Antonio Tabucchi (via riotrepublic). This quote fascinates me because intellectuals so often violate this principle of perpetual interrogation. Indeed, one might rephrase it more accurately by saying that while they should
behave this way, they rarely do.
This is particularly true if they themselves constructed or are participants in the political system or articulated aesthetic in question. In that case, no one will be happier to shoot you for dissent than an intellectual.
Naturally, everyone has doubts about all other doctrines, systems, and aesthetics; but very few have meaningful doubts about their own, except perhaps in some particulars. If questioned, intellectuals protest that this is simply because they happen to be right, and that should evidence to the contrary surface they will amend their views.
But few of us ever see evidence contrary to our beliefs, and even more rare is it that we consider that we are not merely wrong in evidentiary specifics but indeed in our entire framework of analysis, our sum worldview.
(via mills)
“Intellectualism” (whatever this term is supposed to really mean) is embodied in the scientific method. This is its most fundamental admission of doubt, so I really see no room to argue that intellectuals do not doubt. Within this system of doubt we have made technological/scientific/etc leaps and bounds, and so an anti-intellectual should appraise the merit of this vetted system.
Therefore, an intellectual disturbed at religious zealotry or frank dismissal of “facts” (the things we have discovered via scientific method) should not be a surprising thing. Indeed, a dismissal of the “facts” is by proxy a dismissal of the scientific method, and a tacit support for the disintegration of societal progress.
The only trouble is with the limitations of the scientific method bounded by physicality. So intellectuals debating religion with believers could degenerate into pretense and mutual contempt. Cheers.
