It’s not even that I disagree with your performative intellectual “-ism-ist-ian” subgroup—it’s more that I don’t think it matters.
Yes, because it’s all cartoonishly shallow—make believe costumes. But mainly because a) no structures for serious thought and debate over time exist and b) most of you aren’t going to do or influence anything or anyone important.
The only real benefit of these kinds of ideological-intellectual leaders & jousters is that their snarky arguments against others & their sort of half-artificial, half-real -isms that catch on can be useful *means* for some to break through the veil & catch glimpses of the real.
In the desert, even a mouthful of fetid water seems everything. So what you get—admittedly, perhaps what is needed at first—today are rabid converts to some shallow -ism set against others, glorying most in refutation of the other w/o much but abstraction for positive exposition.
Because of the lack of set ideologies and the dissatisfaction with the corrupt order we face, this is all more prevalent and significant than usual. But it’s always the way even in more formalized intellectual circles:
Shorthand concepts become buzzwords, kids talk about various living figures and gossip, and the whole thing takes on a kind of aesthetic pose or stance. From “I’m reader of great (or obscure books” to “I’m an -ist-ian”. This is always the way.
One hopes & strives, here & there, for some few who fight to simply see the truth & answer open-ended questions. But especially w/o healthy institutions (which are relatively rare themselves) all this leads to great weariness for anyone who holds onto a true intellectual life.
Simply put, such a life is never possible in pristine conditions, & not usually possible simply speaking throughout much of life. Muddling through in the actual academies of whatever time & place is often dreary. Often better to snatch what opportunities one can outside of them.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
