causticus: trees (Default)
“My favourite definition of 'Intellectual' is: 'A person whose education surpasses their intelligence.'”
–Arthur C. Clarke

“The realization that you can't predict the future -- and mold it -- could only come as a shock to an academic.”
― David Harsanyi

“Intellect, you see, is not the same as spirituality. While spirituality makes you humble, intellect without sensitivity just makes you snobbish and egoistic.”
―Abhaidev, The World's Most Frustrated Man

“Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.”
―G.K. Chesterton

“What never fails inside the mind of an intellectual never works outside the confines of his head. The world’s stubborn refusal to vindicate the intellectual’s theories serves as proof of humanity’s irrationality, not his own. Thus, the true believer retrenches rather than rethinks; he launches a war on the world, denying reality because it fails to conform to his theories. If intellectuals are not prepared to reconcile theory and practice, then why do they bother to venture outside the ivory tower or the coffeehouse? Why not stay in the world of abstractions and fantasy?”
―Daniel J. Flynn, Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas

“If an engineer makes a mistake, for example, and their building collapses killing hundreds, they are ruined. In the same vain, if someone who’s only profession is being an intellectual makes a mistake and millions die there is virtually no accountability.”
-Thomas Sowell

“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”
-George Orwell

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
-H. L. Mencken

“There is nothing that an intellectual less likes to change than his mind, or a politician his policy.”
―Theodore Dalrymple

“Intellectuals are a pretty unique species all by themselves, given to advocating things out of sheer brazenness that they could not themselves stomach if they were ushered in to witness the scene.”
―Matthew Scully, Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy

“Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most leftwing segment.....The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today’s leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle.”
―Theodore J. Kaczynski, Industrial Society and Its Future

“I was utterly convinced that an intellectual could never be anything but an intellectual, was simply not capable of being anything else, that his intellectuality would, sooner or later, erode his faith or erode whatever he'd masked it with . . . For example, intellectuals like to dress themselves up as peasants . . . but it never works. The intellectual's constitution is impervious to such things - it permits only one object of worship - oneself. Generally speaking, an intellectual in the contemporary version is an exceptionally resourceful and, essentially, pitiful being.”
―Leonid Borodin, Partings

“Too much elite education renders a person unpractical. And tell you what? The highly educated people are further away from reality than the less educated ones. I would rather rely on the opinion of a less educated poor person who constantly deals with people, than an overly educated idiot who views this world only through an academic lens while sitting alone on his comfy couch.”
―Abhaidev, The Influencer: Speed Must Have a Limit

“I cleaned the shit off my pink high-tops and drove home, stopping for an espresso at the coffeehouse across from the college. Men and women were hunched over copies of Jean Paul Sartre and writing in their journals. Most wore the thin-rimmed tortoiseshell glasses favored by intellectuals. Their clothes were faded to a precisely fashionable degree; you can buy them that way from catalogs now, new clothes processed to look old. The intellectuals looked at me in my overalls the way such people inevitably look at farmers.

I dumped a lot of sugar in my espresso and sipped it delicately at a corner table near the door. I looked at them the way farmers look at intellectuals.”
―Mary Rose O'Reilley

“An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it makes a better soup.”
― H.L. Mencken

“Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out.”
―G.K. Chesterton
causticus: trees (Default)
From D:

There are several critical factors here that are allowing this Maoist purging to happen, and I’ll try to parse them in no particular order.

1. As Hamlet said, “I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself king of infinite space…” Academia has become more & more bound in its own nutshell as people are self-selecting joining. When I was contemplating academia in the 1980s, I was fortunate to see the writing on the walls already. I’d planned on getting my PhD in English, but when researching for my Honors Undergrad thesis, I kept reading article after article of petty, small-minded back-stabbing hyper-focused gobbledygook. I already knew how bitter & mean some academics could be. I left. And that was in the 1980s. I can only imagine how it is now. Only a certain type of person will accept this nutshell. Someone of limited intelligence–smart, but not nearly as smart as they believe. Given to cruelty & petty bureaucratic meanness. In short, party apparatchiks.

The hard sciences thought they were immune and were not too long ago. Alas, they too have been swept up as the nutshell encases them.

2. Administrator bloat. Administrators have an entirely different function from academics. Their function is as a giant HR/PR machine for the organization and to enrich their own jobs. IN the age of social media, it is a no brainer that they’d toss out a professor if their company’s image and/or their own jobs are at stake. Negative publicity, even minor, terrifies them. They want to operate in the shadows; the last thing they need is a spotlight, any spotlight.

3. Student as consumer, university as service. The vision is not to educate students, but to please them, and, as one Yale student put it, roughly, “to give them a safe home.” This is now being interpreted as a sort of nursery where scary images are in abeyance.

