6 ms·
The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)
- zabzonk 10mo agoSeem to be missing some plausible definition of "intellectuals".
- ozozozd 10mo agoI think it includes anyone who cares to read it.
- chilmers 10mo agoI suppose it assumes the reader already understands the word, or has access to a dictionary.
- hcrean 10mo agoWhen this was written there was a clearer divide between people with higher educational training, qualifications and interest and those without.
- 127 10mo agoResponsibility of intellectuals, or wise men/women, has always been to guide the tribe towards security, happiness and prosperity. Not to sow dissent inside the tribe by moralizing, while completely ignoring all the ills in other tribes. So called "intellectuals" who do it just to further their own selfish goals, should not be awarded high ranking positions.
- gsf_emergency_6 10mo agoAnother perspective: "You know, I ran into Henry Kissinger years ago and I asked him if he enjoyed the intellectual stimulation of the work, and he said in effect, 'I am working with the ideas that I formed at Harvard years ago. I haven't had a real idea since I've been on this; I just work with the old ideas."
- 127 10mo agoI don't see how that is related to my comment in any way.
- gsf_emergency_6 10mo agoSorry. I see responsibility of the intellectual is first of all to enjoy the stimulation. If not, putting quotes around the term, as you did, is correct.
- lifeformed 10mo agoIf morals or ethics aren't an equal partner in security, happiness, and prosperity, then the tribe deserves to fall.
- praptak 10mo agoHow far are you prepared to go with the "loyalty to the tribe" argument? If your "tribe" is 1942 Germany and you know about the ongoing Holocaust, does your line of thinking imply that you should keep quiet about it? You know, not to sow dissent by moralizing.
- roenxi 10mo agoOne of the major lessons of the 1900s is that the moral ills of your own tribe are more important than the problems other people might have. You don't live in some other country, you live in your own. Local concerns are by far the #1 issue. Even in the 2000s, one of the most ironic outcomes is that US hegemony forced a bunch of countries into really dominant regional positions (thinking especially of Japan, China and Germany) because they had nothing else to do but fix their own internal problems and it turns out that is a dominant strategy over militarism. Moral positions like peace, law, consistency and fairness aren't vague nice-to-haves, they are principles that lead to better outcomes for the people who stick with them.
- badc0ffee 10mo ago(1967)
- hekkle 10mo agoI would say that one has as much responsibility to society, as that society accepts for the individual. As a previously homeless veteran, I'd say that is zero. Why should intellectuals, or in fact anyone have any duty to help a system that doesn't help them? Now I know a lot of people will grandstand and say that if people just started taking on responsibility, then that would improve the system so that it would help more, but again, I did my part and was promised to be taken care of by society with its fingers crossed behind its back.
- s5300 10mo ago[dead]
- droopyEyelids 10mo agoThis makes sense if you are ok with your life making the world a worse place. Other people want to try and make it nicer.
- hekkle 10mo agoOf course, anyone always has the option to volunteer to make the world a better place; but the idea that anyone has a responsibility, or moral obligation to help a society that is actively hostile towards them is insanity.
- Paracompact 10mo agoI feel people failed you in your situation. They had an obligation to help you, and they did not.
- godelski 10mo agoI'll add that this is the whole purpose of a society. The social contract is that of a coalition. Our combined utility is greater than the sum of our individual utility. To not have an obligation to society is to be a drain on it. Even if you don't recognize it you still get a lot of benefit from society. It could be better. It should be better. But that will never happen if you never put in your part.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- keiferski 10mo agoChomsky basically says that intellectuals have a responsibility to expose the lies said by those in power. Hard to argue with, but maybe kind of a platitude. I think I’d answer this question differently in 2026. The responsibility of intellectuals to society at large today, in an era overwhelmed with information, propaganda, immensely complex issues, etc. is – communicate the issues of the day in a way that is clear and accessible. With the assumption that intellectuals are “experts in ideas.” I say this because so many contemporary debates seem really mangled and unclear, which makes them basically impossible to solve intellectually. Instead they just turn into battles of will where one side seeks to defeat the other in toto, not actually arrive at a solution that overcomes the conflict. Unfortunately the academic system is explicitly designed to create specialists, not people that can effectively communicate to the Everyman.
- SilverElfin 10mo agoI agree with your suggestion, but I wonder if it is enough. Look at what happened today. Moments after the shooting, there was a coordinated campaign to flood the zone with misinformation. Twitter accounts for Trump, DHS (Kristi Noem), Vance, Miller all said someone tried to assassinate ICE officers and was shot in self defense. This was completely the opposite of what happened and given how quickly they put out these messages, they had no way of knowing either. They simply put it out there because no matter what, this is what they will say in response to an ICE shooting. It is a way of confusing the messaging and preventing their supporters from being convinced by anyone else or any evidence. Once their base form that initial opinion, it is very hard to change their mind. So will intellectually actually reach those people effectively? Remember, this base has been told to distrust the academics and distrust science and distrust the news media.
- keiferski 10mo agoI would describe events like that as: battles of will where one side seeks to defeat the other in toto, not actually arrive at a solution that overcomes the conflict. The deeper issue is immigration policy, which is a topic that displays the pattern I mentioned: no real attempt to solve the issue by addressing both sides/various parties, and instead boils it into an us-them struggle of political wills. The responsibility of intellectuals in this case should be IMO to clearly analyze the immigration debate and discuss the benefits, downsides, likely consequences etc. of various actions. But we don’t get that. Instead everyone just has an opinion already formed, including the intellectuals. And unfortunately unbiased rational approaches seem to lose (in money, attention) to the loud and opinionated. So as the problem gets more complicated, people get further and further away from actually solving it.
- joecool1029 10mo agohttps://archive.is/PlqTr https://archive.is/PlqTr
- tsoukase 10mo ago"With great power comes great responsibility" and Intellectuals have great power.