RE: Elitism and Snobbery

RE: Elitism and Snobbery (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

MistressLorelei -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 12:07:32 AM)
Mediocrity is the standard. Even those who may consider themselves elite, and may be considered such by others (like doctors/surgeons), often eventually give in to mediocrity. If the inspiration is not within someone to continue to aspire to further greatness... while he may be 'elite' in some circles, he is no better off than most. Those who inspire, aspire, and persevere, at any level life puts them in, are the ones I would find to be elite... and the ones who will likely get the most out of life. You can think you are elite... but someone else will always think you are an idiot. Intelligence is crucial, but if you don't use it to go further in all arenas (physical, mental, emotional, relationships, finances, knowledge, ability, self-discipline, and happiness) than someone of a lesser intellect... are you really the elite one? You may be 'elite' in one circle... then move to the next circle and you may be humbled. I wouldn't call it snobbery... as long as you are 'elite' enough to know which circles to stay out of.

meatcleaver -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 2:25:18 AM)
Common sense played a large part in the enlightenment and the inquiry into how the mind works. It is well known that, on Reid's analysis, Hume's skepticism derives in large part from his implicit subscription to the “way of ideas”, a conception of knowledge and experience that finds its origins in Descartes, Malebranche and Locke, and its most dramatic exposition in Berkeley who, though no skeptic, “proved by unanswerable arguments what no man in his senses could believe” (Reid 1997: 20). The antidote to such skepticism is common sense, but not of the robust sort displayed by Dr. Johnson when he purported to refute Berkeley by kicking a stone. “Common sense” can mean two things, in fact: widespread popular conviction on the one hand, or the basic principles at work in human reasoning and belief formation on the other. Widespread conviction can be false, of course, which is why the method of the School of Common Sense was thought suspect by many, described by Kant, for example, as a stratagem by which “the stalest windbag can confidently take up with the soundest thinker” (Kant 1951: 259). But in Reid at any rate, philosophical inquiry into the human mind is not a matter of making popular opinion the test of truth, but of initiating a “dialogue between the vulgar and the learned” (to repeat Davie's happy phrase) in which proper weight is attached to actual minds at work. Elitism gave us the Catholic Church, Communism, Capitalism, many other isms and many many wars and now Jihad. The vulgar mediocrity tend to be more practical and sceptical of such outlandish ideas. British democracy which is the oldest and one of the most stable democracies was forged on 'common sense' and the scorning of elitism. So while I accept you take your choice on which 'common sense' you care to follow, the same is true of elitism, which tends to be far more self confident and violent.

Kedikat -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 2:34:17 AM)
Elitist. Wouldn't identifying as such put one into a limited catergory? By definition, out of touch with the majority. So lacking in a majority of things? Elitist does not have positive conotations. More limiting I'd say. To be truly the elite requires narrowing ones field. Nobody can be all round elite. The elitist can be blind sided by the average in another field of expertise. I prefer to be well rounded. Adaptable to the varied world. As expert as needed in whatever field I choose at the moment. Mass man is the sum of man. The average may not impress. But the " elite " come to be from the sum of the mass of humanity. They can only rise up upon their shoulders. They do not stand alone, or apart. They only think they do. The mass of man creates the base for the elite. One who attains any true measure of being elite, must be wise enough to know this. And not sneer at those who support them. Specialization is for insects.

brightspot -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 2:38:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger For me...What's far more repugnant than actual elitism is pseudo-elitism. Yanno... the snobby yuppies/urbanites who dwell in apartments or purchase homes with interest-only loans, drive SUVs and charge everything on credit cards, yet in all actuality are insolvent! Yes.... the worst type of elite is the one who actually doesn't have any money. Gotta love em' HAR! - R Boy do I know a few of these types[:'(], I agree the worst type of "Elite". *Brightspot

meatcleaver -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 3:24:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OedipusRexIt I'm coming out!!! Yes, Virginia, I am an elitist. Some might even say a snob. Go ahead, take a shot at me and call me that, or worse. My mediocrity has been getting the better of me. You aren't really talking about elitism or snobbery but a thirst for knowledge which is entirely different. Elitists suck and are snobs but who could call Socrates an elitist or a snob? If we subject him to the times he lived in that is. Hey, maybe he was an inverted snob!

