Thomas Sowell: Intellectuals and Society
The Hoover Institution- Info
- Bio
- Full Program
- Highlights
- Transcript
- Download
- More
Bio
Peter Robinson - Peter M. Robinson is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, where he writes about business and politics, edits Hoover's quarterly journal, the Hoover Digest, and hosts Hoover's television program, Uncommon Knowledge.
Robinson is also the author of three books: How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life; It's My Party: A Republican's Messy Love Affair with the GOP; and the best-selling business book Snapshots from Hell: The Making of an MBA.
Robinson is also the author of three books: How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life; It's My Party: A Republican's Messy Love Affair with the GOP; and the best-selling business book Snapshots from Hell: The Making of an MBA.
Thomas Sowell - Thomas Sowell is an American economist, political writer, and commentator. He is currently a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. In 1990, he won the Francis Boyer Award, presented by the American Enterprise Institute. In 2002 he was awarded the National Humanities Medal for prolific scholarship melding history, economics, and political science.
Save this program for later
Watch or listen to it later on your computer or mobile device.
Select your connection speed to see approximate download times:
Free downloads
-
Audio (mp3)
19 MB 5 min
-
Video (mp4)
120 MB 29 min
Chapters
-
Watch Full Program
36 min 32 sec
- 01.
-
The Species of the Intellectual
04 min 30 sec
- 02.
-
Consequential Knowledge
02 min 36 sec
- 03.
-
Intellectuals and Economics
03 min 46 sec
- 04.
-
Intellectuals and the New Deal
03 min 27 sec
- 05.
-
The Vision of Contemporary Intellectuals
02 min 33 sec
- 06.
-
Intellectual Rationalization
01 min 40 sec
- 07.
-
Intellectuals and Change
01 min 28 sec
- 08.
-
Changing Ideas of Rights
02 min 01 sec
- 09.
-
Intellectuals and War
01 min 26 sec
- 10.
-
Intellectuals and Vietnam
02 min 18 sec
- 11.
-
Intellectuals and the Cold War
02 min 22 sec
- 12.
-
Intellectuals and Iraq
01 min 06 sec
- 13.
-
Manufactured Demand for Intellectuals
03 min 14 sec
- 14.
-
The Exceptions
01 min 56 sec
- 15.
-
Becoming a Nation of Intellectuals?
02 min 09 sec
-
Watch Full Program
36 min 32 sec
FORA.tv Editors bring you The Big Ideas:
-
Global Warming: Manufactured by Intellectuals?
03 min 27 sec
-
Watch Full Program
36 min 32 sec
- Partner:
- Hoover Institution
- Location:
- Hoover Institution
Stanford, CA - Event Date:
- 12.11.09
- Speakers:
- Peter Robinson,
- Thomas Sowell
- Summary
-
Thomas Sowell introduces his new book Intellectuals and Society and expounds on what he calls "the fatal misstep of intellectuals" -- the assumption that superior ability within a particular realm can be generalized as superior wisdom or morality over all. He offers examples of this misstep in areas as divergent as economics, the environment, and national defense.
Finally, he warns us to resist the influence of intellectuals and points out that the demand for public intellectuals is largely manufactured by the public intellectuals themselves.
There is no transcript for this program
Premium content is available by subscribing to FORA.tv Premium.
Become a FORA.tv subscriber.
If you are already a FORA subscriber, please log in.
You may also purchase this download via your mobile phone. ()
Become a FORA.tv subscriber.
If you are already a FORA subscriber, please log in.
You may also purchase this download via your mobile phone. ()
20 Comments
Subscribe to this Conversation 
Not all the world is best viewed as economics. This interview just shows whole of the Hoover Institute has become a sham. That is a shame. I do not believe that climate scientists are making up global warming to get research grants. But beliefs are not the issue in science. All Sowell has presented is a plausibility argument that scientists might gain by being alarmist. Now he needs to to an look at their models and find places where this alleged bias has made concrete changes in the data, theories or climate models. Sowell can't because he is not competent in the science he is criticizing. Economists have dogmas and principles, real science has evidence and theories.
Recommend this comment [ 2 ]
5 Stars for Sowell. I can't wait to read this one. His work is always intriguing.
Recommend this comment [ 1 ]
It's so easy to critize intellectuals or anyone else for that matter...it would be great if Sowell would provide solutions instead. In reference to rights, that health care, for instance, should be a right. The question arises, is social security a right? I don't think so. Social security is a need and as long as we all pay into it, we all benefit from it. Health care should be no different.
