>Justin Schwartz:
> > ... An intellectual might be defined,
> > practically, as someone who wouldn't think that reference to Rawls or
>Adorno
> > wasn't obviously stupid, pretentious, or out of left field.
>
>I think you have that backwards. A non-intellectual would
>most likely not have read Rawls or Adorno (except for the
>poetry), and would treat a reference to either indifferently
>or suspiciously -- no particular take on it would be obvious
>to them.
You'd think, but in my experience it's not so; in America, interests in Rawls or Adorno are regarded as both stupid, because not practical, and pretentoous, like you're trying to be better than other people. An interest in baseball, however, is OK.
>In order to think (outside of blind prejudice)
So there is a lot of that going around.
that
>the reference was obviously anything, the thinker would have
>to be aware of not only of the contents of the work in question
Nah, all they'[d have to know is that it;s pointy-headed stuff.
>but the current aura and buzz surrounding it in those circles
>where such things have aura and buzz, to wit, the professional
>environment. If the wind was right....
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com