Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
292,966
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + + Line 114:
Line 118: + + + + + + + + Line 273:
Line 285: + + Line 305:
Line 319: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Essay:Liberal Intellectualism (view source)
Revision as of 17:16, February 11, 2020
, 17:16, February 11, 2020→Hemingway Overrated
== Foucault ==
Could you please expand the section on Foucault? At the moment there is nothing there and I think it is unfair on the person themselves if someone gives them a label without explaining why. Also it is out of my own personal interest that I found out why you critise Foucault.--[[User:Lamb12|Lamb12]] 21:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
== Question ==
== Question ==
:::Mr Smith is unfortunately no longer able to continue this discussion. TK [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AIpblocklist&action=search&limit=&ip=JSmith blocked] him. Assumedly for holding this discussion. Would you like to comment sir? [[User:BLocke|BLocke]] 10:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Mr Smith is unfortunately no longer able to continue this discussion. TK [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AIpblocklist&action=search&limit=&ip=JSmith blocked] him. Assumedly for holding this discussion. Would you like to comment sir? [[User:BLocke|BLocke]] 10:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
"Richard Dawkins lasted only 2 years teaching at University of California, Berkeley, a mere lecturer at Oxford until a wealthy ally donated a professorship for him"
Oh, a mere lecturer at Oxford? And Bush's resume is so much more impressive than that. - Barry Sherman
: Bush does not use his credentials to claim any intellectual superiority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:05, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
And? That article is obviously an attempt to make liberals look intellectually inferior. - Barry Sherman
==Motivation==
==Motivation==
{{cquote|What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc.}}
{{cquote|What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc.}}
::Being credited with the title "founding father of modern macroeconomics" and having had a remarkable impact on theoretical Computer Sciences count as such intellectual achievements in my eyes. Are you saying they're not? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:23, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
::Being credited with the title "founding father of modern macroeconomics" and having had a remarkable impact on theoretical Computer Sciences count as such intellectual achievements in my eyes. Are you saying they're not? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:23, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
This whole section is pretty dumb and should be deleted. I don't think whoever authored it understands what a psuedo-intellectual is. Harvard professors and world class mathematicians are not psuedo-intellectuals, they are the very definition of intellectuals. ----[[user:grah|grah]] 09:45 27 February 2008 (EST)
==Liberal intellectualism and the Cold War==
==Liberal intellectualism and the Cold War==
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 16:35, 20 February 2008 (EST)
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 16:35, 20 February 2008 (EST)
::I have to agree that Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, who's taken the human mind farther than many of his peers. I disagree with the parts of his work that assume a billion-billion whatever year old universe, but I pride myself on being able to look past that to the true genius, not to mention the heroism he demonstrates on a daily basis for overcoming his crippling condition. The man is an American treasure and a credit to his nation.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EST)
::I have to agree that Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, who's taken the human mind farther than many of his peers. I disagree with the parts of his work that assume a billion-billion whatever year old universe, but I pride myself on being able to look past that to the true genius, not to mention the heroism he demonstrates on a daily basis for overcoming his crippling condition. The man is an American treasure and a credit to his nation.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EST)
Ahhhhh dude, Stephen Hawking was born in Oxford, England. I'm not sure you could call him an American tresure. Incidently, interesting side note - Hawking was born on the anniversary of Galileo's death 300 years earlier.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)
:But he teaches at CalTech (our treasure, credit to Britain).-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)
Fair enough :-)
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 18:09, 20 February 2008 (EST)
::: I'm not sure who stuck that bit in about Hawking. I'd have to check the history. I certainly agree that he's an inspiration on a personal level, and thus would be reluctant to criticism him. But, rising above emotion, when someone claims to be an intellectual, as Hawking's supporters certainly claim about him, it's fair game to probe the accuracy of the claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:04, 20 February 2008 (EST)
checking the accuracy of his claims is difficult when you consider his trade is theoretical physics. You cant say he is not an intellectual when you consider his lifes work and the respect he has worldwide.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)
: The point the entry is to show how liberal-promoted intellectuals are not what liberals claim they are. I'm fine with taking Hawking out unless and until someone does more research. He's not a leading [[liberal]] as far as I know, so he probably should not be on the list anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 21 February 2008 (EST)
Personally I have done a lot of reading by Hawking and about Hawking and never once is his political leanings been mentioned nor have I heard of him being espoused primarily by liberals or conservatives. I think both sides of the political spectrum would agree with his intellectual capability. I remove it now and if anyone could prove he should be on this list I would be interested to hear their argument for inclusion. Thanks.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 20:46, 23 February 2008 (EST)
When Hawking met the Pope in Rome in the 1990s, he demanded to see where [[Galileo]]s trial took place. Although the Pope was an elderly and physically unwell man, Hawking had no problem putting him through distress to meet his ends. There is no doubt, from anyone who has studied Hawking and his political positions, that he is an avowed [[Liberal]], and as a Liberal 'academic', deserves to be mentioned in the list. There is no such thing as an intelligent Liberal. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:25, 3 March 2008 (EST)
== Huh? ==
Kerry: Fought for his country
Gore: Actually look at the link you provided on the 'net
Bill Clinton: "may have virtually". So he might have almost?