UtopianRanger -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 3:40:25 AM)
quote: Boy do I know a few of these types, I agree the worst type of "Elite". *Brightspot LMAO!! Yeah... for some reason '' fake elites'' bug me much more than the real ones. - R

NakedOnMyChain -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 6:11:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OedipusRexIt I'm coming out!!! Yes, Virginia, I am an elitist. Some might even say a snob. Go ahead, take a shot at me and call me that, or worse. I am those things, because I believe in the pursuit of excellence over settling for mediocrity. I don't believe in promoting Johnny to the next grade to help his self-esteem. I don't believe everyone's opinion is equally valid (some are ill-informed, to say the least). I'm getting to the saturation point from some of what I've read here in the forums, and wanted to save others the trouble of calling me out. For those intellectually inclined, there is an excellent essay on this concept by Jose Ortega y Gosset, entitled "Revolt of the Masses". It's a quick read, but covers the concept of "mass man vs. intelligentsia" quite well. So, did I lose positively everyone? Nah, I'm still with you. I think I'm better than everyone else anyway. [;)] OK, I don't mean it. But I am better than a lot of people in a lot of ways, and better than some of them in all categories. Acknowledging that people are different and not equal in all fields (I'm not talking about race, ethnicity, creed, or gender) is simply the truth. Take two people, ideally equal, but one is fantastic at math, the other isn't very good at it. Should the latter get an aerospace engineering position despite the fact the other is better at math, just to keep things equal? Hell no. In my perfect little dream world, people get what they deserve: No more, no less.

Alumbrado -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 7:27:36 AM)
The notion of intellectuals versus common people is in some ways, misleading...they are also in a symbiotic relationship... Wealthy idea mongers like Marx et al. would have accomplished little without the acquiesence of the masses, and the lumpen would tend to stay pretty much where they were unless led by bright shiny new ideas.

meatcleaver -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 8:06:32 AM)
Marx's ideas were embraced because of the brutal, exploitative regimes that were governing the 'lumpen prolatariate'. To quote Marx 'The worker of the world has nothing to lose, but their chains, workers of the world unite.' When you are on the wrong end of a brutal uncaring regime like 19th century capitalism was, this must sound a pleasing clarion call. A lot of what Marx wrote made sense and is still valid today. Just as there is nothing wrong with Christianity but christians so it is true of Marxism.

trippingdaisy -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 8:36:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OedipusRexIt I don't believe everyone's opinion is equally valid (some are ill-informed, to say the least). Out of all of these, i agree with this one the most. Now, most opinions, i'll be alright with. Especially when it comes to personal preference, and something that doesn't hurt me, mine, or anyone else. my favorite example of this is the scat players. In my opinion? That's disgusting. In theirs? They LOVE it. That's them, and i'm not going to spit on someone else's kink. That being said, the internet seems to breed stupidity and the easily offended. Stupidity is worse, in my opinion...some of the opinions that come from the Terminally Stupid are...amazingly wrong. Example: "The holocaust didn't happen!" Uh, okay. You're up for a Darwin award right...about....oooh, ouch. That's gotta hurt. The easily offended drive me batty. i can understand hurt feelings...this isn't what i'm talking about. Some people are just that sensitive. The may not want to take the internet so seriously (yes, folks, i know. The internet is SERIOUS business, what am i thinking??), but it's still different. i'm talking about the people who hear the word 'retard' or 'fag' coming out of someone's mouth, and blowing up about it. Some people are just assholes!! It's okay to ignore them...being an asshole back isn't going change them! They'll just use those words more, because they know they get a rise out of people. Perhaps i'm a little jaded, or maybe everyone else is too PC. i dunno. i just know that...yes, in a nutshell, i agree. Not everyone has a good opinion, and i will voice that. It just takes a lot to offend me. :)

subspecialist -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 9:05:59 AM)
Someone once told me, "It doesn't take all kinds, but we have all kinds." [:)] With regard to "being" an elite, i believe it's akin to being a true Master.... others (i.e. the masses, elites, intellectuals, & whomever else) apply that label, not the person in question. A truly "elite" person doesn't waste energy identifying with such labels. He/she is far more preoccupied with apsiring to higher levels of knowledge, understanding, awareness, & compassion. i also like how Kedikat put it, "The mass of man creates the base for the elite. One who attains any true measure of being elite, must be wise enough to know this. And not sneer at those who support them." Everyone has a place. Everyone is at a different point in their journey of life. Not everyone will will take full advantage of their own personal strengths and abilities to attain all that life has to offer them. Others will. It is no one's place to judge the path that was taken.

