Self-worth and intellectuals
Jan. 25th, 2016 01:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blimixA long time ago, a friend told me that his young niece had just received an $800 fur coat (that's $1250 in today's dollars) as a gift from her parents, and that her reaction was to complain that it wasn't expensive enough. We both took this as a clear sign that she was absurdly spoiled: What child is so lavished upon, so showered with riches, that an $800 fur coat does not meet her expectations?
I now think that we were wrong. (Granted, the act of giving that coat was itself spoiling.) Her reaction was motivated not by her expectations, but by a desire to prop up her self-image. People who have no real concept of self-worth often try to raise themselves up by placing things beneath them. (I suspect that this relates to the insane popularity games that schoolchildren play: Picking on or ostracizing someone indicates that they are beneath you, and by some social version of Newton's third law of motion, putting them down raises you up.) The price of the fur coat enabled this child (so she thought) to show her worth by declaring it beneath her. The more expensive, the better it was for this purpose. She is an adult now, and likely, she has since learned to value people by their actions, by the happiness and well-being that they create and/or preserve, or by any measure at all other than what they don't like.
An even longer time ago, my oldest friend shared a quote with me: "My definition of an intellectual is someone who can listen to the William Tell Overture without thinking of the Lone Ranger." (If you're younger, substitute "'Hey Beautiful' without thinking of "The Big Bang Theory'" (and imagine that "Hey Beautiful" was written by Tchaikovsky).) We were kids, and took it as amusing and possibly accurate. More recently, I have come to regard the quote's sentiment as revealing the same pathos displayed by the niece: Without a schema for understanding one's own worth, even an adult may attempt to create it by placing him- or herself "above" popular culture. (Though I think that doesn't describe "intellectuals" so much as "hipsters" (and I'm not even sure about them).) A web search turned up the quote's author, comedian Billy Connolly. This reassured me, for I had feared that, despite its tongue-in-cheek nature, the quote had been meant in earnest. There are people like that, but at least its author was not one of them.
As an aside, I no longer know what an "intellectual" is. I think I had some idea of it when I was a child: An intellectual might study "pure" (as opposed to applied) math and science, or philosophy, and engage in acts of purely intellectual pleasure. But as I've grown up, I've had decreasing regard for the idea that what is nebulously termed "intelligence" correlates to anything at all other than the ability to learn quickly. My martial arts class challenges me intellectually more (and more engagingly) than any college course did. Applying science to the real world yields far more interesting puzzles (and revelations) than pushing numbers around with a pencil (while disregarding friction and air resistance) does. And for fuck's sake, playing chess just means that you haven't found something better to do with your time. (Yes, I was in my high school's chess club. Shut up.)
For me, all that's left of the idea of the "intellectual" is the presentation: Something like Brian from "Family Guy," whose affectations of culture and intellect mask the fact that he's no smarter than average. Given that, I can hardly imagine how the term "pseudointellectual" can mean anything at all. I mean, if you're claiming an image, whether it's "goth" or "steampunk" or "intellectual," who has the authority to call you a poser? Some pitiable schmuck who claims the same image, trying desperately to establish that you are beneath them?
I now think that we were wrong. (Granted, the act of giving that coat was itself spoiling.) Her reaction was motivated not by her expectations, but by a desire to prop up her self-image. People who have no real concept of self-worth often try to raise themselves up by placing things beneath them. (I suspect that this relates to the insane popularity games that schoolchildren play: Picking on or ostracizing someone indicates that they are beneath you, and by some social version of Newton's third law of motion, putting them down raises you up.) The price of the fur coat enabled this child (so she thought) to show her worth by declaring it beneath her. The more expensive, the better it was for this purpose. She is an adult now, and likely, she has since learned to value people by their actions, by the happiness and well-being that they create and/or preserve, or by any measure at all other than what they don't like.