Dawkins: Lecturer at Oxford is still very prestigious
Stephen Jay Gould: Any evidence for that?
Tribe: A professor at Harvard
McNamara: successfully managed the world bank
Oppenheimer: was key in developing the bomb (so what about leaks?)
Jon Stewart: No evidence at all
Chomsky: Actually, he did make significant advances in linguistics, not just "guesses"
Keynes: Policies still used today, influenced Hayek and Friedman as well
Foucault: See Jon stewart
Rachel Carson: Found to have errata by whom?
Bertrand Russell: He won a nobel in literature
Ward Churchill: Managed to become professor nonetheless
Sulzerberger: That says nothing about academic credentials. The same argument could apply to President bush
Darwin: How? Give evidence
Sagan: Again, more evidence. How do we know he was wrong? Maybe his claim made sense.
Clinton: What does that say about the rest of her career?
Since I would like to be banned by this website, I would like to say CENSORED
It is interesting how the Liberal places so much weight on winning a [[Nobel Prize]]. The Liberal obviously doesn't understand that the [[Nobel Prize]] is merely an award given by [[Liberal]]s to other [[Liberal]]s. Notice how the [[Liberal]] engages in the act of [[Deceit]] and the use of [[Profanity]], a favoured [[Liberal Style]] in debates. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)
== Gore Link ==
A slight problem- the link posted for Al Gore actually argues that he ''didn't'' claim that he invented the internet. --Dollfuss
: You're right: the link was to liberal claptrap. I've replaced it with Gore's actual quote and a link to the transcript.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
== Democrat v. Democratic ==
Rather than actually explain this to JPatt, I thought I'd share the lesson with all. If you read Jpatt's recent addition, you may (or may not) have determined it was supposed to be an "example" of "liberal intellectualism" to clarify between Democrat and Democratic. But in trying to explain it, Jpatt gets it all wrong. Democrats (correctly used) prefer not to be referred to as Democrat Senators, Democrat Representative, or the Democrat Party. Democrat is a NOUN, Democratic is an ADJECTIVE. Now, Jpatt is not an American, so we'll allow that perhaps he's not aware of the difference in the American language. To use Democrat as an adjective is considered a pejorative, and quite clearly explained here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28phrase%29 Wikipedia: Democrat Party (phrase)]. Now that it's cleared up, I think we can all agree that the difference between a noun and an adjective isn't a "liberal intellectualism" trait, but rather "third-grade English" knowledge. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:30, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
== Mainspace ==
I thing that this article belongs to mainspace. This is not a ideological stance, only for consistency with a series of other articles with a Liberal theme. I am sorry if I said something wrong. I am new here but already read many articles. [[User:LiaraTRP|LiaraTRP]] 15:32, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
==Smear?==
Why was my entry on MLK removed as a smear? Even PC-opedia (wikipedia) admits he plagarized parts of his dissertation. His sexual transgressions are no secret and covered in his biography Let the Trumpet Sound by Stephen Oates (p. 265, 283) and its no secret he took most of his ideas from Gandhi and Thoreau, among others. It's all true. -Mike LaTorres
==Grammar lesson==
'''<nowiki>== Superiority Complex ==</nowiki>'''<br>
'''The liberal believes they are superior to others.'''
:One should decide beforehand whether to render this in the singular or in the plural, either:<br>"The liberal believes he is superior..." or <br>"Liberals believe they are..."
