>Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 10:39:06 -0500
>
>Well, I don't know. These people weren't intellectuals in
>the sense I think ML is using the word. They had active minds
>and engaged in "intellectual" pursuits like reading and writing
>books, but they didn't occupy a social role in which they were
>supposed to do the thinking for other people.
Maybe you are right, but Jefferson was a lawyer and Garrison wasa preacher, and those jobs do involve "doing the thinking for otherpeople."
Most of them
>had day jobs. Now, this might not be an important distinction
>if everybody were going to speak truth to power, but as you
>say ML thinks the _intellectual_ should not speak truth to it
>but run around and see how he or she can best serve it, so I
>wonder if he means _no_one_ should speak truth to power, or if
>this pastime should be consigned to street people, taxi drivers,
>businessmen and other types outside the company of the elect
>(and the walls of the palace).
You are too flattering to him. In the Straussian precincts of the Cmtee on Social Thought, it is presumed that taxi drivers and businessmen can't think and must be lied to by the Enlightened. I am not making this up. What I am saying is literally true.
jks
Someone should ask him.
>
>-- Gordon
>
>
>Justin Schwartz:
> > Gordon: Fair enough. I ahdn't ben thinkinga bout "intellectuals."
>Jefferson
> > was one is anyone was. Garrison was a preacher, Stowe a writer, so they
> > qualify at least occupationally. Wasshington was just a general and
> > politician. Replace him with Franklin or Paine, the real thing, or
>indeed
> > with Madison or Hamilton, ditto. jks
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Mark Lilla:
> > > > >The intellectuals of our time I have most admired as models of
> > > > >probity and good sense were Raymond Aron and Isaiah Berlin. Aron,
> > > > >because he punctured the myth of the intellectual as moral critic
> > > > >"speaking truth to power." He understood that thinking responsibly
>in
> > > > >modern democratic society means mastering the complexities of that
> > > > >society and putting oneself in the shoes of those who must make
> > > > >decisions
> > >
> > >Justin Schwartz:
> > > > This is an extraordinarily revealing comment. We are not, it seems,
>to
> > >speak
> > > > truth to power. We are instead supposed to figure out how to
>exercise it
> > >for
> > > > ends that are taken as given. How utterly vile and contemptible. If
> > > > Washington and Jefferson had taken that line, we'd still be singing
>"God
> > > > Save the Queen," and if William Lloyd Garrison and Harriet Beecher
>Stowe
> > >had
> > > > done so, we'd be thing about how to ameliorate the lot of the
>slaves.
> > >jks
> > >
> > >I wonder if Mark Lilla would characterize any of those four
> > >as "intellectuals" in the sense he's using the word above.
> > >I wouldn't. Maybe he thinks intellectuals are impossibly
> > >tainted by their roles, and somebody else should do the job
> > >of speaking truth to power. (Indeed, the notion of having a
> > >thinking _class_ suggests authority, discipline and obedience.)
> > >Anyway, someone should ask him who, in his view, _should_ do
> > >the speaking-truth thing, and let him waffle it out.
> > >
> > >-- Gordon
> > >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>--
>
> (<><>) /*/
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf at panix.com }"{
>{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 8/30/01 <-adv't
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp