Intellectualism vs. Anti Intellectualism

Not really, it's years spent reading stuff that is considered likely to get you to think about stuff that you might not have considered before.

I could do the same thing with a random assortment of books.

You will never consider ideas you would never consider, especially about books you will never consider reading. You could read the same book a thousand times and still somebody else will find something profoundly different on their first read.

That's one of those things teachers are for. To guarantee cross pollination of ideas in an environment that isn't corrosive to differing ideas.

edited 7th Jun '11 2:11:45 AM by victorinox243

But Deboss is smarter than his teachers, remember?

On the original topic, I can't stand anti-intellectuals.

At best theyre actively opposed to betterment of themselves or others out of some crazed idea of not acting above your station in life. At worst theyre the cancer thats killing the political process and letting religious fundamentalism corrupt religion.

edited 7th Jun '11 7:40:48 AM by Midgetsnowman

If teachers are there to help cross pollinate ideas (besides their own), they need to quit telling everyone to shut up so they can talk.

Sounds like you have an inter-personal problem with your teachers.

I have seen the problem myself, so I do not disagree with Deboss....
But then again: A lot of times you need a certain amount of silence in a classroom in order to teach a lot of stuff...

"I could do the same thing with a random assortment of books."

Not by a long shot, since neither books nor ideas are created equal.

Looks like someone's never been in a position of authority over a bunch of students.

That's true, new ones are almost always better since they learned from the pasts mistakes.

Only if you assume they do build on experience, which is not always the case.

Exactly; books tend to reflect the views of the writers. If I were to write a book today about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, it would not be more informative or accurate than Heisenberg's own writings because he understood the subject matter better than I do.

"That's true, new ones are almost always better since they learned from the pasts mistakes."

What would be an example of this?

@Deboss: wait..so you both say old books are useless and wee shouldnt bother with them..then claim new books are good because they correct mistakes of old books?

Wouldnt that require KNOWLEDGE of what the previous books said?

Scifi mostly, which is the only subject worth reading about in large amounts. Then again, it's an aggregate thing.

They were new at one time. We don't need to look at the model T everytime we design a new car, despite it being very important to the development, but the stuff from the past couple of years is still a better set of cars to analyze for ideas.

edited 7th Jun '11 10:33:42 PM by Deboss

A narrowness of focus, versus a breadth.

Hmm.

Not to mention the general irrelevance much Sci-Fi has to anybody, so you'd still want to work on your definition a little better.

Also, I bet the retro car styles and classic car shows likely give you a fit.

edited 7th Jun '11 10:35:48 PM by blueharp

"Scifi mostly, which is the only subject worth reading about in large amounts."

Ignoring the blatant absurdity of that statement, how does recent sci-fi improve upon the works of Asimov or Beliaev?

Ender and Bean Series ~<3

But seriously, deciding which books you like by genre is incredibly narrow minded, you're missing out on everything else out there.

I've liked stuff from outside of Sci Fi, I just find the odds better. I like less than five percent of the non-science fiction books I've read, I've liked more than seventy five percent of science fiction I've read. However, the fact that I chose said scifi myself probably helps.

Only read some of the first one myself, but I find the addition of things such as Military Sci Fi to have significantly improved the genre.

Oh right, I forget you don't read for the ideas, you read for the visceral appeal of entertainment.

Yep. People who get all their ideas from fiction aren't very bright.

What kind of ideas are we talking about here?

Ideas like "don't be a douche bag, people won't like you" is something I'd think most people could pick up on their own.

You'd be surprised. However, if you're saying that no lesson can or should be taken from works of fiction, well, I've got a problem with that. While all works of fiction are rule to human imperfection, saying that we can't get a greater level of understanding, knowledge, or wisdom from a variety of different stories is like saying that we can't learn anything from communicating with each other.

edited 8th Jun '11 3:31:53 AM by Usht

Not arguing that. More like "just because it's a message in a book you read, doesn't make it right". That sort of thing is distressingly common as well.