Alumbrado -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 9:11:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Marx's ideas were embraced because of the brutal, exploitative regimes that were governing the 'lumpen prolatariate'. To quote Marx 'The worker of the world has nothing to lose, but their chains, workers of the world unite.' When you are on the wrong end of a brutal uncaring regime like 19th century capitalism was, this must sound a pleasing clarion call. A lot of what Marx wrote made sense and is still valid today. Just as there is nothing wrong with Christianity but christians so it is true of Marxism. Amen! [:D]

Lordandmaster -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 9:45:02 AM)
Marx was not wealthy. In fact, for much of his adult life he lived in severe poverty. Engels had to support him. "Idea mongers" are rarely wealthy because the wealthy have little need for new ideas. quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Wealthy idea mongers like Marx et al.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 9:46:09 AM)
Got a source for that? Copying someone else's work without indicating the source is called plagiarism. Edited to add: Don't bother, I found the source. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scottish-19th/ Let's see, you know where to find the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and know about the Scottish Enlightenment, and have never heard of the concept of plagiarism? What planet are you from? quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver It is well known that, on Reid's analysis, Hume's skepticism derives in large part from his implicit subscription to the “way of ideas”, a conception of knowledge and experience that finds its origins in Descartes, Malebranche and Locke, and its most dramatic exposition in Berkeley who, though no skeptic, “proved by unanswerable arguments what no man in his senses could believe” (Reid 1997: 20). The antidote to such skepticism is common sense, but not of the robust sort displayed by Dr. Johnson when he purported to refute Berkeley by kicking a stone. “Common sense” can mean two things, in fact: widespread popular conviction on the one hand, or the basic principles at work in human reasoning and belief formation on the other. Widespread conviction can be false, of course, which is why the method of the School of Common Sense was thought suspect by many, described by Kant, for example, as a stratagem by which “the stalest windbag can confidently take up with the soundest thinker” (Kant 1951: 259). But in Reid at any rate, philosophical inquiry into the human mind is not a matter of making popular opinion the test of truth, but of initiating a “dialogue between the vulgar and the learned” (to repeat Davie's happy phrase) in which proper weight is attached to actual minds at work.

Noah -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 10:28:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Got a source for that? Copying someone else's work without indicating the source is called plagiarism. Edited to add: Don't bother, I found the source. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scottish-19th/ Let's see, you know where to find the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and know about the Scottish Enlightenment, and have never heard of the concept of plagiarism? What planet are you from? Oh come on, Lam. It was set apart in italics. It didn't give me the impression of an attempt at anything but providing a handy snippet, to use Davies' happy phrase. Did you honestly think he was trying to get one over on you or are you just busting his balls? We're all sitting around a table with the same book open (the net) and the same research assistant to to the scut work for us (Google.) In my opinion Mr. Cleaver posted as scrupulously as the medium warrants by quoting verbatim and typographically drawing attention to the quote as such. By the way, did you take that snapshot of the elephants?

Alumbrado -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 10:31:11 AM)
[sm=applause.gif]

stef -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 10:58:33 AM)
He knows that meatcleaver wasn't passing the work off as his own. I think he's just having a bad tusk day because he's taking such a beating in that cheese steak thread [;)] ~stef

Lordandmaster -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 11:19:52 AM)
Stef, I'm surprised at you. You think it's OK to copy text from another website without indicating the source? You're CONSTANTLY pointing out what's wrong with that and telling people just to provide the link instead. It doesn't matter what his intention was. It's getting a little tiresome that we seem to revisit the plagiarism issue every week now. It's simple. You can't copy someone else's work without indicating the source. End of story. The elephant pic is in the public domain, as I've said about six times already. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is NOT in the public domain.

Noah -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 11:29:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol PS: how do you rate Jacques Derrida? You know that scene late in Dr. Strangelove when the Slim Pickens character rides the atomic bomb down to it's target, hooting like a rodeo cowboy? Substitute "The Enlightenment" for the bomb and Jacques for Slim. That's how I rate him. Except instead of "Yippiyiayy" and "Git 'em up!" the US version has dubbed in a heavily acccented "Arche-ecriture!" and "Circumcision as text!" Now the quiz. Am I calling Derrida elitist, being elitist myself, neither, or both?

Noah -> RE: Elitism and Snobbery (6/17/2006 11:51:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Stef, I'm surprised at you. You think it's OK to copy text from another website without indicating the source? You're CONSTANTLY pointing out what's wrong with that and telling people just to provide the link instead. It doesn't matter what his intention was. It's getting a little tiresome that we seem to revisit the plagiarism issue every week now. It's simple. You can't copy someone else's work without indicating the source. End of story. You can't consensually put a girl in handcuffs and/or spank her in most jurisdictions I'm familiar with--if that's the kind of "can't" you have in mind. We thundering pachyDerminants parade past those laws with blinders on, don't we? And I have the impression that a court can consider intention under the doctrine of mens rea. Any legal scholars lurking? I know a sure cure for the problem of revisiting the plagiarism issue, but this seems like a real sticking point for you, Lam. And it is rare enough to see anyone stand for a principle. Really though, if your concern is a supra-legal ethical one here I didn't see anyone trying to pass off another's work as his own--not that I imagine my opinion carries any weight. If your complaint is strictly legalistic, you can certainly alert the publisher.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875