Today's masters of the universe are less likely to work on Wall Street and more likely to work in Silicon Valley.
[Trigger warning: I did not say mistress of the universe,
because that has a slightly different connotation.]
But, a high tech oligarch is not, for all of his success, a master of the marketplace of
ideas. He might yearn to be an intellectual. He might believe that his ill-formed
and ill-informed opinions are transcendent truths. Yet, the minute he enters the
marketplace of ideas, its denizens look at him and tell
themselves: fresh meat.
Rich beyond imagination, far too young to understand anything
beyond his business, the oligarch is a target for those who are convinced that they know,
better than he, what to do with his money.
It is a truth rarely acknowledged, but a very rich man, a man who has mastered the art of making money, will want to crown
his achievement by becoming an intellectual. He might be looking for new worlds
to conquer. He might think that, if he knows everything there is not know about
bits and bytes, he is therefore so smart that he can easily master the world of
philosophy. He knows all there is to know about artificial intelligence, thus he believes that his real intelligence can master the world. He will be especially susceptible to anyone who tells him that reality is what he thinks it is and that he can change reality if he thinks differently.
It happens when some postmodern Socrates, a seducer
of minds, plays off his vanity and tells him that he should put his great
ideas to better use… by saving mankind. As it will happen, the great ideas turn
out to be those of Socrates… but the high tech master of the universe will not
know it. He will believe, because that is how these seductions work, that he
has come upon these opinions all by himself.
It’s not enough for him to be rich and famous. It’s not
enough to be a powerhouse in Silicon Valley. This man believes that he can only
find fulfillment by pretending to be knowledgeable about public policy issues.
In the end he will consign a large portion or his massive
fortune to crackpot leftist causes, to people who revile him, to people who
think he’s a greedy warmongering imperialist, to people who want to tear down
the free enterprise system that has allowed him to amass his fortune. Just
because you are rich does not mean that you cannot be had. Especially when you
are playing in a marketplace you do not understand.
Like I say, send this man off into the marketplace of ideas
and he becomes: fresh meat. Everyone wants his fair share of the man’s fortune.
How many of the tech oligarchs of Silicon Valley want nothing
more than to be intellectuals? Surely, they are not craving more money. They
have too much already. No, they want to be great thinkers, great minds. They
want to be philosopher-kings, members of what Plato called the guardian class.
They want to be intellectuals. Tom Wolfe offered
an interesting commencement address about the modern intellectual at Boston
University in 2000.
One notes that what is now called an intellectual used to be
called a man of letters. The difference is easy to understand. A man of letters did something more than just
thinking. He wrote. Often he wrote well. He wrote serious books and articles.
An intellectual may or may not write. He may or may not know
very much of anything. His occupation is to think, to be thoughtful, to
reflect, to ruminate….
If you care to know why he does not write, the answer is
simple. He has nothing to say. And besides, he cannot write worth a damn. Anything
that appears in the papers under his name has been written by someone else.
But, the point is not to learn how to write. The point is to
identify oneself as an intellectual… someone whose existence has a value that
supersedes his contribution to world commerce.
Tom Wolfe thinks that these intellectuals wear ideas like
fashion accessories. Believing in the settled science of global warming is like
carrying a Louis Vuitton purse or wearing an Hermes tie.
Wolfe told the BU class of 2000:
We live in an age in which ideas, important
ideas, are worn like articles of fashion — and for precisely the same reason
articles of fashion are worn, which is to make the wearer look better and to
feel à la mode.
Of course, there is another angle to this, one that I have
happily trotted out from time to time. Being an intellectual means belonging to
a cult, to a pseudo-religion, to what I have called the Church of the Liberal
Pieties.
The true believing intellectual considers himself too
sophisticated to belong to a religion. He latches on to and repeats the big
ideas that he thinks will make him seem, not just like a machine to produce
earn money, but like a sophisticated thinker, someone who belongs in the
company of the angels.
Intellectuals and wanna-be intellectuals see themselves as
members of a higher social class, an elite group of aristocrats, people who do
not need to rub elbows or shoulders with the lowlifes who constitute the middle
class. Because, these wanna-be masters of the marketplace of ideas look down on
the values of people who believe in hard work and who do not glory in intellectual decadence.
Tom Wolfe said:
The truth is that there is a common bond among
all cultures, among all peoples in this world … at least among those who have
reached the level of the wheel, the shoe, and the toothbrush. And that common
bond is that much-maligned class known as the bourgeoisie — the middle class…
They are all over the world, in every continent, every nation, every society,
every culture, everywhere you find the wheel, the shoe, and the toothbrush, and
wherever they are, all of them believe in the same things. And what are those things?
Peace, order, education, hard work, initiative, enterprise, creativity,
cooperation, looking out for one another, looking out for the future of
children, patriotism, fair play, and honesty. How much more do you want from
the human beast? How much more can you possibly expect?
He added:
We writers spent the entire twentieth century
tearing down the bourgeoisie! … We in the arts have been complicit in the
denigration of the best people on earth. Why? Because so many of the most
influential ideas of our time are the product of a new creature of the
twentieth century, a creature that did not exist until 1898 — and that creature
is known as “the intellectual.”
Note how Wolfe defined the intellectual, as an
identification:
We must be careful to make a distinction between
the intellectual and the person of intellectual achievement. The two are very,
very different animals. There are people of intellectual achievement who
increase the sum of human knowledge, the powers of human insight, and analysis.
And then there are the intellectuals. An intellectual is a person knowledgeable
in one field who speaks out only in others. Starting in the early twentieth
century, for the first time an ordinary storyteller, a novelist, a short story
writer, a poet, a playwright, in certain cases a composer, an artist, or even
an opera singer could achieve a tremendous eminence by becoming morally
indignant about some public issue. It required no intellectual effort
whatsoever. Suddenly he was elevated to a plane from which he could look down
upon ordinary people. Conversely — this fascinates me — conversely, if you are
merely a brilliant scholar, merely someone who has added immeasurably to the
sum of human knowledge and the powers of human insight, that does not qualify
you for the eminence of being an intellectual.
An intellectual, as opposed to
those who have contributed intellectual achievements, becomes morally indignant
about a public policy issue he knows nothing about. At first, intellectuals were artists, a movie actors, even a former vice president who presented himself as an authority on global warming. Didn't Shelley declare that poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world? In fact, he did, but we are also constrained to note that these same Romantic poets where cheering on the French Revolutionaries.
They thought that they were saving the world. You were saving humanity. Today's intellectuals have latched on to a nature cult, the one that is trying to perform just the right sacrifices to save the earth. Anyone who disputes the opinion does
not deserve to have his opinions heard. By definition, the less you know the
less tolerant you are of those who would dare disagree.
Among those who belong to this
coterie are Hollywood actors and actresses. One recalls last Sunday's Oscar
night when we were harangued on matters of great public importance
by people who knew nothing about said matters.
Here is what Wolfe said in 2000:
One of the things that I find really makes it
worth watching all the Academy Awards, all the Emmys, all those awards
ceremonies, is to see how today’s actors and television performers have
discovered the formula. If you become indignant, this elevates you to the plane
of “intellectual.” No mental activity is required. It is a rule, to which there
has never been an exception, that when an actor or a television performer rises
up to the microphone at one of these awards ceremonies and expresses moral
indignation over something, he illustrates Marshall McLuhan’s dictum that
“moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity.”
But, how did we get from poets
and actors and celebrities to high tech oligarchs? How did Sheryl Sandberg
become an ideologue, claiming to be a leader of the feminist movement? Why did
Mark Zuckerberg declare himself to be a leader in the fight for gender equality,
i.e. gender neuterdom?
Why would accomplished business leaders want to take over the marketplace of ideas? As it happens, people who attain to such a oversized success and obscene wealth often do so by having monopolies. They do not succeed in the free market; they do not believe in the free market; they made their fortunes by cornering the market. What dangers do they face? At the least, they are endangered by the opinions of other people. They are threatened by the free press. They do not want anyone to ask any questions about how they earned their fortunes. They join forces with the media elites and the intelligentsia in order to buy off the potential opposition. They are not just offering money and power. By pretending to be intellectuals themselves they are offering prestige and status to those who work with words and ideas. What could be more flattering?
6 comments:
Stuart: In the end he will consign a large portion or his massive fortune to crackpot leftist causes...
It's always curious on this blog that wealthy people only error on the left, while apparently right-leaning wealthy people avoid such pitfalls as stepping outside of their narrow domain of expertise.
Ah, but Stuart identifies the explanation to this imbalance:
"As it happens, people who attain to such an oversized success and obscene wealth often do so by having monopolies. They do not succeed in the free market; they do not believe in the free market; they made their fortunes by cornering the market. What dangers do they face? At the least, they are endangered by the opinions of other people. They are threatened by the free press. They do not want anyone to ask any questions about how they earned their fortunes. They join forces with the media elites and the intelligentsia in order to buy off the potential opposition. They are not just offering money and power. By pretending to be intellectuals themselves they are offering prestige and status to those who work with words and ideas."
Okay, really I don't get it. As best I can tell you're saying people become wealthy because they don't play fair, and once they made it to the top, they want to whitewash their ascent to justify their success.
You know, like when the elite who dare to say "You didn't built it", and you say "Hey, I earned every penny of my billions by outsourcing 600,000 jobs to China, and then cleverly used a double Irish with a Dutch sandwich to lower my taxes to zero, so how can you say I didn't build it?"
Yes, we definitely need some whitewashing. We need some expert help. Perhaps the Heritage Foundation's intellectuals can help whitewash this success into political legitimacy.
Ah, subject changing.
As they used to say, "If you think you are an intellectual you are probably not. If one has to tell themselves they are, and you can fill in the blank,________________ most likely you are in the process of trying to assuage your ego or lack thereof. Humility is almost one of the traits a true intellectual, et al exhibits because one begins to notice how much one really does not know. Wisdom denotes that the more I know the less I know because one now understand the vastness that is knowledge.
The real question is "Are you wise enough to know when you don't have all the answers and maybe other people are more intelligent than they seem because they don't need to convince anyone of their skills and abilities?" If one can they do, if not they talk. Interestingly, it is why so many people on the left have lost the ability to present a well reasoned argumentation for their beliefs They ultimately have to lean on name calling, pejoratives, micro aggressions, safe rooms, free speech zones, et al. All of this only serves to denote an inability to use intellectual and logical capacities vice STFU feelings. Or we get the regurgitation of someone else who is as biased as they are. They use each other as sources.
We are not as smart as we think we are nor as dumb as others believe we are. Insecurity cause many to display rather disgusting traits that really demonstrate a true lack of intellect.
Dennis, Hmmmm... Perhaps we have different ideas what "intellectuals" are?
That is to say, it seems like your old saying suggest the label "intellectual" is a sign of social status, so anyone who makes a claim of status.
In my experience I don't see random claims of being an "intellectual" being used, or at all. In fact, when "intellectual" is used, probably it more contains the more or less accurate assessment of cowardice, someone sitting in their ivory towers outside "real" problems of the world.
Or you can see two forms of cowardice, one is "fence-sitting" - an intellectual doesn't want to be wrong, so he'll try to be able to understand the strengths and weaknesses of issues of interest, and never be sure which side is right, so unable to advocate for anything. That would more be the "true" pure scientists, who explore things merely because they're curious, and have no interest or will to test what they think they know in messy reality.
And the other cowardice is the intellectual who are not in the ivory towers, but have some influence on public policy, and who KNOWS what's right, and can see things that are wrong, and yet also knows he has a comfortable job going with the status quo, and is willing to keep himself in two worlds - the one where right things are known, and the one where he keeps his mouth shut and says and does what his paymasters tell him to do and say.
The second fits, also for anyone who needs to earn a living, with Upton Sinclair's quote "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Anyway, you can imagine the cowardly intellectuals don't get much attention, so its the bolder ones, who are willing to test what they know, and risk upsetting status quo, they're more dangerous when they're wrong.
They're also often ambitious and impatient, although those aren't very intellectual traits, but probably are traits of people who accidentally got rich in a high tech startup.
And that's where my Rush Limbaugh quote comes in "Never trust the facts of people with causes" and he's never been wrong, although you still have to check the facts before you dismiss them, and also question your own biases that encourage you to only looking at the facts you want to see.
But as you say a true intellectual is curious and knows what he doesn't know, and doesn't assume his conclusions when he begins learning something new to him.
"If you become indignant, this elevates you to the plane of 'intellectual'.”
Indignitaries
All you need to know is that most of these Silicon Valley "geniuses" think the Communist Chinese system has it right. That's their vision for how we should live. It'd be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.
Post a Comment