4. The relatively low pay & non-glory of professors - who have given of themselves 4 years of college, 6 years of grad schools, several years of post-doc in some fields, very crappy $10/hour type jobs in adjunct positions for most, 7 years toward tenured professorship if they’re lucky, then finally, at least, Tenured Professor for $70K or less - leads to a person who is a) heavily invested in the system in a sunk-cost way and b) very bitter and insecure at being invisible (many papers are never read, their ‘enlightened’ brilliant thoughts are read nowhere), & paid less than their plumber and electrician. They therefore tell themselves they are Brilliant & Important, far more wise than mere plumbers or doctors, the true Philosopher Kings. They teach students as a king teaches its subjects. It feels good.

5. The seduction of Soviet thinking for these weak and bitter minds. Lust for power for people who thought they’d be far more powerful than it turns out they are.

6. Fear and cowardice and each thinking, “If I lie low, at least i can research my dream topic I’ve given my whole life for.” This is for the non embittered, modest intellectual, the ‘bystanders.’
causticus: trees (Default)
Yes, that's right. With (near) ubiquitous high-speed internet, every college lecture imaginable is at every internet user's fingertips; not only college lectures, but the very best of college lectures from the very best professors. For the most part, the professors and instructors we find at the vast majority of brick-and-mortar university campuses are little more than second, third and fourth hand repeaters of knowledge someone way before them and much smarter than them discovered. Why get your info through them when you can go straight to the source at just the click of a button? Much less, why pay all kinds of insane money to this middleman class of aforementioned repeaters?

The incumbent higher-ed model is a dead man walking. Sooner or later (hopefully the former) the student debt ponzi bubble is going to burst bigtime and there's going to be a lot of useless academics and administrators out on their asses. Yet there will still be the need for education and competency certification (i.e. credentialing). Displaced instructors may find a new calling as test proctors and evaluators. For all fields of study that aren't hands-on technical disciplines, students will be able to entirely learn at their own pace through books and youtube videos at. At this point their only need for a middleman will be for someone to test their knowledge regarding the discipline in question. Instructors will become more like trainers and coaches than distinguished intellectual pulpit-occupiers. If Natural Law is to properly reassert itself then knowledge-acquisition/transmission as an organized activity will once again take on a Guild-like structure. Students will be Apprentices, junior instructors and thesis-writers will be Journeymen/Associates, and professors of course will be Masters (as we can see, the existing concept of a "Masters Degree" is somewhat of a misnomer).

And for everyone else who really doesn't need to take up an intellectual discipline (i.e. the overwhelming mass majority), there shall be a return to trade schools and guild-like organizations. The 800 lb. gorilla in the room regarding the higher-ed system today is that the vast majority of enrolled students shouldn't even be there in the first place. Traditionally, intellectual attainment was an elite activity; well, because most people simply don't have the natural aptitudes to make it in those areas. Precisely because higher-ed degenerated into a money-sucking scam, the whole thing became massively dumbed down in order to accommodate the new horde of mediocre people that comprised its new customer base student body when this gigantic over-expansion really started to get out of control. So when Natural Law does once again reassert itself (gods willing), we're going to see the intellectual end of education shrink back into its proper, natural niche.

Most of academia today is useless fluff and pile of hyper-inflated makework for a professional pharisee class. It will get what's coming to it.
causticus: trees (Default)
It's quite simple: the branch of academia we call "the humanities" is the most subjective area of studies; it is the area most open to accommodating differing interpretations and even mere opinions. The humanities is the soft side of knowledge and inquiry. It's a fertile ground for both sophists and truth-seekers alike. When philosophical standards are done away with it becomes a fertile ground for ideologues and and radical elements to freely peddle their propaganda to young, impressionable minds.

Unlike in the hard sciences, it's all-too-easy to make unfalsifable truth claims in most of the humanities. Truth in the humanities is ultimately a matter of which philosophers, thinkers, schools of thought, and academia personae are currently in vogue. Truth in this sense is an appeal to authority rather than something that can be empirically tested and quantified.

I've stated before that I don't believe there has been any grand "Cultural Marxist conspiracy" that infiltrated and took over Western academia. I must add a caveat here: radical professors with Marxist sympathies have in fact been all over academia since at least the early 1970s and they have probably colluded with one another to some degree. But I don't believe it's been by any hyper-organized, top-down means. Rather, a potent organizational culture took hold after the massive cultural shifts of the 60s and 70s worked their way through general public's collective psyche. And university administrators were more than complicit in enabling this plague to incubate and spread. Administrators likely enabled this culture to proliferate, because in enabling crypto-Marxist departments like "Women's studies" to exist, they were scoring cheap and easy "diversity" brownie points that made for positive-sounding PR. As with most situations, incompetence and shortsightedness are much more sensible explanations for corruption than shadowy conspiracy theories.

And as we know quite well now, the corruption has infested the Social Sciences as well. Social Science is that murky middle ground between humanities and the natural sciences. Many social science fields rely on subjective metaphysical speculations as the basis for how to frame studies and interpret data within those fields.

The corruption is even trying to creep into STEM now, but I'm confident that will only go so far until it hits a big brick wall known as mathematics. You see, math couldn't give a damn about your feelings. Sophistry and emotional rhetorical cannot fudge numbers. STEM will be fine but it needs to detach itself from the rest of the festering rot academia has become.

In fact, academia itself needs to stew some more in its own poisonous juices until it completely dies. Parallel institutions must rise up in its place. Good riddance to the corrupted academia. The new institutional paradigm must first and foremost devote itself to truth-seeking. And by truth-seeking, I mean an uncompromising devotion to Natural Law. There is Natural Law and their is nihilism; we must choose one; we cannot serve two masters. Natural Law truth-seeking is done when we derive our philosophical and intellectual authority from the towering greats who existed long before the corruption set in. In other words, we should return to the classics and turn a sharply skeptical eye toward Natural Law-rejecting modern modes of inquiry like utilitarianism, positivism and blank-slate assumptions about human nature.

Once again I say, good riddance. The infected near-corpse known as modern academia shall die on its own terms.
causticus: trees (Default)
A Q+A comment exchange from T and M:

Q: How in the hell is there a PhD's worth of things to learn in gender studies ?

A: There isn’t. The departments exist for universities to buy diversity without the work of real social improvement. Rather than support minorities/women and build to where there’s equal representation in serious fields, they create jobs in nonsense and leave the real fields as-is.


IMHO, this statement gets at the crux of the issue. No nefarious "Cultural Marxist" infiltration grand conspiracy is needed to explain why the humanities branch of Western academia has so thoroughly gone to hell over the past 40 years or so.

The existence and proliferation of various nonsensical ___[insert grievance here] studies___ departments at countless well-accredited universities is easily explained by bureaucratic corruption and laziness. A university administration can score quick and easy "diversity points" by simply allowing a a few unhinged radicals the opportunity to spew their ideological bile under the guise of scholarship. On the surface this is great PR for useless, overpaid administrators who are always looking to put on a "forward-thinking" face to deep-pocked donors and prospective debt serfs students. The main goal of university administrators and tenured professors is to keep the money, and thus their cushy salaries, flowing in for as long as possible.

However, on the topic of PR, it's not until now that these radical non-disciplines have gone viral and have seen their intellect-free content filter down to the general public and influence mainstream ideology. And all the regular folk are now noticing and are quite shocked about what has up until recent been lingering under the academia hood.
causticus: trees (Default)
Here's a great Camille Paglia quote I came across today. Despite being an atheist academic, she fully realizes the value of metaphysics-based belief systems and the futility of petty political ideologies like Marxism and Secular Humanism as being substitutes for a spiritual worldview.

I said in the introduction to my art book, Glittering Images (2012), that secular humanism has failed. As an atheist, I have argued that if religion is erased, something must be put in its place. Belief systems are intrinsic to human intelligence and survival. They “frame” the flux of primary experience, which would otherwise flood the mind.

But politics cannot fill the gap. Society, with which Marxism is obsessed, is only a fragment of the totality of life. As I have written, Marxism has no metaphysics: it cannot even detect, much less comprehend, the enormity of the universe and the operations of nature. Those who invest all of their spiritual energies in politics will reap the whirlwind. The evidence is all around us—the paroxysms of inchoate, infantile rage suffered by those who have turned fallible politicians into saviors and devils, godlike avatars of Good versus Evil.

My substitute for religion is art, which I have expanded to include all of popular culture. But when art is reduced to politics, as has been programmatically done in academe for 40 years, its spiritual dimension is gone. It is coarsely reductive to claim that value in the history of art is always determined by the power plays of a self-referential social elite...A society that respects neither religion nor art cannot be called a civilization.


What passes for "the humanities" in today's Western academia is both morally and intellectually bankrupt. And, IMHO, rather than being a nefarious "Cultural Marxist" conspiracy of radical infiltrators posing as professors (that so many on the right these days like to envision.....but yes some of these professors are precisely that), it's more or less a jobs program for talentless careerists and bureaucrats posing as scholars. Feigning knowledge while collecting a cozy salary and enjoying a flexible daily schedule (i.e. not being chained to a cubicle for 8 hours a day) isn't such a bad deal. The supremely relativist and nebulous framework that is Postmodernism, allows for a great deal of meaningless BS, pretentious sophistry, and self-referential obscurantism, allows for an endless amount of make-work to prop up this ridiculous jobs program -- well, until the student loan racket bubble bursts, but that's a whole 'nother topic for another day.
Page generated Jul. 5th, 2025 04:04 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios