Intellectuals of Society Discourse(& vent)

[brainiac3397]

I was most definitely born in the wrong era, or this is just how I feel it. I don't know whether it's just my opinion on it, but it seems like society(American to be specific) is eager to dumb people down and take opportunities of development or opportunities that allow development away from those less fortunate but seeking to improve(Jobs once available for high school graduates have now become requiring a bachelors degree, how schools grow to cost more and the solution people seem to come to is more loans that start a life of debt, how getting an education and truly learning are not as important as obeying the school, how not thinking because someone else will think for you).

It seems like as time progresses, we're entering a period where intellectuals are truly being ostracized.

Quote:The intellectual is a specific variety of the intelligent, which unlike the general property, is strictly associated with reason and thinking. Many everyday roles require the application of intelligence to skills that may have a psychomotor component, for example, in the fields of medicine, sport or the arts, but these do not necessarily involve the practitioner in the "world of ideas". The distinctive quality of the intellectual person is that the mental skills, which he or she demonstrates, are not simply intelligent, but even more, they focus on thinking about the abstract, philosophical and esoteric aspects of human inquiry and the value of their thinking.

Society has grown more and more in favor of scholars and academia, in a system where doing the homework given, taking the tests given, and doing great on them to further your "education" is seen as being smart. Yet is this truly intelligence? When a student memorizes the periodic table, when he scores perfect on his tests, when his essays are superb(according to the teachers guidelines), is this student truly smart? No. And I'll tell you why:Because this student only thinks along the lines society and the system has set for him. His success only shows how strongly he adheres to the "rails", and thus his success is guided by those who control the "rails". He or she is seen as smart because society wants to make obedient and narrow-minded students "prime examples of success".

But this couldn't be any more worse. Almost every single successful and intelligent human on this planet, got to that point through not listening to society, by resisting the system and by thinking outside the box. They're the creative sort, the imaginative sort, the type not stuck to one form of thought but rather an experimental outlook. The intellectual is truly intelligent because they don't listen to the mob, they don't care about the arbitrary rules, because through their emphasis on thought and reasoning, they find it to be flawed.
-----
Vent

Hidden stuff:

And why this post on intellectuals? Because that's what I consider myself to be. I feel like an intellectual. I consider myself an intellectual and emphasize the ideals of an intellectual. And all because I am an intellectual.

I applied to college with no plan to attend the one's in the US. I only applied to six, and got accepted to two. One was in-state, the outer out of state. The latter was slightly more expensive but I had gotten into the double major program, the former was obviously cheaper but only had a choice between two majors. I neglected to pay the deposit on purpose, and the enrollment period closed.

My plans were to apply to Australian colleges and attend next year(as the seasonal differences meant different start times). However, I was met with resistance by both family(actually just my mother) and school(my school being a small private school meant some people were a little more closer than simply business, like the guidance counselor being more personally involved than I'd like).

You may remember how I mentioned going to Turkey to finalize my naturalization. I missed an entire quarter and failed 3 classes. 4th quarter passed, didn't do much(most of my classes were APs and only 1 class we actually learned a little). I graduated.

However, my 4th quarter grades ended up being pretty low too(compared to 1st and 2nd) simply because the administrators had teachers give us a grade by attendance, which was a high percentage of the class grade. The problem was I skipped much of the classes because what stupid reasoning expects us to come to school and go through 5 of my 6 classes doing absolutely nothing(because there was nothing to teach!).

What pisses me off the most is how the people surrounding me are total idiots. They're the epitome of what's wrong with society. They fail to understand the reason I want to go study overseas has less to do with the education and more to do with the fact I'm fucking tired of how 18 years of my life was "controlled and guided" by everyone except me. I'm tired of not having my decisions respected, of not having my liberty acknowledged. Well, now I'm 18 and now I'm a legal adult and I will now do as I will because nobody can best tell me what to do except for myself.

Another thing that pisses me off is that I need to change those 3 Fs, but the guidance counselor no longer has the power to change grades, and the principal is always in some meeting or not even at school, and the "dean of academics" is nowhere to be found. What the fuck kind of responsibility-taking is this? Who takes responsibility of a duty, yet is never found to handle it?

The resistance to me going to Australia also has me preparing a secondary plan, which is just applying for the 2014 fall term. I'd miss I year, but it doesn't really matter for me(I'd do the same stuff I do the year before college, and the year after.) yet my guidance counselor did a shitty job in helping me.

