What do you think?
Rate this book
The Intellectual
Chomsky, Dawkins, Germaine Greer, Martin Amis . . . with regular TV appearances, newspaper columns and cultural commentary, intellectuals are indispensable characters of modern life. But what is an intellectual? What distinguishes them from philosophers, scientists, politicians or entrepreneurs? Why are they happy to be insulted as long as they are not ignored? As well as a history of the intellectual from Ancient Greece to post-9/11, Steve Fuller introduces exemplars from the past - Voltaire, Sartre, Norman Mailer and Bertrand Russell - alongside many living examples in this essential guide to intellectual life.
192 pages, Paperback
First published July 28, 2002
8 people are currently reading
98 people want to read
About the author
Steve Fuller
91 books39 followersSteve Fuller graduated from Columbia University in History & Sociology before gaining an MPhil from Cambridge and PhD from Pittsburgh (1985), both in History and Philosophy of Science. He currently holds the Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology in the Department of Sociology at the University of Warwick.
He is the founder of the research program of social epistemology. It is the name of a quarterly journal he founded with Taylor & Francis in 1987, as well as the first of his more than twenty books. His most recent work has been concerned with the future of humanity, or 'Humanity 2.0'.
He is the founder of the research program of social epistemology. It is the name of a quarterly journal he founded with Taylor & Francis in 1987, as well as the first of his more than twenty books. His most recent work has been concerned with the future of humanity, or 'Humanity 2.0'.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
January 4, 2023
i really enjoyed this one. just like the author states at the beginning -it is machiavellian with a commendable twist which argues against all and any elitism in the public life.
its very hard to pinpoint anything specific with this one, because it truly functions like a variety show, jumping from anecdote to anecdote. this does make it a very fun read but i can imagine how this couldnt be considered "strong evidence" for the arguments he is making. ironically, the book itself insist on a personal, intuitive understanding of the world around us, which gives us the "whole truth" but not "only the truth". however, anyone doing a bona fide reading that posseses a decent understanding of the history of science (and other discourses) can see how these criticisms are hitting the mark quite poignantly.
i loved how it criticizes, in true intellectual spirit, both the progressives and the reactionaries alike. it will introduce you to fabulous ideas such as *spoilers*:
there is a difference between fact and explained fact, imitational thought, the absence of empirical breadth usually shows itself as conceptual depth, the fixation on the use of language, undiscovered public knowledge, wishful theories, renunciation of status vs. production of ideals, the historical commonalities of intellectual nations, the importance of decision making and responsibility; along with other broader and better known problems in academic education, research, publishing and psychological attitudes.
a wonderful praise of critique and the humanism that ensues (in the best sense of that word)
earmarked 21/137 pages which makes it a 0,15.
its very hard to pinpoint anything specific with this one, because it truly functions like a variety show, jumping from anecdote to anecdote. this does make it a very fun read but i can imagine how this couldnt be considered "strong evidence" for the arguments he is making. ironically, the book itself insist on a personal, intuitive understanding of the world around us, which gives us the "whole truth" but not "only the truth". however, anyone doing a bona fide reading that posseses a decent understanding of the history of science (and other discourses) can see how these criticisms are hitting the mark quite poignantly.
i loved how it criticizes, in true intellectual spirit, both the progressives and the reactionaries alike. it will introduce you to fabulous ideas such as *spoilers*:
there is a difference between fact and explained fact, imitational thought, the absence of empirical breadth usually shows itself as conceptual depth, the fixation on the use of language, undiscovered public knowledge, wishful theories, renunciation of status vs. production of ideals, the historical commonalities of intellectual nations, the importance of decision making and responsibility; along with other broader and better known problems in academic education, research, publishing and psychological attitudes.
a wonderful praise of critique and the humanism that ensues (in the best sense of that word)
earmarked 21/137 pages which makes it a 0,15.
March 20, 2013
Basically, he is (the one and only?) intellectual. Too philosophical to be my cup of tea. Some of his claims seemed reasonable (why Palestinians aren't just terrorists), some weird (racists just promote genetic diversity).
About what an intellectual is like - I would agree with some of these, but all together on a pile? Looks too much like an intellectual is one to always complain, never actually do anything, and never take responsibility for his/hers acts and arguments. It's as if he's trying to be controversial, and at the same time saying a little as possible - and that's what this book is like. Here's a more or less complete list of the duties of an intellectual, with my comments:
goes against the mainstream ideas and thoughts: it doesn't matter that one week he must represent the ideas he fought the last one, he's in it for the chase - ego-tripper;
speaks for ordinary citizens - and how does he know what to speak about?does not offend the one accusing him - not doing a good job of it;
all opinions must be heard - disagree;
must display thought independence: the less material gain you have, the more intellectual integrity you get; the goal is planting the seed of doubt - is that why he's so incoherent?;
must not become a part of the dominant ideology, better to be forgotten by history - so be in the center of attention, but stick to the sidelines;
encourages the unpopular arguments - well that speaks for itself, like "global warming";
encourages mass education, reading newspapers and public debate - in general I would agree that these are all good things, but the cynic in me cannot: like these aren't the place we find most mind-numbing.
Did this just make me an intellectual?
Anyway, something that annoyed me throughout the book: making everybody else look bad is still not making you look good. I agree with some of the stuff on the scientific elites, but only up to a point. That's probably because he annoys me so much - if somebody else said it, I would probably like it.
The most interesting information for me is something mentioned casually: it's the literature-based discovery or Swanson linking, named after Don Swanson, an information scientist.
All in all, I wouldn't recommend it.
P.S. Just found out that he endorses Intelligent Design. Well that sucks. I'm sorry I even read it in the first place.
About what an intellectual is like - I would agree with some of these, but all together on a pile? Looks too much like an intellectual is one to always complain, never actually do anything, and never take responsibility for his/hers acts and arguments. It's as if he's trying to be controversial, and at the same time saying a little as possible - and that's what this book is like. Here's a more or less complete list of the duties of an intellectual, with my comments:
goes against the mainstream ideas and thoughts: it doesn't matter that one week he must represent the ideas he fought the last one, he's in it for the chase - ego-tripper;
speaks for ordinary citizens - and how does he know what to speak about?does not offend the one accusing him - not doing a good job of it;
all opinions must be heard - disagree;
must display thought independence: the less material gain you have, the more intellectual integrity you get; the goal is planting the seed of doubt - is that why he's so incoherent?;
must not become a part of the dominant ideology, better to be forgotten by history - so be in the center of attention, but stick to the sidelines;
encourages the unpopular arguments - well that speaks for itself, like "global warming";
encourages mass education, reading newspapers and public debate - in general I would agree that these are all good things, but the cynic in me cannot: like these aren't the place we find most mind-numbing.
Did this just make me an intellectual?
Anyway, something that annoyed me throughout the book: making everybody else look bad is still not making you look good. I agree with some of the stuff on the scientific elites, but only up to a point. That's probably because he annoys me so much - if somebody else said it, I would probably like it.
The most interesting information for me is something mentioned casually: it's the literature-based discovery or Swanson linking, named after Don Swanson, an information scientist.
All in all, I wouldn't recommend it.
P.S. Just found out that he endorses Intelligent Design. Well that sucks. I'm sorry I even read it in the first place.
June 9, 2009
A post-modern approach to "The Intellectual" modelled loosely on Machiavelli's "The Prince." Intellectually demanding, but often sardonically humorous for those with the background.
Read
November 21, 2009None
January 28, 2011
Exceptional insights :-)
February 28, 2015
A rambling journey of pedagogic arguments.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews