it shows how we love diverse narratives
When the Ancient Romans commisioned a bridge for the city via public money, they made sure the engineer slept and lived under the bridge for a month
Wow, good job - kind of makes my post obsolete.. I was actually thinking of Hayek who Sowell seems to be chaneling. It’s interesting thinking about knowledge and not calculation for a change.
While I don’t read much Sowell, from what I can gather - he is the best economist who is a populizer of market ideas. It’s pretty cool he has a book focused on intellectualism.
I liked your previous avatar.
I had two or three previous avatars, so I’m not too sure which one you are refering. I was thinking of switching back to one of them or something new soon anyway. I only like to keep St Max out in short spurts.
Anyway, as it is way off topic and a bit non sequiter - if you would like the names or authors of any of the previous portraits send me a PM and I’ll let you know what they were.
Yes prevalent ideas are highly relevant. So please continue people. Investigate the role of ideas in action and also how they are formented, changed, upheld etc.
Here Gramsci, Plato and a few others come to mind.
I looked and especially listened a couple of times at the Sowell videos. While he makes some good points on academic arrogance and self-serving behaviour of intellectuals. I think he’s missing out on a view things. In the first place a distinction needs to be drawn between “professional intellectuals” and “organic” intellectual. The first would be mainly academics, but to some extent writers, researchers, think tanks, teachers, journalists, priests etc. as well. These people made working with ideas their main occupation. But then there are also the later who are interested in ideas and have also some general knowledge about them. They are usually working in other vocation then the mentioned, but in their private circles their opinions bear some weight.
It should be noted that intellectuals do have tremendous influence on the general ideas that float in society. They in the end influence what paradigms and ideologies are hegemonic in society. And that by itself influences the valuation processes on how people ultimately act. It seems as if, Sowell did underestimate this a bit.
One other thing would be the subsumption of intellectuals by the state via funding universities and civil society groups. This has strong influence on the ideas dominant in society and also on the character of those ideas as opposed to a situation where those intellectual would gain funding from other sources then the state.