An even longer time ago, my oldest friend shared a quote with me: "My definition of an intellectual is someone who can listen to the William Tell Overture without thinking of the Lone Ranger." (If you're younger, substitute "'Hey Beautiful' without thinking of "The Big Bang Theory'" (and imagine that "Hey Beautiful" was written by Tchaikovsky).) We were kids, and took it as amusing and possibly accurate. More recently, I have come to regard the quote's sentiment as revealing the same pathos displayed by the niece: Without a schema for understanding one's own worth, even an adult may attempt to create it by placing him- or herself "above" popular culture. (Though I think that doesn't describe "intellectuals" so much as "hipsters" (and I'm not even sure about them).) A web search turned up the quote's author, comedian Billy Connolly. This reassured me, for I had feared that, despite its tongue-in-cheek nature, the quote had been meant in earnest. There are people like that, but at least its author was not one of them.
As an aside, I no longer know what an "intellectual" is. I think I had some idea of it when I was a child: An intellectual might study "pure" (as opposed to applied) math and science, or philosophy, and engage in acts of purely intellectual pleasure. But as I've grown up, I've had decreasing regard for the idea that what is nebulously termed "intelligence" correlates to anything at all other than the ability to learn quickly. My martial arts class challenges me intellectually more (and more engagingly) than any college course did. Applying science to the real world yields far more interesting puzzles (and revelations) than pushing numbers around with a pencil (while disregarding friction and air resistance) does. And for fuck's sake, playing chess just means that you haven't found something better to do with your time. (Yes, I was in my high school's chess club. Shut up.)
For me, all that's left of the idea of the "intellectual" is the presentation: Something like Brian from "Family Guy," whose affectations of culture and intellect mask the fact that he's no smarter than average. Given that, I can hardly imagine how the term "pseudointellectual" can mean anything at all. I mean, if you're claiming an image, whether it's "goth" or "steampunk" or "intellectual," who has the authority to call you a poser? Some pitiable schmuck who claims the same image, trying desperately to establish that you are beneath them?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2016-01-25 08:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2016-01-26 12:32 am (UTC)While I could see a case for "intellectuals" constituting a professor-level social class, that doesn't seem like it would be a real thing. Socially, actual professors are way more fun and down-to-earth than movie professors are (in my experience). (And they prefer Eurogames to chess. (Also IME.))
(no subject)
Date: 2016-01-26 06:01 am (UTC)I'm not sure that the above really says anything outside of a) simplified problems are often comparatively uninteresting, even if they are usually necessary steps in learning basics before moving on to more advanced work, and b) people have different personal preferences on what's interesting and how to spend one's spare time.
I suspect that the dividing line between "real world" and "useless abstraction" shifts and blurs over time to the point where "purity" is an overrated concept. G.H. Hardy was proud that his work on number theory had no applications; I wonder what he'd think of number theory being a cornerstone of electronic commerce.
(no subject)
Date: 2016-01-26 06:38 am (UTC)Additionally, I think that underneath such dismissive sentiments as, "Engineering is just applied physics," is "Boy, I'm glad I don't have to deal with something as scary, complicated, and unfamiliar as trying to apply enough physics to the real world to make things that actually work! That sounds tough!" Respect to the engineers!
(no subject)
Date: 2016-01-26 09:42 am (UTC)Like the author, I do wish class was a thing the left could talk about as though it existed, because I agree that the Orwellian ideas of "we're not talking about this so it doesn't exist" seem dishonest academically, so it's hard to listen to the rest of whatever message they might be trying to say.
--Beth
(no subject)
Date: 2016-01-26 03:33 pm (UTC)Sadly, even people who espouse intersectionality often ignore class as a category that intersects.
(no subject)
Date: 2016-01-26 03:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2016-01-26 06:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2016-02-01 10:46 pm (UTC)In any case, yes, that ability (and its apparent scarcity) was probably another part of the motivation of whatever such snobbery I held as a kid.
(Intriguing grammatical note: Above was an example of useful pleonasm, to communicate the intended precision of the meanings in my uses of "talent" and "skill," and also to clarify those meanings for any readers unfamiliar with the distinction.)
(no subject)
Date: 2016-02-11 09:39 pm (UTC)I tend to think of intelligence in similar fashion. We all have a ceiling, but most people don't put in enough practice to even begin approaching it.