[ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps
fauxever at sprynet.com
Sat Sep 29 21:04:10 UTC 2007
From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:21 AM
> Wolf graduated magna cum laude from Yale, and was a Rhodes scholar at
Yes, I was aware of that. I certainly believe in good education - and there
are many ways people go about getting educated throughout their lives.
In my own life I've known several people (including a some from my extended
family) who generally fit that description, and yet ... I would call their
intelligence "fair-to-middling." To be sure, some of them were and have
continued to evolve to become - great intellectuals (but a few seemed to
have gone seriously downhill from their college years).
I've also known brilliant people who've never been to college.
My husband - who's known a lot of those fabled "rocket scientists" at
McDonnell Douglas (where he used to work for 15 years) ... found a lot of
them wanting when it came to interdisciplinary thinking (e.g., there were a
couple of them who were creationists).
> It's true that Paglia denounces her as someone who "cannot
> write a coherent paragraph. This is a woman who cannot do historical
> analysis... Naomi Wolf is an intelligent woman.
And beyond that (because having and intellect and being an intellectual are
somewhat related, yet can be somewhat different), Naomi Wolf is an
well. I did say I thought Naomi Wolf wasn't "much" of an intellectual - and
I admit that's my own subjective spin on the matter. I don't consider Wolf
to be a great innovative thinker, and - compared to historical women and men
whom I admire more - not exactly in their league. But, granted - Naomi Wolf
is intelligent, and she's also an intellectual.
> She has been
> ill-served by her education." This doesn't mean she's not a "public
> intellectual"--just that she's one with whom some disagree and of
> whom some disapprove as a poor instance of the breed. Paglia, of
> course, comes in for similar treatment from other quarters.
Naomi Wolf is definitely a public intellectual. (I wish more
behind-the-scenes intellectuals were better known - it would raise the bar
> Wolf's vision of Jesus and the lessons she draws from it are
> unpalatable to me, too--but would you say Carl Jung was not an
> intellectual? Thomas Aquinas?
Going by the definition of an intellectual, I would say that Jung and
Aquinas were definitely intellectuals. For their times, Jung and Aquinas
also contributed more innovative ideas to the public discourse (than, say,
either Paglia or Wolf).
> Personally, I think that her article on "fascism in America" is
> overwrought and undernourished, but the elements of her topic are
> worth some discussion.
Definitely. I agree.
More information about the extropy-chat