It strikes me that within the general populace and the modes of feeling that arise from within it, there is generally a misunderstanding about what an intellectual is. Too often the role of intellectual is confused with that of priest: Viz. The intellectual has to be in the prophetic position of being right all the time, and must represent in his or her behaviour a good model of morality. Failing this, it might be presumed, the "intellectual" has no intellect at all, and is just a pseudo-intellectual.
But all of this is crude and simplistic assumption, no more. An intellectual is not a priest, and is not bound by the need to make estimates that will suit the general public's needs -- although that might happen. An intellectual is rather someone who has the capacity to think in a nuanced and complex manner.
What she thinks or why she thinks are matters that do not directly concern the general public. No matter what the public feels. The public is only the indirect beneficiary of intellectual thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment