"The Cult of Ignorance"

Post Reply New Topic

This is a quote that I find very interesting. When you consider the rise of pseudoscientific theories such as Creationism, the increasing religious homeschooling movement, and the vast, overwhelming majority of the GW skeptic camp, I think there is a definite trend towards dislike of intellectualism, and of academic institutions in general. Not that this is something that new. However I think that the United States in the past has for the most part managed to triumph over the internal ignorance of certain people. Now the government, especially GOP politicians, are basically espousing this sort of ignorance as a virtue. The fact that people like Michelle Bachmann can be successful politicians and have millions of people take them seriously really says it all. Mass media, and especially the internet, allow pretty much anybody of any background or level of knowledge to make their voices heard. This has been both a blessing and a curse, as what Asimov said holds extremely true about ignorance vs knowledge in America. What does everyone else think about this? Can the United States maintain a powerful position as it has for the past hundred or so years if the hard working, scientifically innovative values that were once held in high esteem (though not without opponents) are pushed to the side in the name of false "religious tolerance" and "teaching the controversy"? Was the United States originally meant to be a Christian Theocracy as some claim?

Prepare to be labeled a member of the "Intellectual Elite."

Naturally. When I think of the anti-intellectual/academic sentiment it makes me think of this Canadian icon:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So9LshyaHd0[/youtube]

"I'm self smarted"

It's hard, unless you're inclined to it, to trust facts that disagree with what you perceive as reality.

Take for example the halloween holiday in the USA.

For the last 30 years there has been increasing mass hysteria about a perceived threat to children going out after dark in costume to hit up their neighbors for candy. A belief that the world is beset by monsters who wish to harm them for this.

The truth is that incidence of tainted or tampered halloween candy is vanishingly low. There is a kernel of truth to the rumors but it's hardly even metaphorically a mustard seed.

It has happened, so many times you can count it on one hand, and in almost every case the perp was targeting a child they knew. Often the perp was a relative.

But motherly instincts disagree, so they trunk-or-treat, or they walk their kids to each door before dark and check every piece of candy.

It's absurd.

Democracy Destroys Education

What I want to fix your attention on is the vast overall movement towards the discrediting, and finally the elimination, of every kind of human excellence -- moral, cultural, social or intellectual. And is it not pretty to notice how 'democracy' (in the incantatory sense) is now doing for us the work that was once done by the most ancient dictatorships, and by the same methods?

The basic proposal of the new education is to be that dunces and idlers must not be made to feel inferior to intelligent and industrious pupils. That would be 'undemocratic.' Children who are fit to proceed may be artificially kept back, because the others would get a trauma by being left behind. The bright pupil thus remains democratically fettered to his own age group throughout his school career, and a boy who would be capable of tackling Aeschylus or Dante sits listening to his coeval's attempts to spell out A CAT SAT ON A MAT.

We may reasonably hope for the virtual abolition of education when 'I'm as good as you' has fully had its way. All incentives to learn and all penalties for not learning will vanish. The few who might want to learn will be prevented; who are they to overtop their fellows? And anyway, the teachers -- or should I say nurses? -- will be far too busy reassuring the dunces and patting them on the back to waste any time on real teaching.

We shall no longer have to plan and toil to spread imperturbable conceit and incurable ignorance among men, as it will have been so trained and drilled into us that it shall have become our own pitiful nature.


First posted 11-04-2008 09:05 pm in Fnord's Blog

I think I understand why this is happening:

First you have to understand that the party which most closely represents fiscal conservatism in most people's minds is also the one tied directly in with the evangelicals - its something that many NYC republicans and the like would love to cut ties with but they can't. Hence, its pretty much a full package - fiscal sanity with bible loony tunes or fiscal insanity with yes, more social liberty but also a very big naivity about human needs for structure as they try to almost define themselves as the polar opposite of the evangelicals.

The way the republican roster is set up is that the republicans literally can't get a secular front runner and the best they can come up with, based on their base, are people - perhaps like Romney - who have faith and will stand by the Evangelical's core belief or at least give lip service but won't flag it out there wildly or put, say, the life issue, out as the most important issue in America today.

That's not it just yet, that's the description of a couple core components that makes voting republican or erring conservative, a very push-pull feeling when independents find themselves in that space.


On the surface you do see where pop and commercial culture add fuel to the fire: most notably MTV, a lot of the reality TV we have out there, and it seems quite true that what ever is presented as vogue - that goes pretty much live and direct to one of their biggest concerns; ie. finding a high quality mate, being seen as a prize, and I think that impulse has been raped over a barrel as everyone's trying to put even more braindead trash on TV to get the best ratings to get the most sponsors and the best pay for their advertising time. In a sense what will always yield the most corporate profits is the company who appeals to the animal at a level even lower than the next guy (well, of course so long as we haven't hit that point where enough of us want to throw up yet).

