This Is Why Academic Intellectuals Generally Suck For The Most Part...
- Thread starter misterlowercase
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Yep. Same thing happens in Hollywood. Probably happens in all kinds of fields.
And if Schopenhauer sparked an idea with Einstein, so fucking what? Mozart didn't invent most of the musical forms in which he worked. He took those forms and expanded upon them in ways that few others could have done. So did Einstein.
And if Schopenhauer sparked an idea with Einstein, so fucking what? Mozart didn't invent most of the musical forms in which he worked. He took those forms and expanded upon them in ways that few others could have done. So did Einstein.
Al,
I messed up and posted the wrong video somehow, it was supposed to be a great live version performed in 1983 --- I love that song and considered Halford to be one of the most emotive metal singers at the time.
I grew up with them, most especially SFV and DOTF...
...which all eventually led to somehow discovering Mercyful Fate, Celtic Frost, and Slayer
then I got my first Crass record and was punk for life after that,
yet initially only listening to WREK on Thurs. night for the hardcore show I finally started listening to it more regularly and my Third Ear opened and could feel the harmonies of all spheres,
or something.
We had channel 69 who had an afterschool show called Metalworks and the Butcher would play cool videos like Grim Reaper, Accept, and the then current Sabbath ("trashed"), but also sprinkled in little oddities like the Minutemen with "this ain't no picnic" or Black Flag "TV party" and my little head took it all in like a hungry mudbug inna lovely puddle!
Sable, always asking the good questions... let's expand on my original statement.
Of course, academics would like you to think that intellectualism means thinking which only happens in academia. Job security forever.
But really, when you think about it, there is reason to try to give anyone a monopoly over these things. And as far as intellectualism goes, "thinking for thinking's sake" sounds pointless to me.
(If you're like me, the above may take a few years to unpack. At least, it did for me. Maybe you're faster.)
There are three players here: (1) thinking itself, (2) intellectualism and (3) academia, which we might also subdivide into "academic-style thinking" versus the "academic establishment."
Of course, academics would like you to think that intellectualism means thinking which only happens in academia. Job security forever.
But really, when you think about it, there is reason to try to give anyone a monopoly over these things. And as far as intellectualism goes, "thinking for thinking's sake" sounds pointless to me.
(If you're like me, the above may take a few years to unpack. At least, it did for me. Maybe you're faster.)
He unwittingly ducks the actual question: is it relevant?
Nor did Einstein invent what Newton did, or even those afterward. The point is that Einstein is unduly celebrated. There are others of greater genius who get overlooked by the herd's need for a hero. As always, most of history as commonly understood is of dubious variety because it turns up the volume at some frequencies and mutes everything else, leading to a convincing narrative but only a small part of the actual reality.
That's massive. I went the other direction: from punk to thrash (who am I) to death metal. WREK has a great reputation for eclecticism.
I've yet to meet a single academician who has expressed that belief. Being an intellectual and being an academician are two different things. They've not mutually exclusive, nor inclusive. There are academics who pretend to be intellectual. I've met producers and artists who do the same. Pretentiousness is an unfortunate human trait, not limited to the Halls of Academe.
It would to me as well. I'm not even sure that it's possible to do that. Thinking generally revolves around something. Hang on, I'll try to think for thinking's sake...................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................nope, I keep thinking about different things. Damn...
The definition of intelligence that I've found most helpful (YMMV) is a simple one: The ability to make connections. And people with V32's between their ears tend to make connections that most of us miss while observing phenomena and pondering the implications of those observations. Not all of them are academics, but some of them are.
Most of what we have or know comes from people thinking about things. Some person watching lightning flashing in the sky wondered what it meant and came up with the notion of a supernatural being who threw bolts of lightning. Someone else looked for a different explanation and came up with charged particles. But for any of this to be understood, someone had to wonder about it and see the value in wondering.
That's how you see it. Many others disagree, and he certainly enjoyed, and still enjoys, very widespread admiration by his peers. He has his detractors as well. Show me someone who has become an icon who hasn't got both supporters and detractors. But I do understand. I think that Dunhill, Penzance, Stonehaven, and Germain's Balkan Sobranie are unduly celebrated. There are those that disagree with me (they're wrong of course) and there are those who agree with me (they're smart, of course).
I agree. The problem with academia is that it limits, rather rigorously, what they can talk about and rewards many of the wrong things in preference to the right ones.
Interesting. There's two parts to "unduly celebrated": how good it actually is, and how much it is hype. I like Penzance and Stonehaven; I think unicorn-chasing would not work for me, but I can see how it's useful so I'm kind of positive on it at this point. But like all things herd, it can be misleading.