When Sowell admitted his dumbfounedness regarding the word "rights" it is a clear indication that he is just another intellectual speaking within the field of intellect with his own fallacies. He says that rights is not in the constitution -implying that you have no right to health care. What he fails to realize is that the health care debate is infected by greed and politics which he makes no mention of and he fails miserably in realizing that you can't have genuine health care without the spirit of compassion. What I mean by this is having geniune concern for the well being of others and it makes its presence felt in every aspect of health care. But as long as you have greed and poltical leaders only concerend about themselves, you cannot have true health care. Sowell makes no mention of this and the many forces that undermine heath care. While it is true that health care is not in the constitution, neither is compassion. But if our forefathers were here today, they'd be appaled by our lack of compassion.
When Sowell admitted his dumbfounedness regarding the word "rights" it is a clear indication that he is just another intellectual speaking within the field of intellect with his own fallacies. He says that rights is not in the constitution -implying that you have no right to health care. What he fails to realize is that the health care debate is infected by greed and politics which he makes no mention of and he fails miserably in realizing that you can't have genuine health care without the spirit of compassion. What I mean by this is having geniune concern for the well being of others and it makes its presence felt in every aspect of health care. But as long as you have greed and poltical leaders only concerend about themselves, you cannot have true health care. Sowell makes no mention of this and the many forces that undermine heath care. While it is true that health care is not in the constitution, neither is compassion. But if our forefathers were here today, they'd be appaled by our lack of compassion.
Recommend this comment [ 0 ]
Great job, Dr. Sowell. We rely on intellectuals to try to solve problems- such as the rising cost and the failure of some to have health insurance. Often these individuals propose ideas that make problems worse- Sowell might be ranked by some as an intellectual himself, but he proposes ideas that we can understand and evaluate. He provides us with the facts we need to arrive at our own conclusions- important in a democracy. Thanks for posting this interesting interview.
Recommend this comment [ 0 ]
I think you should watch the whole interview again and listen closely. As you are getting things twisted. Sowell tries to explain how intellectuals keep providing "solutions" (without any realistic perception to a certain situation). Also at the end of the interview, he concluded with the remark that there is no solution to this "problem". Yes it is easy to criticize others, yet there is a difference between destructive and constructive criticism. In my opinion, this can be considered constructive. As it is true that certain intellectuals go beyond their field, trying to dictate the proletariat with the main thought of intellectual superiority. I would like to conclude on your 'rights' argument. I think you misunderstood him. As the quotation from his book already declared the word 'right' can be personalized. What I mean by that, and Sowell as well, is that your definition of right may differ from mine. Where do you draw the line? For this reason, the word can been perceived as a deceptive pitfall for fallacies.
Recommend this comment [ 0 ]
Imaleviathan,
Thanks for your thoughts. I took your advice and listened to his entire talk. While it is true that intellectuals are people whose “work begins and ends with ideas.” which includes academics from the humanities, social sciences, policy makers, and even journalists, to compare them with physicians or engineers is a mistake. The latter deals with tangible objects that can be measured and verified while the former deals with very complex social issues that is often beyond the realm of the most brilliant intellectuals. No doubt, intellectuals indeed pose a serious problem but the underlying problem does not lie solely with intellectuals.
The social construction of reality that we live in is of our making infected by greed, materialism, selfishness, the abuse of power, and no amount of intellectual acumen can address the vices of human nature and Sowell is certainly no exception. For instance, when he said that Chomsky’s ideas and theories in politics is an "absurdity" how can Sowell possibly say this? Why would Sowell dismiss Chomsky’s decades of study as if they are completely devoid of any truth? What makes Sowell the holder of truth? In this respect, when you said that rights become personalized Sowell absurdity comment was just as personalized by refusing to give Chomsky credit.
Sowell is certainly is able too see the many fallacies of intellectuals but he apparently is not able to see the limits of his own intellectual position and even intellect itself. Had Sowell known this, he would have said something akin to this:
“I believe we need to cultivate the kind of knowledge and awareness that would allow us to transcend our inner conflicts, our respective ego, our feeble intellect, and the unconscious primitive emotions that keep us in bondage”
Apparently, Dr. Sowell ought to consider that there is more to human nature than what he or any expert in the field can fathom.
Blaming intellectuals is only one small piece of a very big puzzle.
In reference to word 'right' as being personalized, yes this is true rights become hopelessly subjective especially if you cannot afford health care. But the issue is not the right to have heath care. The real issue here is that our political leaders, the insurance companies, lobbyists, and the pharmaceutical industry stick to their capitalistic guns. All they care about is the almighty dollar and I’m convinced that this has turned into a pathology of greed. As a result, it dehumanizes others. To think of the well being of the American people as the prime directive is as far removed from them as the planets. So in this regard, the right for these industries to make as much money as possible with a disregard of others is -as you said-a deceptive pitfall for fallacies. And this fallacy is killing and bankrupting many people unjustly.
Thanks for your thoughts. I took your advice and listened to his entire talk. While it is true that intellectuals are people whose “work begins and ends with ideas.” which includes academics from the humanities, social sciences, policy makers, and even journalists, to compare them with physicians or engineers is a mistake. The latter deals with tangible objects that can be measured and verified while the former deals with very complex social issues that is often beyond the realm of the most brilliant intellectuals. No doubt, intellectuals indeed pose a serious problem but the underlying problem does not lie solely with intellectuals.
The social construction of reality that we live in is of our making infected by greed, materialism, selfishness, the abuse of power, and no amount of intellectual acumen can address the vices of human nature and Sowell is certainly no exception. For instance, when he said that Chomsky’s ideas and theories in politics is an "absurdity" how can Sowell possibly say this? Why would Sowell dismiss Chomsky’s decades of study as if they are completely devoid of any truth? What makes Sowell the holder of truth? In this respect, when you said that rights become personalized Sowell absurdity comment was just as personalized by refusing to give Chomsky credit.
Sowell is certainly is able too see the many fallacies of intellectuals but he apparently is not able to see the limits of his own intellectual position and even intellect itself. Had Sowell known this, he would have said something akin to this:
“I believe we need to cultivate the kind of knowledge and awareness that would allow us to transcend our inner conflicts, our respective ego, our feeble intellect, and the unconscious primitive emotions that keep us in bondage”
Apparently, Dr. Sowell ought to consider that there is more to human nature than what he or any expert in the field can fathom.
Blaming intellectuals is only one small piece of a very big puzzle.
In reference to word 'right' as being personalized, yes this is true rights become hopelessly subjective especially if you cannot afford health care. But the issue is not the right to have heath care. The real issue here is that our political leaders, the insurance companies, lobbyists, and the pharmaceutical industry stick to their capitalistic guns. All they care about is the almighty dollar and I’m convinced that this has turned into a pathology of greed. As a result, it dehumanizes others. To think of the well being of the American people as the prime directive is as far removed from them as the planets. So in this regard, the right for these industries to make as much money as possible with a disregard of others is -as you said-a deceptive pitfall for fallacies. And this fallacy is killing and bankrupting many people unjustly.
Recommend this comment [ 1 ]
GnosisMan,
Dr. Sowell understands clearly that there is more to human nature than what he or any expert in the field can fathom. His point is that this fact doesn't seem to sink in to "experts" in the intelligentsia, as time after time, after time, they believe they have the wisom, intellect and ideas to model human nature in their own image, using other people's money. If they are wrong, they pay no consequences. For an excellent look into Dr. Sowell's views on human nature, please read his masterpiece (in my opinion) A Conflict of Visions.
As far as health care as a "right" - the question always comes to, "Who will pay?" I am assuming you are a left leaning individual (not meant as a perjorative) and believe in single payer, socialized medicine - that it is indeed a right that every "enlightened" nation should give its citizens. That's a fine position to take, but the reality of what you are saying, and what all socialized medicine proponents (and proponents of all government social programs) are saying is that they, person #1, want to confiscate the hard earned wealth of person #2, to buy medical care for person #3. Your "compassion" is what I call theft. I have heard and read the anecdotal evidence of people who claim they were bankrupted by medical bills. I have an acquaintence who was young and healthy and broke a femur and his pelv is in a car accident. His hospital bills totalled about $85,000.00. He owns a home, earns about $90,000 per year and leases a BMW sedan at $750.00 per month. Now, please explain to me why it is just to make others pay for this person's medical care. He was clearly not bankrupt. He could have made payments to the hospital. He could have swapped out the beemer for a Honda Accord, he could have been a responsible person. People like this are far more numerous than are reported, when the real stories are told in their entirety.
We are required by law to have automobile liability insurance, regardless of our income. Driving record (the equivalent of pre-existing conditions in medical care) is used to score a person's risk and the premiums he will pay. To keep their insurance costs down, smart people behave responsibly - choose a safe car, wear a seat belt, follow the laws, etc. If I am indigent and have 3 DUIs, I am still expected to pay that huge Auto Insurance bill, whether I can afford it or not.
The biggest problem in my view with our medical care system is that 3rd parties pay for everything. We have no idea what our medical care costs. We make a $10 co-pay and never even shop around for the lowest cost. I believe we should eliminate employer supplied health care, remove state restrictions for purchasing insurance among states and put the consumer back in charge. Why are Lasik and cosmetic surgery prices going down? Because the patient pays cash - and shops around, and only gets it if they can afford it. Drs. compete - the market works. Additionally, when a third party pays for coverage and the government mandates what must be covered, I am reduced to paying for services I do not want and will never use. Inefficiency is the rule of the day in everything the government does. I say we need true deregulation in the insurance industry.
The market will work for medical care. Once it becomes politicized, there is no hope for lower costs and efficiency, regardless of how compassionate the politicians and other proponents are.
I am also concerned with the casual manner in which Drs. and others in the medical care BUSINESS are accused of greed, when the real greedy person is the irresponsible person who expects others to pay for his needs. Are there other services that should be "not for profit" as Dennis Kucinich believes should be the rule for medical care? What about food? Certainly "In the richest country in the world," (to quote many an inconsolable, compassionate socialist) no one should go hungry! Food should be a RIGHT!" What about clothing? Shelter? Transportation? We can easily relinquish our responsibility for ourselves - most of Western Europe has done so - but what kind of citizens will we be?
I say I have a right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness and the responsibility to make it happen.
Dr. Sowell understands clearly that there is more to human nature than what he or any expert in the field can fathom. His point is that this fact doesn't seem to sink in to "experts" in the intelligentsia, as time after time, after time, they believe they have the wisom, intellect and ideas to model human nature in their own image, using other people's money. If they are wrong, they pay no consequences. For an excellent look into Dr. Sowell's views on human nature, please read his masterpiece (in my opinion) A Conflict of Visions.
As far as health care as a "right" - the question always comes to, "Who will pay?" I am assuming you are a left leaning individual (not meant as a perjorative) and believe in single payer, socialized medicine - that it is indeed a right that every "enlightened" nation should give its citizens. That's a fine position to take, but the reality of what you are saying, and what all socialized medicine proponents (and proponents of all government social programs) are saying is that they, person #1, want to confiscate the hard earned wealth of person #2, to buy medical care for person #3. Your "compassion" is what I call theft. I have heard and read the anecdotal evidence of people who claim they were bankrupted by medical bills. I have an acquaintence who was young and healthy and broke a femur and his pelv is in a car accident. His hospital bills totalled about $85,000.00. He owns a home, earns about $90,000 per year and leases a BMW sedan at $750.00 per month. Now, please explain to me why it is just to make others pay for this person's medical care. He was clearly not bankrupt. He could have made payments to the hospital. He could have swapped out the beemer for a Honda Accord, he could have been a responsible person. People like this are far more numerous than are reported, when the real stories are told in their entirety.
We are required by law to have automobile liability insurance, regardless of our income. Driving record (the equivalent of pre-existing conditions in medical care) is used to score a person's risk and the premiums he will pay. To keep their insurance costs down, smart people behave responsibly - choose a safe car, wear a seat belt, follow the laws, etc. If I am indigent and have 3 DUIs, I am still expected to pay that huge Auto Insurance bill, whether I can afford it or not.
The biggest problem in my view with our medical care system is that 3rd parties pay for everything. We have no idea what our medical care costs. We make a $10 co-pay and never even shop around for the lowest cost. I believe we should eliminate employer supplied health care, remove state restrictions for purchasing insurance among states and put the consumer back in charge. Why are Lasik and cosmetic surgery prices going down? Because the patient pays cash - and shops around, and only gets it if they can afford it. Drs. compete - the market works. Additionally, when a third party pays for coverage and the government mandates what must be covered, I am reduced to paying for services I do not want and will never use. Inefficiency is the rule of the day in everything the government does. I say we need true deregulation in the insurance industry.
The market will work for medical care. Once it becomes politicized, there is no hope for lower costs and efficiency, regardless of how compassionate the politicians and other proponents are.
I am also concerned with the casual manner in which Drs. and others in the medical care BUSINESS are accused of greed, when the real greedy person is the irresponsible person who expects others to pay for his needs. Are there other services that should be "not for profit" as Dennis Kucinich believes should be the rule for medical care? What about food? Certainly "In the richest country in the world," (to quote many an inconsolable, compassionate socialist) no one should go hungry! Food should be a RIGHT!" What about clothing? Shelter? Transportation? We can easily relinquish our responsibility for ourselves - most of Western Europe has done so - but what kind of citizens will we be?
I say I have a right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness and the responsibility to make it happen.
Recommend this comment [ 1 ]
First of all I would say don't bother criticizing Sowell unless you are actually going to watch the video and listen to what he has to say. If your mind is made up and you not changing then listening to alternative points of view is a pointless excercise. Sowell defines an intellectual very specifically. His criticism of intellectuals is specific to that particular definition of intellectuals. He is simply saying that people who are not going to be held responsible for the outcomes of their decisions should be viewed skeptically. After all these people have an incentive to make grand proclomations about how the country should be reorganized without any degree of modesty as to how their ideas conflict with the interests of others.
Sowell is not saying that scientists are making up global warming. What he is saying is that global warming is something that can be used as a tool for the state to take greater control of the private sector and there are plent of demagogues who can't wait to use global warming to serve their interests. This represents a conflict of interest that will effect how climate research if funded at the federal level. This is true of many other areas of research. Researchers realize that if their research makes alarmist predictions it will be more likely to receive government funding.
Sowell is not saying that scientists are making up global warming. What he is saying is that global warming is something that can be used as a tool for the state to take greater control of the private sector and there are plent of demagogues who can't wait to use global warming to serve their interests. This represents a conflict of interest that will effect how climate research if funded at the federal level. This is true of many other areas of research. Researchers realize that if their research makes alarmist predictions it will be more likely to receive government funding.
Recommend this comment [ 1 ]
Hi Mark,
I appreciate your comments.
(phippsed, I did listen to his entire talk as Mark suggested and I'm glad I did)
You mentioned that Dr. Sowell understands clearly that there is more to human nature than what he or any expert in the field can fathom. Well, I just wish he would make its presence felt in his book and his talks in a more profound way by acknowledging directly, for instance, that he too is at the mercy of his own intellect, his own human propensity to see things incorrectly. As they say, humility goes a long way.
It seems to me that in order to understand human nature, we need to probe the depths of it with the spirit of sincerity. I’m reminded here of Sir Ken Robinson who studies creativity. He said that university professors are too often “in their heads. They live up there and slightly to one side. They’re disembodied. They use their body as transport for their heads; it’s a way to get their heads to meetings.
The point he’s making is that professors have lost the spirit of creativity. They may know their field quite well, but they do not have the transformative spirit needed to enlighten students in ways that would make a positive difference in their heart and mind. When I say enlighten I’m not advocating any religion or ideology, rather, a kind of awareness that can only be acquired by direct experience which is outside of our educational institutions. Reports have been make that some people who have read and studied books on spirituality, for instance, had profound insights into their humanness that no amount of college could ever achieve. The pressing question is: how did this come about?
It seems to me that this is the kind of insight that our educational institutions are unaware of and unprepared for.
You may not agree with the passage below, but I believe it points to an aspect of our creative potential that is beyond the rational and intellectual mind. It is a kind of awareness that we are in dire need of since Sowell points out rightly, no amount of intellectual knowledge is going to make a positive difference.
To this question (about self knowledge) there is a positive answer only when the individual is willing to fulfill the demands of rigorous self-examination and self knowledge. If he follows through his intention, he will not only discover some important truths about himself, but will also have gained a psychological advantage: he will have succeeded in deeming himself worthy of serious attention and sympathetic interest. He will have set his hand, as it were, to a declaration of his own human dignity and taken the first step towards the foundation of his conscious- that is, towards the unconscious, the only accessible source of religious (creative) experience.
The “important truths” about ourselves speaks volumes and if the intelligentsia could “fulfill the demands of rigorous self examination” they would see the depth of their unconscious arrogance. Unfortunately, the intelligentsia are too deeply entrenched with believing they are the measure of all things. So I agree with you and Sowell that this is a problem and we ought to do something about it. But resolving it requires enlighten individuals; those who realize- among many other things- that humility goes a long way.
In reference to being a liberal, and to be honest, I am. However, I have no qualms calling out on Obama and his administration. I’ve been disillusioned so many times in the past that I now find myself beholden to no one. I’ve reached a point in which I’m sick and tired of seeing both parties at each other’s throats fighting, backstabbing, and manipulating the American people for political gain. I’m convinced that the political process is a massive dysfunction and I fear that if it continues, our future looks grim.
In reference to health care, it’s frustrating to hear hawks say that health reform is fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger deployment of troops in Afghanistan. It’s been reported that our lack of health insurance “kills about 45,000 Americans a year, according to a Harvard study released in September. So which is the greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional insurance system?”
I’m sure you would agree that our health care system is broken and it’s hard to believe that our political leaders are unable to address this
Aside from the above, you mentioned that we are required by law to have automobile liability insurance, regardless of our income. Driving record (the equivalent of pre-existing conditions in medical care) is used to score a person's risk. To keep their insurance costs down, smart people behave responsibly - choose a safe car, wear a seat belt, follow the laws, etc.
The smart people you refer to are those who have regard for their own safety and well being. By doing so, they also show regard for others by making sure their car is sound; the concern works both ways.
However, many people who drive without insurance, ride bikes without helmets, and avoid getting their car inspected for fear of what it might cost fail to realize that having good brakes could save their own life. The problem here is that we, as humans, have a proclivity to disregard our own health and well being. When we disregard ourselves we disregard others. Unfortunately we can’t expect or impose others to show concern since they are incapable of it towards themselves. Does this absolve them from responsibility? No. People who don’t care need to realize -in a very direct way-that their irresponsibility affects others. Taking responsibility for oneself is an issue I agree with conservatives. I really think we ought to have college courses on this. I know liberal friends who are lazy as hell and while it’s true they are to blame, this is only one piece of the puzzle. Societal factors and economical forces outside their control are also part of the problem. Greed is another.
In reference to this and the casual manner in which Drs. and others in the medical care BUSINESS are accused of it, you mentioned that the real greedy person is the irresponsible person who expects others to pay for their needs. It seems to me that if health insurance was as affordable as car insurance, this would not be an issue. I also think you underestimate the pathology of greed. Ever heard of Wendell Potter who blew the whistle on his own insurance company CIGNA? What he has to say would make anyone go ballistic on the health insurance companies since all of them are complicit in this.
Michael, it seems to me that what governs our country is not freedom, democracy, equality and all the rest, but the forces of the market. In the end, money and all the greed inherent in it have more influence than you and I can imagine. As Sowell aptly mentioned the fallacies of the intelligentsia in our universities we also have them in the market and this financial crisis is the result of those who were not only governed by greed but by this arrogance that they knew what they were doing.
Mind you, I’m not against capitalism, but if it continues its course without reflection, without concern for their own existence, they will drag us down with them.
I appreciate your comments.
(phippsed, I did listen to his entire talk as Mark suggested and I'm glad I did)
You mentioned that Dr. Sowell understands clearly that there is more to human nature than what he or any expert in the field can fathom. Well, I just wish he would make its presence felt in his book and his talks in a more profound way by acknowledging directly, for instance, that he too is at the mercy of his own intellect, his own human propensity to see things incorrectly. As they say, humility goes a long way.
It seems to me that in order to understand human nature, we need to probe the depths of it with the spirit of sincerity. I’m reminded here of Sir Ken Robinson who studies creativity. He said that university professors are too often “in their heads. They live up there and slightly to one side. They’re disembodied. They use their body as transport for their heads; it’s a way to get their heads to meetings.
The point he’s making is that professors have lost the spirit of creativity. They may know their field quite well, but they do not have the transformative spirit needed to enlighten students in ways that would make a positive difference in their heart and mind. When I say enlighten I’m not advocating any religion or ideology, rather, a kind of awareness that can only be acquired by direct experience which is outside of our educational institutions. Reports have been make that some people who have read and studied books on spirituality, for instance, had profound insights into their humanness that no amount of college could ever achieve. The pressing question is: how did this come about?
It seems to me that this is the kind of insight that our educational institutions are unaware of and unprepared for.
You may not agree with the passage below, but I believe it points to an aspect of our creative potential that is beyond the rational and intellectual mind. It is a kind of awareness that we are in dire need of since Sowell points out rightly, no amount of intellectual knowledge is going to make a positive difference.
To this question (about self knowledge) there is a positive answer only when the individual is willing to fulfill the demands of rigorous self-examination and self knowledge. If he follows through his intention, he will not only discover some important truths about himself, but will also have gained a psychological advantage: he will have succeeded in deeming himself worthy of serious attention and sympathetic interest. He will have set his hand, as it were, to a declaration of his own human dignity and taken the first step towards the foundation of his conscious- that is, towards the unconscious, the only accessible source of religious (creative) experience.
The “important truths” about ourselves speaks volumes and if the intelligentsia could “fulfill the demands of rigorous self examination” they would see the depth of their unconscious arrogance. Unfortunately, the intelligentsia are too deeply entrenched with believing they are the measure of all things. So I agree with you and Sowell that this is a problem and we ought to do something about it. But resolving it requires enlighten individuals; those who realize- among many other things- that humility goes a long way.
In reference to being a liberal, and to be honest, I am. However, I have no qualms calling out on Obama and his administration. I’ve been disillusioned so many times in the past that I now find myself beholden to no one. I’ve reached a point in which I’m sick and tired of seeing both parties at each other’s throats fighting, backstabbing, and manipulating the American people for political gain. I’m convinced that the political process is a massive dysfunction and I fear that if it continues, our future looks grim.
In reference to health care, it’s frustrating to hear hawks say that health reform is fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger deployment of troops in Afghanistan. It’s been reported that our lack of health insurance “kills about 45,000 Americans a year, according to a Harvard study released in September. So which is the greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional insurance system?”
I’m sure you would agree that our health care system is broken and it’s hard to believe that our political leaders are unable to address this
Aside from the above, you mentioned that we are required by law to have automobile liability insurance, regardless of our income. Driving record (the equivalent of pre-existing conditions in medical care) is used to score a person's risk. To keep their insurance costs down, smart people behave responsibly - choose a safe car, wear a seat belt, follow the laws, etc.
The smart people you refer to are those who have regard for their own safety and well being. By doing so, they also show regard for others by making sure their car is sound; the concern works both ways.
However, many people who drive without insurance, ride bikes without helmets, and avoid getting their car inspected for fear of what it might cost fail to realize that having good brakes could save their own life. The problem here is that we, as humans, have a proclivity to disregard our own health and well being. When we disregard ourselves we disregard others. Unfortunately we can’t expect or impose others to show concern since they are incapable of it towards themselves. Does this absolve them from responsibility? No. People who don’t care need to realize -in a very direct way-that their irresponsibility affects others. Taking responsibility for oneself is an issue I agree with conservatives. I really think we ought to have college courses on this. I know liberal friends who are lazy as hell and while it’s true they are to blame, this is only one piece of the puzzle. Societal factors and economical forces outside their control are also part of the problem. Greed is another.
In reference to this and the casual manner in which Drs. and others in the medical care BUSINESS are accused of it, you mentioned that the real greedy person is the irresponsible person who expects others to pay for their needs. It seems to me that if health insurance was as affordable as car insurance, this would not be an issue. I also think you underestimate the pathology of greed. Ever heard of Wendell Potter who blew the whistle on his own insurance company CIGNA? What he has to say would make anyone go ballistic on the health insurance companies since all of them are complicit in this.
Michael, it seems to me that what governs our country is not freedom, democracy, equality and all the rest, but the forces of the market. In the end, money and all the greed inherent in it have more influence than you and I can imagine. As Sowell aptly mentioned the fallacies of the intelligentsia in our universities we also have them in the market and this financial crisis is the result of those who were not only governed by greed but by this arrogance that they knew what they were doing.
Mind you, I’m not against capitalism, but if it continues its course without reflection, without concern for their own existence, they will drag us down with them.
Recommend this comment [ 0 ]
Gnosisman,
We don't have a lack of medical insurance, do we? We have the government intervening in the market of medical insurance, which has made it more expensive, inefficient and harder to get at the best price. For example, my wife and I are beyond our child bearing years, yet by state and federal mandate, prenatal care is included in our policy. How about getting government out and create a system where we select the coverage we want and pay only for that coverage. I do not smoke, drink alcohol or take illegal drugs, therefore, the government mandated smoking cessation, drug treatment or alcoholism treatment I pay for in my policy are a waste of resources. If those were not mandated, perhaps I could afford a health club memership, more fresh foods or even a nice pair of running shoes? My children are grown and out of the house. Why do I pay for pediatric care in my policy?
When I see the government getting involved in areas for which they have no Constitutionally enumerated powers, I get concerned. Once an issue gets politicized, it is doomed to waste our precious resources. What expertise do members of congress have with medical insurance? Who really wrote these bills? Dr. Sowell names the people who wrote them, or were relied upon to write them, or approve them. It seems to me very confusing that those on the left who decry the influence of "corporations" in the writing of legislation, insist on this "health care reform" which is a direct by product of that influence. I get less concerned when I see them sending more troops to win in Afghanistan, because defending the country is an enumerated power. I do not like military or any interventions of any kind in other areas where we have no national interest however, and I oppose these 100%.
I like the enumerated powers and the bill of rights. They were designed to preserve individual liberty and to keep the Federal Government out of areas they have no right to be in. No one man or group of men can manage our culture or economy. They are, as all governmental attempts throughout history have been, inadequate to the task of creating a utopia or anything close. The damage done and lives lost in this persuit are well documented. I prefer the implied voluntary cooperation of the free market to government coercion and politicization. The free market is not perfect, but I prefer it to being told how to live my life - in economic, moral, intellectual or other terms.
Are "corporations" greedy? "Corporations" are a fiction. It is a name given to a group of people who have pooled their money (stock purchases) to sell a good or service, as well as the people they have hired to manage those resources, to grow the business and to earn profits. Humans are greedy, without a doubt. Even the Father of the free market, Adam Smith had huge concerns about business people haveing undue influence in legislation in the economy. The answer isn't more government involvement, because as this "Health Reform" effort has shown us, politicians are greedy and corrupt as well - they are human (Senators Nelson and Landrieu come to mind). I say, let people be greedy, but let them lose when their business fail. Governments giving advantages to one side or the other is not competition. Most importantly, leave me alone to be a free man, with all of the pitfalls, dangers, risks, successes and joys that are possible.
We don't have a lack of medical insurance, do we? We have the government intervening in the market of medical insurance, which has made it more expensive, inefficient and harder to get at the best price. For example, my wife and I are beyond our child bearing years, yet by state and federal mandate, prenatal care is included in our policy. How about getting government out and create a system where we select the coverage we want and pay only for that coverage. I do not smoke, drink alcohol or take illegal drugs, therefore, the government mandated smoking cessation, drug treatment or alcoholism treatment I pay for in my policy are a waste of resources. If those were not mandated, perhaps I could afford a health club memership, more fresh foods or even a nice pair of running shoes? My children are grown and out of the house. Why do I pay for pediatric care in my policy?
When I see the government getting involved in areas for which they have no Constitutionally enumerated powers, I get concerned. Once an issue gets politicized, it is doomed to waste our precious resources. What expertise do members of congress have with medical insurance? Who really wrote these bills? Dr. Sowell names the people who wrote them, or were relied upon to write them, or approve them. It seems to me very confusing that those on the left who decry the influence of "corporations" in the writing of legislation, insist on this "health care reform" which is a direct by product of that influence. I get less concerned when I see them sending more troops to win in Afghanistan, because defending the country is an enumerated power. I do not like military or any interventions of any kind in other areas where we have no national interest however, and I oppose these 100%.
I like the enumerated powers and the bill of rights. They were designed to preserve individual liberty and to keep the Federal Government out of areas they have no right to be in. No one man or group of men can manage our culture or economy. They are, as all governmental attempts throughout history have been, inadequate to the task of creating a utopia or anything close. The damage done and lives lost in this persuit are well documented. I prefer the implied voluntary cooperation of the free market to government coercion and politicization. The free market is not perfect, but I prefer it to being told how to live my life - in economic, moral, intellectual or other terms.
Are "corporations" greedy? "Corporations" are a fiction. It is a name given to a group of people who have pooled their money (stock purchases) to sell a good or service, as well as the people they have hired to manage those resources, to grow the business and to earn profits. Humans are greedy, without a doubt. Even the Father of the free market, Adam Smith had huge concerns about business people haveing undue influence in legislation in the economy. The answer isn't more government involvement, because as this "Health Reform" effort has shown us, politicians are greedy and corrupt as well - they are human (Senators Nelson and Landrieu come to mind). I say, let people be greedy, but let them lose when their business fail. Governments giving advantages to one side or the other is not competition. Most importantly, leave me alone to be a free man, with all of the pitfalls, dangers, risks, successes and joys that are possible.
Recommend this comment [ 1 ]
Advertisement
Related Programs
Browse Programs by Tag
Arts
Books
Climate Change
Conflict
Credit Crunch
Defense
Democratization
Economic Policy
Education
Election 2008
Emerging Markets
Energy
Entertainment
Entrepreneurship
Environment
Film
Food
Globalization
Health & Wellness
Healthcare
History
Internet
Investing
Journalism
Law
Medicine
Music
Muslim World
Natural Sciences
New Media
Personal Technology
Philanthropy
Religion
Social Issues
Social Sciences
Sustainability
Terrorism
The Bailout
U.S. Foreign Policy
White House 2009
Advertisement
Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 2
Line 3