That brings me perhaps to our final point, and this one I think comes on a more liberal note. The self-esteem movement, the desire to tell everyone that they're great for just being them, that they should be loved unconditionally, the idea that winning is taking away from someone else, the current beating on the rich and successful, even better yet - that if they fail the government will take care of them. All of these things not only dumb down our culture in a very hedonistic and nihilistic way but that form of stupidity also creates a backlash of an entirely different kind of stupidity - enter social conservatism. For the tea party people that I know most of them are worried about government spending over all but at the same time many of them do err on the social conservative side. In a sense I think the left did a real disservice to itself by one hand being all about social liberty but at the same time wanting to baloon goverment and engage in all kinds of fiscal insanity. I do agree that at least socially conservative values in terms of family spending, not getting wrapped up in the material brinksmanship, and having families stick together for shared resources and investing more energy in making sure that their children turn out to be viable in society are very important - the biggest thing being that this doesn't come at the price of reversing civil rights or progress and causeing 'biblical' social conservatism to resurge.

What we have right now though ultimately seems like a society where - thank goodness - I think we're hitting rock bottom on the anti-intellectual note, I don't see where it even has room to go any farther. Then again, if we do end up seeing financial crisis emerge, that in and of itself tends to change people a fair amount. We may be headed there as well. It'll be creepy but at the same time I get the feeling that this decade will be an interesting show to watch.

That's a good point - the self esteem uber alis thing is in that sense really amounting to 'The nail that sticks out will be hammered down'. That was touted as a great destroyer of creativity and innovation in the far east under its tendency toward Confucian thought.

Thus we have the firstfruit of the Self-Esteem generation occupying Wall Street; not to be given jobs, not to be paid for their labors, but to be counted as deserving a "Fair Share" of the wealth belonging to their better-educated and more industrious fellow citizens.

Bit of a logical leap to go from "OWS doesn't know what they want" to "OWS just wants a handout".

You can't ascribe values to a group which is so broadly criticized for not having communicated their values.

Lol, of course we do. Wall Street and corporate America is evil, they want 'change'.

What I want to know is why the change that OWS is demanding has to come out of someone else's pocket?

It seems to me that self-esteem is somehow at the bottom of the OWS movement - they want to take part in something important, even if they can not articulate what it is beyond "1% of the people control 99% of the wealth" and "Where's my share?"

Last edited by Fnord on 02 Nov 2011, 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There are definitely some that want free handouts, which disgusts me. However I think fundamentally OWS wants there to be a concerted effort to prevent financial manipulation from wrecking the economy, and preventing the blatant abuses committed by many CEOs. The jump in CEO wage since 2008 bailouts practically says it all.

Thanks for the replies everyone has some great points. I particularly like your blog post Fnord. It makes me think of my time in high school and how much I hated it due to the unintelligent crap that went on there. I'm sure many people on WP can relate to feeling isolated for being a good or bright student in a sea of ignorance. In one year of high school I actually tried not to do well just so I would fit in (thankfully that was a phase I didn't keep to ) I recall them cancelling the workshop/autoshop/drafting classes to bring in "urban dance", world history was replaced by religious education as an option... I'm sure people have worse stories about their education and the quest for conformity at all costs

did their resources not belong to all of us before they claimed them?

granted many deserve much but there are more that got way beyond what they deserve and more than them or their family can possibly need.

everything taken to far becomes a problem, wealth included.
one can blame the system or the people but both simply call for change.

I think its good that people can accumulate vast amounts more than they will need. However I am also a supporter of Carnegie's theory on wealth in that he believes it is the responsibility of the wealthy to give back to their country. To this end most companies and many individuals make large donations or support charities or etc. However those who took real, direct initiative like Carnegie, in my opinion, are few in reality. And indeed, there is such a vast gap in pay between worker and CEO, that has only been increasing, despite economic turmoil. Ultimately the best solution in my eyes would be a shift to more cooperative-oriented business ventures that involve more worker ownership, and measures taken to prevent the unethical activities of many venture capitalists. One doesn't need to make huge donations to give back to their country. They just have to make sure they are working in the country's best interests.

AMEN! At least with the school systems. As for the wealthy? Where does that wealth come from? Sure, from their ideas (some of them) and what not, but the people that they get it from tend to be the majority that are not wealthy giving a bit of their money for their idea. If it were not for those people, they'd not have any money at all. So why not give it back and help out those others that need it?

Where I live, there is a man by the name of Doug Ford, whom owns some companies and makes plenty of money. However, he doesn't take it all and hoard it and spend it on all himself. Instead, he gives ample bonuses to his employees, tries to give them a better way of life, takes them and their spouses on CRUISES/VACATIONS, and when he goes to a restaurant, he often will leave the waiter/ess a large tip, even up to 100 dollars or so! He has a nice house and things, but when you look at him you'd think upper-middle class instead of plenty rich, because he actually cares and gives the excess money to his employees and others, to help them in their lives. If only more CEOs/owners were like this, this world would be so much better.

true,
as you know im not against corporations at all, i simply think they should show responsibility as much as they do concern for profits.
some real world examples of companies giving back in a non charity way;
rebuilding an aging industrial harbor and a new deeper channel for heavier traffic probably saved a town of some 15000 in denmark.
this was done by three competing companies to create a port for wind turbine maintenance and shipping.