-----
Background Information

Hidden stuff:

Let me clarify something. My school is a private school, yet it's unofficially religious. On paper, it's secular, but some of the school policies have religious/moral reasoning behind them. This means the admins are also the religious sort(not all teachers though). The school is also "Turkish" in the sense that many students are Turks, and the admins are Turks. This is because this school is part of a religious organization.

Now, some of the teachers are also part of this organization, and got the job because the admins are part of the organization(and their standing in the organization decides their standing in the school). And there's this special thing where the organization seeks to religiously educate "moral" students outside of school. They create groups based by class(6th grade and on), and I was in one of these groups with some of my male classmates(not that many boys in the class anyway so it was almost all the boys). Some males were able to "get out" of this thing simply by getting their parents involved(the parents knew about the group thing and organization stuff.)

I was in this group of the organization since it started in our school. The "criteria" simply being that you have suitable grades, suitable behavior and be of the religion. The idea was that you would go to college, and after becoming "higher educated" you would contribute to the organization and "teach" other youngsters like you were taught yourself(of religious stuff) and also use your influence to help the organization grow so as to educate people about the religion.

I was in the group for years, yet I never wanted to be part of it. My parents made me a part of it, and for years I was stuck being forced to go when I didn't want to. All this managed to do was harm my religion(I'm a believer, but don't practice certain things as much due to these experiences. Not to say I'm immoral as I follow the rules and all, plus I have my own moral code, but the active worshiping and holy book reading were things I simply don't do myself, though will do and know how to do when with a group or on that specific day per week).

The guidance counselor at school is an admin, and thus he is part of this organization. He is also the one who handles the students part of the groups, telling them who their "teacher" outside of school is and stuff of that sort. It's also expected for you to stay with a group of people part of this organization when you go to college, rather than dorm/live alone to "strengthen your religion". Thus, college options also factor in if there's any available "house" with people of the organization room-mating nearby and if not, the guidance counselor will not "permit" you.

So you see why I'm hesitant to speak the man. I've reached a point where I'm literally willing to tell these people who frequently tried to tell me how to live my life to go fuck themselves. And I don't blame my mother, but am annoyed at how she'd rather listen to another person's advice rather than believe in my abilities(and I've proved many times how able I am. Hell I went to Turkey, lived their practically alone for 2 months, got everything done in time and even though I didn't have a job there or source of income, I came back actually having made some money by just being clever.)

---

And now I'm in a slight dilemma(though mostly because I'm not financially independent yet). I still hope to apply Australia, but my chances have slightly gone down due to my grades. I will do my best to point out to the admissions office how I was absent from the country for some time then just hope for the best. I also have a problem with scholarships because people are talking about how they got this much money and all, but thanks to my useless guidance counselor, I don't get it(As in don't get the system behind scholarships. Do I just apply to the school and they come, do I apply, where do I apply, how do I apply to one's for overseas studying etc.)

Perhaps these are questions I'll ask the agent, or admissions office of the Australian colleges. If anyone has any information though, I'd also appreciate that.

And as for the resistance to me going to study in Australia, I plan to get accepted and just go. Screw everyone else. Some people say "But why do you want to go through all the hardship in a foreign country when you could be at comfort at home?". My answer, which I don't tell them because they won't listen or understand, is because nobody achieves shit when they're at comfort. Hardship gives me opportunities, hardship reveals skills, hardship strengthens other skills. How can you expect to improve yourself without having some challenge in your life?

And this would be my discourse/vent. I hid two sections so people could read them individually at any time, since this is literally the Tower of Babel when compared to any walls of text I've written before. The last section is basically the shortest and briefest version of my vent(aka tl;dr).

[Chunklemcdunkle]

Thinking of yourself as an intellectual is the first wrong I see in this post.

One should never define themselves if they want all avenues of thought to open; if they truly want to see things from all angles.

[brainiac3397]

You don't need to be "undefined" to be able to see things from every angle.

My definition is of my emotional sphere, which I tend to also consider inconsequential to any actions that I take as I behave on my logical side. But I can't ignore the fact that I possess an emotional definition. It's like pain. I can feel it, but I wouldn't say it hurts. But simply because it doesn't hurt doesn't mean the pain is meaningless. The hurting is subjective, but the pain is objective.

Looking at things from every angle is a form logical perception. You may be concerned that an "emotional" definition would cloud perception, but there are those capable of making a distinction between their emotional side and logical side, and wisely taking other thoughts and views into consideration.

