Intellectualism and How People Ought to Live.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

How might an intellectual approach the question, “How ought people live?”
One could claim ignorance about the subject, “I have no idea how other people ought to live.” One could claim mastery, “I know exactly how other people ought to live.”

While most views would probably fall somewhere between these two extremes could we predict a skew towards one or the other? I would suspect that there is a skew towards the claim of mastery. Why might an intellectual believe that he or she knew an excellent answer to the question of how other people ought to live?

We Americans generally accept a hierarchical view of intelligence. An [A Plus Student] is better than a [C Minus Student] and not just better at being a student. It is almost as if there is some fundamental different between these two individuals.

Intellectualism, like any -ism, is self-promoting. Anyone who would willingly accept the description of being an “intellectual” also accepts the idea that being intelligent is important. Being intelligent can be universally better than any other advantage when being intelligent is the main goal of humanity. Intellectuals clearly benefit from advancing this idea.

How does the intellectual benefit the average person? By discovering and sharing the correct way to live, of course!

[I know what is best for other people.] Then the hierarchy element [I am smarter (and therefore better) than other people.]
Finally combined them [I know what is best for other people [b]because[/b] I am smarter (better) than them.]

Consider the thought that, “If everyone did everything that way I wanted them to do it, then the world would be better.” Then consider the unexpressed thought, “Then the world would be better (for me.)”

Does intelligence alone make a person skillful at directing others how they ought to live?

2

Xanderman asks:

I would say like every man trying to juggle a wife and a mistress knows, your intelligence must know how to lie like a rug to keep them behaving as they ought to.

3

Unfortunately, (and naturally this comes as bad news to the intellectual elite types) intelligence can’t really help us with something as subjective as how another individual ought to live that individual’s life.

Unless of course I’m wrong (wouldn’t be the first time, God knows) and somebody would like to attempt to lay down an argument showing that the way in which another ought to live is, in fact, an objective thing. That would be an interesting argument I would think.

4

Hi xander,

Intellectualism can lead one in two directions. First, and what we see most often is the ‘library’ collection of intellect which is always yesterday’s news, but is often confused with the intelligence it took to acquire the library. The intellectual who would willingly say how others should live attempts to base his ‘authority’ on the library and it works most of the time because most people readily accede to the authority of those who purport to ‘know’ and back it with their library intellect.

Then there are those who may be considered intellectuals but use their intelligence to find wisdom. They aren’t about to tell anyone how they should live.

Of course we only see the former, because they’re willing to advertise, while the latter tend to be invisible. There is obviously some middleground, because most folks are willing to share, but the intellectualism we see most often is those who like to be in authority pontificating to those who wish to be under authority.

JT

5

I think that intellectualism is akin to racism, the grounds of which both lie in the attempt to become distinguished with superiority. It is a form of petty humanity’s cheap shots at the goal of realising the power will. These grounds are shaky in the way that their constitution is not entirely physical, but rather metaphysical in the core, with flamboyant emotional lava bursting out obstinately, in order to cover up the fragility of its essence. Intellctualism of grade A students, of paper smelling professors, of aged grandmothers, is the best proof that intellectualism is a load of existential crap, for it defies the first principle of the intellect, which is to regard pure reason above all else including the most intense innate desire to believe in a certain attractive fixation. To have a high IQ is not better than to have a wide range of firm knowledge, to be able to think fast is not better than to be able to respond prudently and comprehensively. The clock ticks moderato, hence living matters do not have to start up with a turbo, or crack the nuts in one go. The potential of almost every human mind is vast enough for the entire universe, how much this potential has been realised is to a large extent measured by the quantity and quality of acquired knowledge, not whether the knowledge has been acquired innately like a genius or learnt over years. There is no denying that being a genius does actually help a lot, but this is no contradiction, besides, people who brand themselves as extraordanarily intellegent often end up as noboodies, not as widely acknowledged geniuses, many of which stress that genius is universally attainable through effective effort, via strong will. The claim that intellect is the most important element in life, as Xanderman has probably correctly assessed, is no more than a self laudation.

How to live a life, is a much elevated subject of concern than intelectualism, which is not really worthy of time. The nature of the relationship between the degree of the intellect and the degree of satisfaction in living, is most probably valued zero as its regressional coefficient. As an important fundamental element in his existential philosophy, Nietzsche believed that happiness and reason simply do not match up with each other. Many would agree on that point surely. To ask exactly what factors form the cause chain of a happy life, is to take us back to Socrates’ primary philsoophical inquiry, that is how to be happy. Out of all philosophers, Nietzsche has the best anwser for that hitherto, but philosophy is merely itself one of the many products of the mind, so who knows if the most happy man, the most wisely living man, is not from some other domain of mental creativity? Poets? Composers? Or just a successful businessman who has a lot of inspiring ideas to convey about life in general? We will have to take these people and their different points of view altogether to come up with some sort of plausible anwser, that is likely to be the only anwser that has am actual firm grip on the question. Where is the clever factor now? What does IQ mean to us now?

As long as I am not stupid, I can tell anybody off who tries to lecture me about life, but at the same time, I would take advise from absolutely anybody who is somebody. You went to Harvard? Well, guess what punk, I went to Havana and did Castro’s mama. Know whatm sayin?

6

I see intellectualism as the idea of living the best you can for yourself and for others in the process under circumstances. dont hurt people who dont hurt you bla bla bla. study if you are good at it, aim for Wimbledon if you like sport…and if you don’t succeed in life don’t beat yourself up about it. I must say that I used to know some pretty clever people, who would like to call themselves intellectuals. But their cruel behavior has showed to me that they are indeed not true intellectuals. they only wanted everything for themselves and did not care who or what they trashed in the process, even though their lives were quite comfy anyway. A true intellectual tries to make the world a better place for others and himself, even if just in small, friendly ways. And truly intellectual people will figure out that jealousy is a pointless, dumb thing to feel. How can you be jealous of someone for getting something in life that a God or chemicals or the hand of fate or whatever gave them? sad

7

If we look at what “is happening now” as a guide for this question, then I think that we can see that intellectuals do run things.

I believe that the major forces that shape the lives of most humans across the world are media/marketing and politics, and it could be argued that they have all merged.

People all over the world submit to these influences and rarely rebel against them. Sometimes governments get removed by people but I have never heard of the media being rejected by any group of people.

So, it seems pretty clear what’s going on.

8

Uniqor,

you’re still excessively attached to Nietzsche’s points of view, but this last post of yours is very, very interesting, really. I won’t say it is “brilliant” because, you know, I don’t like to praise people too much.

=D> =D>

9

Xanderman, do you believe we’re still right in associating intelligence and intelectualism (which are different things) with…a kind of superiority, which could allowed us to determine what other people “ought” to do??

I think there is no “ought”…there is “should”, “might” and “can”…but please don’t ask me to explain this…

10

It is nice to see you again Fabiano, and thanks for your support. The problem with Xanderman threads is that the topics are usually vast without bounds. I suppose that is also the attraction, at least for my kind of mentality, which is not very good at detailed points. I like lines and shapes, my ego tells my head to think big, wide and transcendent. My macroeconomics always score higher than my micro. It is not good. I shall try some reconciliation with minuet and balance my tempo up a little.

Intellectualism is still shit though.

11

an extreamest group sees something that should be added to life, but overcompensates and says thats the only way.

How can I say extreamest groups actually see the truth without even stating a single example? Well all lies are baced in truth. It’s just when they claim this truth to mean more then it actually does, that they fall into the extreamest catagory.

In order to intellectuallize how we should live you have to understand one basic thing. There are certain aspects of the soul and body that makes us all the same. In this, we all react to the same basic needs and situations. thus the very core of most religions is the very core of any philosophy. IE “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This idea requires people to have integrety. Yet people that are evil have evil integrety. So we see it needs further definition in order to be respected in the college enviorment.

12

All wrong, all wrong.

The more intelligent have an automatic right to rule over the stupid…

13

the more pure of heart have the inborn right to do what’s in their integrety as right. All they have to do is have advisors advising them toward intellect and wisdom.

The basic idea of a king

14

siatd,

That “automatic right” can be quickly overuled by an automatic… :stuck_out_tongue: That’s been proven time and again.

JT

15

Of course, violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority derives, but the intelligent can, if they are also strong of will, control violence through words…

16

will power and words alone control nothing… oh pretty please, pretty please with sugar on top…

will power, words and the threat of use of force control most things… do the crime and you’ll do the time…

pure force is control… I should say, control is the application of pure force

-Imp

17

“control’ violence” is too strong… Certainly one can influence violence with words…

I’m thinking of Lovecraft - no violence, only words, could scare an iron monk into atheism…

18

i don’t think that intellectuals can tell how anyone ought to live, but that’s because i don’t think anyone can tell anyone how to live, but only suggest. Yet i believe there is a “way” that we should live, or try to follow to our best ability. I believe the “intellectual” lives a blind life without the eyes of wisdom.

19

The exact words of the text. But do you understand it? Do you believe it?

20

#-o sorry but I am really, lost, i don’t understand what you ment by that? could you elaborate? :confused: