<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Tea Party vs. the Intellectuals</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.isegoria.net/2010/07/the-tea-party-vs-the-intellectuals/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2010/07/the-tea-party-vs-the-intellectuals/</link>
	<description>From the ancient Greek for equality in freedom of speech; an eclectic mix of thoughts, large and small</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2026 21:59:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Isegoria</title>
		<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2010/07/the-tea-party-vs-the-intellectuals/comment-page-1/#comment-10487</link>
		<dc:creator>Isegoria</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:22:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.isegoria.net/?p=21193#comment-10487</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree with the spirit of your comment &#8212; that we should take haughty intellectuals down a peg &#8212; but I don&#039;t think it&#039;s inaccurate to call them &lt;em&gt;intellectuals&lt;/em&gt;, and I don&#039;t think it&#039;s accurate to call them &lt;em&gt;clerks&lt;/em&gt;.  They are in fact intelligent and educated, and they are not simply paper-pushers.  The problem is that they&#039;re not half as &lt;em&gt;wise&lt;/em&gt; as they suppose, divorced as they are from the consequences of their grand designs.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with the spirit of your comment &mdash; that we should take haughty intellectuals down a peg &mdash; but I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s inaccurate to call them <em>intellectuals</em>, and I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s accurate to call them <em>clerks</em>.  They are in fact intelligent and educated, and they are not simply paper-pushers.  The problem is that they&#8217;re not half as <em>wise</em> as they suppose, divorced as they are from the consequences of their grand designs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Foster</title>
		<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2010/07/the-tea-party-vs-the-intellectuals/comment-page-1/#comment-9893</link>
		<dc:creator>David Foster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:58:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.isegoria.net/?p=21193#comment-9893</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think we need to rethink the way in which the term &lt;em&gt;intellectual&lt;/em&gt; is used. Many if not most of the people who like to refer to themselves as &lt;em&gt;intellectuals&lt;/em&gt; seem to be using the term primarily as &lt;em&gt;a claim to a status position&lt;/em&gt; rather than as a description of actual intellectual interests or activities. The medieval usage of the term &lt;em&gt;clerks&lt;/em&gt;, referring to those who read and write for a living, whether priests or scribes, would seem overdue for a revival.

I also observe that self-described intellectuals tend to reify ideas, i.e. to treat them as concretes. C.S. Lewis described how this phenomenon worked with his protagonist, a sociologist named Mark, in his novel &lt;cite&gt;That Hideous Strength&lt;/cite&gt;:
&lt;blockquote&gt;...his education had had the curious effect of making things that he read and wrote more real to him than the things he saw. Statistics about agricultural laboureres were the substance: any real ditcher, ploughman, or farmer&#039;s boy, was the shadow... he had a great reluctance, in his work, to ever use such words as &quot;man&quot; or &quot;woman.&quot; He preferred to write about &quot;vocational groups,&quot; &quot;elements,&quot; &quot;classes,&quot; and &quot;populations&quot;: for, in his own way, he believed as firmly as any mystic in the superior reality of the things that are not seen.&lt;/blockquote&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think we need to rethink the way in which the term <em>intellectual</em> is used. Many if not most of the people who like to refer to themselves as <em>intellectuals</em> seem to be using the term primarily as <em>a claim to a status position</em> rather than as a description of actual intellectual interests or activities. The medieval usage of the term <em>clerks</em>, referring to those who read and write for a living, whether priests or scribes, would seem overdue for a revival.</p>
<p>I also observe that self-described intellectuals tend to reify ideas, i.e. to treat them as concretes. C.S. Lewis described how this phenomenon worked with his protagonist, a sociologist named Mark, in his novel <cite>That Hideous Strength</cite>:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8230;his education had had the curious effect of making things that he read and wrote more real to him than the things he saw. Statistics about agricultural laboureres were the substance: any real ditcher, ploughman, or farmer&#8217;s boy, was the shadow&#8230; he had a great reluctance, in his work, to ever use such words as &#8220;man&#8221; or &#8220;woman.&#8221; He preferred to write about &#8220;vocational groups,&#8221; &#8220;elements,&#8221; &#8220;classes,&#8221; and &#8220;populations&#8221;: for, in his own way, he believed as firmly as any mystic in the superior reality of the things that are not seen.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