[Potato]

Quote:And why this post on intellectuals? Because that's what I consider myself to be. I feel like an intellectual. I consider myself an intellectual and emphasize the ideals of an intellectual. And all because I am an intellectual.

watch the fuq out, we've got an "intellectual" over here.

[xcriteria]

(06-14-2013 08:02 AM)Potato Wrote:  watch the fuq out, we've got an "intellectual" over here.

Hah.

(06-14-2013 05:34 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  You don't need to be "undefined" to be able to see things from every angle.

True.

(06-14-2013 05:34 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  Society has grown more and more in favor of scholars and academia, in a system where doing the homework given, taking the tests given, and doing great on them to further your "education" is seen as being smart. Yet is this truly intelligence?

Exactly. Yet, this is one reason "intellectuals" -- including those who created and perpetuate this system -- have a tarnished name.

(06-14-2013 05:34 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  Some people say "But why do you want to go through all the hardship in a foreign country when you could be at comfort at home?". My answer, which I don't tell them because they won't listen or understand, is because nobody achieves shit when they're at comfort. Hardship gives me opportunities, hardship reveals skills, hardship strengthens other skills. How can you expect to improve yourself without having some challenge in your life?

Brilliant thinking there -- for real. A lot of people don't get that, including a lot of "intellectuals" -- who prefer comfort to learning outside of their ivory tower. (See Required Reading 101 from Jessica Smock for more on the value of adversity.

As for the term ivory tower, here are two perspectives:

Wikipedia: "ivory tower"

From the 19th century it has been used to designate a world or atmosphere where intellectuals engage in pursuits that are disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life. As such, it usually carries pejorative connotations of a wilful disconnect from the everyday world; esoteric, over-specialized, or even useless research; and academic elitism, if not outright condescension. In American English usage it is a shorthand for academia or the university, particularly departments of the humanities.

Another perspective, from Meg Tufano, an online course designer, defends the ideal of the ivory tower, but laments the way it seems to be headed:

The entire university was set up for JUST THE VERY REASON that "the world" cannot judge what's going on in there. It was intended to be a counter to worldly ambition. The reason it was called an ivory tower.

The university was intended to protect people like me (and Socrates) so we would not be put to death for getting people to think for themselves. It has long forgotten its purpose and the reason we are seeing so much craziness (MOOCs) is because, literally, the center is not holding. -- https://plus.google.com/1173375694365594...apPaUU5GHh

I think that these days, people in general are less concerned about the danger of other people thinking for themselves, and more concerned that they can't even think their way into a way to earn a living and leaving them alone.

(There's a topic branch off and discuss.)

(06-14-2013 05:34 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  Almost every single successful and intelligent human on this planet, got to that point through not listening to society, by resisting the system and by thinking outside the box. They're the creative sort, the imaginative sort, the type not stuck to one form of thought but rather an experimental outlook. The intellectual is truly intelligent because they don't listen to the mob, they don't care about the arbitrary rules, because through their emphasis on thought and reasoning, they find it to be flawed.

True, although, is it "the intellectual" or is some other term more appropriate? This is really something to reflect on. There's certainly something to being of the mind -- but some take that to a point that they basically ignore real life as well. This doesn't have to be an either-or thing -- as Ken Robinson hits on in his Changing Education Paradigms talk. It's possible to think intelligently about the real world, and possible to act in the real world by thinking intelligently. But a lot of people have learned to see those as two fundamentally different things.

This disconnect can partly be traced to Rene Descartes -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes -- who made an absolute distinction between mind and the physical world:

Descartes in his Passions of the Soul and The Description of the Human Body suggested that the body works like a machine, that it has material properties. The mind (or soul), on the other hand, was described as a nonmaterial and does not follow the laws of nature.

In my view, and many others as well, there's certainly more to the mind than the mechanical world, but mind and body are fundamentally interconnected. This interconnection exists much more fundamentally than Descartes proposed. The world of mind -- and intellect, and body -- and the practical world -- are all fundamentally interwoven.

Given that perspective, there need not be a fundamental split between "intellectual" and "realist." Anyone with a brain can think, and anyone who thinks can function in the world. There need not be a black-and-white distinction between an "intellectual" and another person who uses their mind.

(06-14-2013 05:34 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  What pisses me off the most is how the people surrounding me are total idiots. They're the epitome of what's wrong with society. They fail to understand the reason I want to go study overseas has less to do with the education and more to do with the fact I'm fucking tired of how 18 years of my life was "controlled and guided" by everyone except me. I'm tired of not having my decisions respected, of not having my liberty acknowledged. Well, now I'm 18 and now I'm a legal adult and I will now do as I will because nobody can best tell me what to do except for myself.

This is how I felt growing up with "intellectual" parents, including my dad and stepdad being college professors. I absorbed the message again and again that those two were trapped in an unchanging system that controlled their lives. So... did they let me unschool, or anything like that? No! Their only conception of reality was school, or poverty, or string-pullers who told everyone else what to do. It's hard to explain how much frustration I have from growing up in this context, hearing their complaints about "students who won't learn," and their grumblings about life in academia, while I wanted to learn, and nobody in my life could help me do so beyond the limited world of "shut up and get some grades because string-pullers run the world and let's complain about them."

So, I encourage you to step back from the term intellectual, and dig a little deeper into what it means to you. From the definition you gave, it seems like you believe in your mind, in reason, in applying abstract thinking to everyday decisions.

I agree with all of that, but at least some "intellectuals" consider themselves distinct from the "real world," and prefer the comfort they experience drawing salaries to do... various things. Some, many of those things may be of value, but how many of them are questioning the way education tends to work? I think it's a minority.

The rest are comfortably drawing their salaries, while complaining about string-pullers and "bad-lazy students." Those students who provide a good part of their salaries.

To provide a personal anecdote, when I tried to apply my understanding of *ideas* to questioning how a school was operating based on grades and college-pipelining, my questions were discounted as esoteric. That is, magically unrelated to real life. But ideas are not magically unrelated to real life -- even though some are -- many are very applicable.

So, to conclude my own rant... what is it you hope to learn and experience in a college environment?

[Chunklemcdunkle]

(06-14-2013 05:34 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  You don't need to be "undefined" to be able to see things from every angle.

My definition is of my emotional sphere, which I tend to also consider inconsequential to any actions that I take as I behave on my logical side. But I can't ignore the fact that I possess an emotional definition. It's like pain. I can feel it, but I wouldn't say it hurts. But simply because it doesn't hurt doesn't mean the pain is meaningless. The hurting is subjective, but the pain is objective.

Looking at things from every angle is a form logical perception. You may be concerned that an "emotional" definition would cloud perception, but there are those capable of making a distinction between their emotional side and logical side, and wisely taking other thoughts and views into consideration.

The logical side and emotional side should be brought together. In order to be truly balanced, you must have those aspects be in line with each other.

If you want to have a clearer view of things, know that there is no separation between the two, because there is no side for one or the other unless you make it that way. In order to have the clearest path of thought, you should recognize when things are just classifications. And largely, classifications are useless and very pedantic.

Looking at things from all angles can be seen as a form of logical perception....whatever that is. I mean just by definition, almost everything we perceive starts as a "logical perception."

An example of what I am trying to say is this:

I don't define myself as an athiest, intellectual, musician, student, salesman, clerk, etc...even though one could say that I sometimes perform those roles or duties on a routine basis.

Once you start classifying yourself as something, your thoughts begin to take on the flavor of whatever way that you define yourself.

Be like water, as bruce lee said... But what chunklemcdunkle says is be flowing water....don't let your water take the shape of anything; let it flow freely over the contours of the bottle....but don't let it become the bottle.

The best thing a truth seeker can do is to recognize when they classify themselves as something and then stop it.

[xcriteria]

(06-14-2013 01:08 PM)Chunklemcdunkle Wrote:  The logical side and emotional side should be brought together. In order to be truly balanced, you must have those aspects be in line with each other.

Agreed. That said, differentiating those sides can be useful as a step toward integration. The two interact by default, but respecting the value of each can help their aspects be brought into harmony.

(06-14-2013 01:08 PM)Chunklemcdunkle Wrote:  If you want to have a clearer view of things, know that there is no separation between the two, because there is no side for one or the other unless you make it that way. In order to have the clearest path of thought, you should recognize when things are just classifications. And largely, classifications are useless and very pedantic.

Classifications can be useful or problematic depending on the situation. Often times, both. Stepping back and learning to identify their relative merits or drawbacks can help with that deliberation.

(06-14-2013 01:08 PM)Chunklemcdunkle Wrote:  Looking at things from all angles can be seen as a form of logical perception....whatever that is. I mean just by definition, almost everything we perceive starts as a "logical perception."

True -- almost anything an be justified as a "logical perception" by someone who believes in their perception. So, it's important to step back from words (which can be useful) and ask what they mean (which can be useful) and also ask how the definitions relate to real things. (Complicated, but those steps can bring some insight into the complex.)

(06-14-2013 01:08 PM)Chunklemcdunkle Wrote:  An example of what I am trying to say is this:

I don't define myself as an athiest, intellectual, musician, student, salesman, clerk, etc...even though one could say that I sometimes perform those roles or duties on a routine basis.

Once you start classifying yourself as something, your thoughts begin to take on the flavor of whatever way that you define yourself.

This is an important thing to keep in mind, but at the same time, doing away with definitions and differentiation can also leave you with the flavor(s) of however you don't define yourself. In other words, whether you define yourself or not, there's still something to you.

(06-14-2013 01:08 PM)Chunklemcdunkle Wrote:  Be like water, as bruce lee said... But what chunklemcdunkle says is be flowing water....don't let your water take the shape of anything; let it flow freely over the contours of the bottle....but don't let it become the bottle.

For sure, don't become the bottle. However, be more than water, Everyone has a story -- a backstory, an identity, a reality, a life sequence. It's worth breaking out of definitions and traps, even being like water, but at the same time, I think it's also worth respect that backstory, seeing the way psychological evolution works in terms of real life plot points, and all that. Don't just become water, and get stuck as water -- that's a recipe for being dominated by Evil Plans and things of that nature.

(06-14-2013 01:08 PM)Chunklemcdunkle Wrote:  The best thing a truth seeker can do is to recognize when they classify themselves as something and then stop it.

At the very least, question it, and explore the impact of those classifications.

[xcriteria]

Two more quick thoughts:

(06-14-2013 01:08 PM)Chunklemcdunkle Wrote:  You are the eternal energy of the universe. There is no such thing as "I"

Apologies, but yes, there is. I am real. I am typing this. I am me. You are you.

I am me, unlike most of the time I was sitting in factory model schools as an unconscious body. And the spaces since that I've tried to dig myself out of that hole of mental oblivion.

Sometimes... at least outside of meditation... Definition has its place.

And getting rid of "I" leads to nightmarish destruction of mass numbers of people by people who have never learned what "I" means.

brainiac3397 Wrote:I was most definitely born in the wrong era, or this is just how I feel it. I don't know whether it's just my opinion on it, but it seems like society(American to be specific) is eager to dumb people down and take opportunities of development or opportunities that allow development away from those less fortunate but seeking to improve...

I understand the feeling, but is it the era that's the problem? Maybe it's the best era possible to address your concerns. Consider societies throughout history -- generally based on the vast majority being dumbed down by virtue of no education whatsoever. Even our dreaded factory model schools do tend to teach people to read and write in some form. We have the Internet to work with, unlike any other point in history.

In contrast, the modern world, for the most part, isn't threatened by things like literacy and people thinking for themselves. The bigger threats come from people being brain dead enough to succumb to Evil Plans, and/or people who personally are so happy with their institutions that they can't seem to think outside of them.

[Chunklemcdunkle]

Thanks for elaborating on my post.

That was some stuff I felt went without saying, but that was only because I was the one saying it.


And also what I mean by there being no such thing as "I" is that it's just another classification. Not something to be done away with completely, but on the same hand, not something to immerse yourself in completely.

I understand that you can not escape sense of self. You will always be you.

And who are "you," except existence itself? Everything else is simply "extra." Not superfluous....but "extra."

[Chunklemcdunkle]

(06-14-2013 01:57 PM)xcriteria Wrote:  And getting rid of "I" leads to nightmarish destruction of mass numbers of people by people who have never learned what "I" means.

And I will add that these people were extremely caught up in "I."

They ventured far from getting rid of it within themselves.


We are talking about two completely different things when you come to this last sentence you wrote.

There is a difference between shedding ego and seeing things for what they really are and dehumanizing other people. To keep it simple, I will leave it at that.

[xcriteria]

(06-14-2013 02:39 PM)Chunklemcdunkle Wrote:  And also what I mean by there being no such thing as "I" is that it's just another classification. Not something to be done away with completely, but on the same hand, not something to immerse yourself in completely.

Agreed.

(06-14-2013 02:39 PM)Chunklemcdunkle Wrote:  I understand that you can not escape sense of self. You will always be you.

And who are "you," except existence itself? Everything else is simply "extra." Not superfluous....but "extra."

Sense of self... even self can evolve. It *is* important and valuable to distinguish ego-identiy, or "I" from one's "self" as a whole -- past, present, future, subconscious, body, mind, feelings, ideas, whatever parts of self one might not include in their current sense of "I."

Here's good video to give that one some thought:



Watch on YouTube

Hidden stuff:

The prequel, where 12-year-old Jeremiah talks to his 10-year-old self:



Watch on YouTube

(06-14-2013 02:39 PM)Chunklemcdunkle Wrote:  We are talking about two completely different things when you come to this last sentence you wrote.

There is a difference between shedding ego and seeing things for what they really are and dehumanizing other people. To keep it simple, I will leave it at that.

Agreed. But that's an example of where definitions can be useful. To be clear about what one is talking about.

[Chunklemcdunkle]

There we go. That is simply what I mean.

There is no such thing as I. Its a mask of sorts.

"Self," however.......

[xcriteria]

But there is a thing such a thing as I. You just referenced it your first sentence.

What it is to any given person could change, grow, evolve and be better related to "self" as a whole.

Jung used the term "persona" to describe the "mask" -- and "ego" to describe the "I." -- Persona (psychology). But even the term "ego" ends up being used in deferent ways. In common parlance, rather than "one's conscious self" as Jung used the term, it means That's why defining terms is useful when it comes to getting to know the mind and parts of people's selves.

[Chunklemcdunkle]

Well yeah of course.

I don't mean to do away with it completely. That would be pretty biased.

The most mystifying and deep things are almost unexplainable with language because it makes up almost all of our communication.


Everything has uses and everything can vary. It goes to show the fluidity of everything.

[brainiac3397]

Bump cause this has like 37k views(and not enough replies). Are they unique views btw?

[Username]

Brainiac Wrote:I was most definitely born in the wrong era, or this is just how I feel it.

I stopped right there.

[Cianna200]

I tend to try to understand the deeper meaning behind things, I try to question as much as I can, but consider myself a half-fool (if you know what I mean)

[brainiac3397]

(09-27-2015 03:46 AM)Cianna200 Wrote:  I tend to try to understand the deeper meaning behind things, I try to question as much as I can, but consider myself a half-fool (if you know what I mean)

Well it's commonly said that a smart person tends to be in doubt of their abilities while a fool believes themselves always correct.

[Ky]

Right. The Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Cianna200]

Oh

[sfslol]

I believe that being "intelligent", is the ability to think, understand, and build and apply new knowledge. And having a lot of knowledge, doesn't necessarily mean that you are intelligent. This is why I believe school is developed the wrong way, because it tries to teach you intelligence when it can only be developed. How are you intelligent when you are told that things work the way they do, even though you don't understand it?

Why are some animals being looked at as intelligent, or "smart" by many people? Not because they have a lot of knowledge or know how to do math, but simply because they are able to think, understand and build and apply knowledge.

[SoulRiser]

Hmm, that is an unusually high amount of views. Must be from search engines or something. Awesome.

I also hate it when things get dumbed down, much like what is happening with computers and search engines lately.

I don't think I'd have lived very long in another era, probably would have been burned at the stake or something.

Intellectuals have always kind of been ostracized... haven't they? Just thinking about the little bits of history I'm familiar with... and the intelligent people have often been the odd ones out and never been particularly respected while they were alive. Some exceptions here and there (Einstein)... but... in what era and place were intellectuals actually respected?

[brainiac3397]

None. The only "respect" they might achieve is through the modern development of "mass intelligentsia" which is due to the effects of the education system. Of course that doesn't mean intellectuals will be very well-liked or respected, but when the public becomes more educated, they may be less inclined to disparage and despise the intellectuals.

Though the Enlightenment was probably the most pro-intellectual period in human history...for a brief period of time. Did you know the Illuminati conspiracy theory was originally written by a french Jesuit priest upset with the French Revolution that dethroned the monarchy and significantly undermined the political authority of the clergy? It also accused the Freemasons of being the motivators for the Jacobins, who borrwed from them, to contribute to the support of overthrowing the ancien regime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoirs_Il...Jacobinism

Perhaps its simply possible that there is no such thing as a government that is "leftist" because why else would a government(or society through government) fear or hate the intellegensia? It's common practice for the "rightist" to conserve and react, and an intellectual tends to do neither(even those who "conserve" only do so after vigorous questioning. Tradition is not usually an acceptable answer)