Dunhill pipes, tobaccos or both?
I wanted to start a thread entitled, "Why are Dunhill pipes so expensive?" with the simple note that I like the looks of them, but can't justify spending the money because I am a cheap, miserly, no-good bastard.
Perhaps not, but that's not relevant; the point is how people view intellectualism and whether it is confined to one area. I've met some brilliant armchair philosophers with zero academic cred and some excellent academics, but they are usually not as celebrated as those who come up with witty ways to justify certain confirmation biases.
@misterlowercase:
DRI fandom is a good sign of musical taste and open-mindedness. I'd tip a fedora, but don't have one, so instead you're being saluted with a cup of green tea (looks like pondwater, kind of delicious though).
Of course it is, because,
Exactly. And this thread, which is essentially anecdotal in nature, participated in for amusement and interest by some, read for amusement and interest by others, is exactly the place for such an anecdotal comment. It speaks to my experience of academicians, just as yours speak to yours. The readers and participants factor it all in.
This isn't by any means unique to academia. Ugly Babies prevail in many fields of human interaction. Studios are extremely risk adverse and would prefer to make Land before Time 125 to offering something new. And look at the national debt. How many Ugly Babies were involved in getting us to this point. Politics is everywhere. People advance as much because they are good at selling themselves, brown nosing those they think can advance their careers, or blackmailing others, lying about their accomplishments, stealing credit for others' work, etc. etc. as at being really expert at what they do. I've several times had the experience of reviewing a job applicant's portfolio only to find my own work included, being passed off as the applicant's. BTW, I didn't hire any of them. We'd like to think that academia is removed from this rot, but it's not. What hasn't been statistically proven is that academia is any worse than any other field.
Yep, agree totally with that.
Well, you know, people just love a good sound bite.
Pipes. The tobaccos don't attract idolatry.
Ah! And now, a very wonderful point. You've put your finger on a much wider problem, which is where politics and self-interest overlap (or maybe they are one and the same?). I see it in all fields, too, and next time some software crashes, maybe that's what happened: politics got in the way of a job done.
I suppose that's true. But some of us Royal Yacht worshipers are out here, wondering why Dunhill doesn't release it in bulk five-pound "Family Size" packages.
I can tell you that some academics influence on classical music during the 20th century was disastrous for the art. I remember going to faculty concerts where instructions were handed out to the audience beforehand so they could learn how to listen to the "music" and understand why it was so profound. A whole generation of music students were taught to abstain from tonality. It's taken decades to recover.
Similarly, I watched some old film clips of scientists and academic testifying before Congress warning them that eating fats found in dairy products were killing millions of Americans. They had come up with a much better product as a substitute....transfats. Because Congress adopted dietary guidelines based on that flawed science, millions of people had heart attacks and died! So now we are being told to throw away the margarine and go back to butter....in moderation.
Science and academia are the best institutions we have to describe and learn about the world around us, but we should still be skeptical and always inquiring further before committing half baked science to public policy.
Similarly, I watched some old film clips of scientists and academic testifying before Congress warning them that eating fats found in dairy products were killing millions of Americans. They had come up with a much better product as a substitute....transfats. Because Congress adopted dietary guidelines based on that flawed science, millions of people had heart attacks and died! So now we are being told to throw away the margarine and go back to butter....in moderation.
Science and academia are the best institutions we have to describe and learn about the world around us, but we should still be skeptical and always inquiring further before committing half baked science to public policy.
Software...ugh! I was a beta tester on some very ubiquitous software from an equally ubiquitous developer. What I learned in the process is that all software goes out before it's been completely debugged so that the remaining problems can be reported by the unsuspecting end users. This way the company gets its money back sooner, while benefiting from a broader range of lab rats. I never buy the initial release of any new software for that reason.
One of my favorite examples of this happened many years ago when Adobe released Photoshop 3.0, the first version to have layers. They forgot to remove the "kill code" that goes into every beta version. Sure enough, there were screams all across the country when the software quit at the stroke of midnight on December 31st of that year.
tuold makes a very good point about maintaining a healthy skepticism regarding proclamations.
This is true. One thing that strikes me is how genres have a life-cycle. A few innovators, some very talented people who flesh them out and bring them to their technical peak, then entropy. We could mention death metal and jazz here.
A very accurate description. In my experience, what happens is that marketing promises something, management dithers and mission creep occurs, and then middle management forces the deadline on programmers without much feedback back up to the top, and so they do everything they can and ignore the parts that don't fit the budget, then ship at deadline, ready or not.
Sable, your advice on not buying new software is on-point and should always be heeded. I generally say wait 18 months after release on anything. I made an exception for Windows 10, and generally, am impressed, but it's not a huge change from 8.1.