:That done, the entirety of the next sentence could be incorporated into the preceeding:
'''The liberals believe that they are mentally superior to others, claiming the intellectual high ground and warding away challengers with ridicule and other rhetorical devices that serve nothing more than to mock and deride.'''
:The next part is just silly. Democrat is a '''[[noun]]''', democratic is an '''[[adjective]]'''. Once those facts are accepted then the etymological screed below is seen in a different light.<br>
'''A good example is the classic Democrats versus Democratics statement. Liberal Intellectualism will say that it is not proper to use the sentence with the word Democrats, it must be proper, so it must be Democratics. However, 'Democrats' will suffice rather well and the reader understands regardless. There are many instances where <i>Democratic</i> politicians use the word Democrats. Howard Dean says "Democrats have a lot of work to do among seniors." The nation's liberal newspapers use the word Democrats. Google's spellcheck prefers Democrats. The website for congress is addressed 'democrats.senate.gov' Excuses for insisting are endless and a part of Liberal Intellectualism thinking.'''
Please endeavor to learn and know the basics of the language you are trying to write in before attempting to incorporate your thoughts into cogent arguments. Thank you. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 16:51, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
== Rhodes Scholarship ==
The Rhodes Scholarship is political, and not given primarily based on academic merit. Hence the reversion was made.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:27, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
::This is from the Rhodes website:
:::"Intellectual distinction is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for election to a Rhodes Scholarship. Selection committees are charged to seek excellence in qualities of mind and in qualities of person which, in combination, offer the promise of effective service to the world in the decades ahead. The Rhodes Scholarships, in short, are investments in individuals rather than in project proposals. Accordingly, applications are sought from talented students without restriction as to their field of academic specialization or career plans although the proposed course of study must be available at Oxford, and the applicant's undergraduate program must provide a sufficient basis for further study in the proposed field. Through the years, Rhodes Scholars have pursued studies in all of the varied fields available at the University of Oxford."
[[User:MichaelAnderson|MichaelAnderson]] 17:35, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
:::: What do you expect its website to say ... that it welcomes pre-med dropouts having political ambitions???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
==Feynman==
I am shocked that Feynman is on this list. The criticism that his work was theoretical rather than practical is an irrelevance, and given the enormous yield of his work it isn't even entirely true. Feynman diagrams have revolutionized how we look at QFT, and his work on quantum computing, including establishing the concept, have to count. [[User:Trinity123|Trinity123]]
:I removed him from the list. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:51, 6 February 2009 (EST)
== Pauling ==
Why is Linus Pauling on this list? He revolutionized the field of chemistry, and a lot of what he discovered is still taught in chemistry classes over a half century later. His position on vitamin C might have been misguided, but it shouldn't overshadow his previous work, and the fact that he was awarded two Nobel Prizes (I know that the Nobel Prize is ofter dismissed as a liberal pat on the back, but since it's mentioned as a reason Oppenheimer is included on this list, I figured that it's relevant).
:I know nothing of the man, public school educated. There are a few individuals on the list with other unmentioned contributions but their influences on [[liberal deceit]] merit making this list. I did not create this list and maybe you should direct your request to the author.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:58, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
::I apologize, I thought that this essay was trying to discredit liberal scientists as not having real achievements, not just pointing out geniuses that happen to be liberal. Btw, Pauling is the person who came up with the property of electronegativity, and hypothesized the hybridization of atomic orbitals, he is certainly a giant in the field of chemistry. --[[User:MattF5034|MattF5034]] 21:17, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Thanks for your catch. I cleared apparent vandalism out, and feel free to edit it yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
== Wat ==
It seems sort of biased to me [[User:Jehosephat25|Jehosephat25]] 16:50, 2 March 2010 (EST)
== Hemingway Overrated ==
On what grounds? I consider a lot of liberal writers overrated but Hemingway's work was very substantial and he was clearly a genius despite his failings. But why is he considered overrated? And if so, how overrated? Enough that he doesn't qualify as a true intellectual? [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 13:38, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
Bertrand Russell was a genius too. We need to stop equating "wrong about the most important thing" with "wrong about everything."[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 13:41, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
==Move?==
CP needs an article on [[Intellectualism]]. Since this page is collaborative, perhaps it's time to move it from Essay space to mainspace. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:16, 11 February 2020 (EST)