My other experience-borne advice is: never throw out the old; merely set it aside. If the new fails, you want to be able to roll back.
Climate change always struck me as more symbolism than reality. We need some kind of token or proxy for how much we've savaged our environment. Yes, effects are not visible everywhere; no, we won't get a warning and a sudden flip of the switch, only a slow loss of species diversity and then species themselves as they're forced into inbreeding by reduced territory. Why not attack the problem directly? It would require obliterating some of our favorite myths.
You can help by simply buying land and leaving it forested, but not enough people will voluntarily do this to avert the catastrophe.
"You can help by simply buying land and leaving it forested, but not enough people will voluntarily do this to avert the catastrophe."
What catastrophe? It has not happened as predicted. BTW, a warmer climate, which is not happening at present, will mean more trees and plants and is better for people as well. When was the last time a hurricane hit the U.S.? Right, we are in a record period of no hurricanes, zero hitting the U.S., as opposed to the "scientists" who said hurricanes would proliferate and grow stronger. Polar Bear populations are increasing, another canard, the Polar Bear. That is why academics gin-up the climate data, they have to in order to keep the grant $$$ flowing. Exactly where is the catastrophe? When will it occur? There was a time, not long ago, that England grew grapes and exported wine, because it was so freaking warm. Now, no grapes, because it is too freaking cold in England.I miss Michael Crichton, a massive intellect, Renaissance Man, who engaged in critical thinking, saw the global warming scam for what it was, a scam.
"In 2006, Crichton clashed with journalist Michael Crowley, a senior editor of the magazine The New Republic. In March 2006, Crowley wrote a strongly critical review of State of Fear, focusing on Crichton's stance on global warming.[82] In the same year, Crichton published the novel Next, which contains a minor character named "Mick Crowley", who is a Yale graduate and a Washington, D.C.-based political columnist. The character was portrayed as a child molester with a small penis.[83] The character does not appear elsewhere in the book.[83] The real Crowley, also a Yale graduate, alleged that by including a similarly named character Crichton had libeled him.[84]"
What catastrophe? It has not happened as predicted. BTW, a warmer climate, which is not happening at present, will mean more trees and plants and is better for people as well. When was the last time a hurricane hit the U.S.? Right, we are in a record period of no hurricanes, zero hitting the U.S., as opposed to the "scientists" who said hurricanes would proliferate and grow stronger. Polar Bear populations are increasing, another canard, the Polar Bear. That is why academics gin-up the climate data, they have to in order to keep the grant $$$ flowing. Exactly where is the catastrophe? When will it occur? There was a time, not long ago, that England grew grapes and exported wine, because it was so freaking warm. Now, no grapes, because it is too freaking cold in England.I miss Michael Crichton, a massive intellect, Renaissance Man, who engaged in critical thinking, saw the global warming scam for what it was, a scam.
"In 2006, Crichton clashed with journalist Michael Crowley, a senior editor of the magazine The New Republic. In March 2006, Crowley wrote a strongly critical review of State of Fear, focusing on Crichton's stance on global warming.[82] In the same year, Crichton published the novel Next, which contains a minor character named "Mick Crowley", who is a Yale graduate and a Washington, D.C.-based political columnist. The character was portrayed as a child molester with a small penis.[83] The character does not appear elsewhere in the book.[83] The real Crowley, also a Yale graduate, alleged that by including a similarly named character Crichton had libeled him.[84]"
Although forests in the U.S. have decreased app. thirty percent since Europeans arrived, there's more forested land now than there was a hundred years ago. Man made climate change? I don't buy it. A thousand years ago, when Erik the Red and later Leif Erickson arrived in North America the upper approaches, Baffin Island etc. were ice free. As a side note this was 500 years before Columbus :nana:
Agreed. What a great writer! Makes me want to break out The Andromeda Strain again. State of Fear is also a great book.
I'm not so sure this is true. Not all forests are equal, and we're using more land than we were then; I remember reading about how "forests" now are usually narrow strips of land. It's all in the methods of counting.
I understand this point of view. I submit to your fertile mind the idea that climate change is most appealing to those in cities, where because of localized smog and covering everything in concrete, the temperature is surely hotter
How about we warm up the earth to the point where Greenland can be resettled, and the English can grow grapes and export wine once again, and then stop the warming by having all of us drive electric golf carts, except Algore who would still get his private jet travel and large homes.
I think what I remember reading was talking of total land area so you are probably right, another factor is forest fires aren't burning unhindered anymore.The small farms are abandoned or left to grow up with trees. The valley that I live in was at one time all farms but the fields are slowly turning back to forests.
- Status