Crookbond Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Intellectual snobbery is fine and dandy but if it used only to prove that a certain section of society or particular person is idiot then something is definitely not correct. The real problem is that there is dearth of right wing intellectuals in India. In the sense, there is no iconic figure that characterizes the right. The main reason is that the "right" in India is not in terms of economics but in terms of religion, conservatism. Therefore, the iconic figures are people who say "You don't need archeological evidence to show Mahabharata, Ramayana is true - just myths are fine" OR "There was cross species genetic organ transplantation". You can be a right winger and YET be an intellectual. The problem is the canonical example of a right winger are people who make incoherent, logically flawed arguments. http://www.caravanmagazine.in/reportage/absentia-ramachandra-guha-indian-conservatives
Khalpat Posted July 28, 2015 Author Posted July 28, 2015 The real problem is that there is dearth of right wing intellectuals in India. In the sense, there is no iconic figure that characterizes the right. The main reason is that the "right" in India is not in terms of economics but in terms of religion, conservatism. Therefore, the iconic figures are people who say "You don't need archeological evidence to show Mahabharata, Ramayana is true - just myths are fine" OR "There was cross species genetic organ transplantation". You can be a right winger and YET be an intellectual. The problem is the canonical example of a right winger are people who make incoherent, logically flawed arguments. http://www.caravanmagazine.in/reportage/absentia-ramachandra-guha-indian-conservatives Are there no Christian intellectual in this world who believe in miracle? Are there no Muslim intellectual in this world who believe in keeping fast during Ramzan even though it will be fatal towards health. I am not ready to believe that all the other countries scholars or intellectuals are Atheist. The problem my friend is that our definition of being intellectual starts with the misconception of what is your opinion about religion or your own country. There is a huge tendency of believing that if a person believes in Hindu Mythology then he is not intellectual. This myopic view of classifying budhjeevi in India was created during British era and has been successfully followed. Why cannot we ignore the religious angle while classifying people? As we do it for Islamic or Western scholars. I am still not very sure about the criteria of classifying a person into intellectual category. One of argument has come from outty who if I am not wrong tried to convey that a person who talks with figures and facts is intellectual, quite ironic that it has come from him who himself never presents facts and figures while arguing in political section but anyways that was a fair one. Your opinion is not very clear may be due to the fact that you have not attempted to answer the OP question.
coffee_rules Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Arun Shourie/ABV/APJ are good examples of right-wing intellectuals. They tend to be more towards the center or right of center (I am talking in terms of economics only). Even Pramod Mahajan was more moderate than Modi/Shah.
Crookbond Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Are there no Christian intellectual in this world who believe in miracle? Are there no Muslim intellectual in this world who believe in keeping fast during Ramzan even though it will be fatal towards health. I am not ready to believe that all the other countries scholars or intellectuals are Atheist. See, right here - this is the problem. I said, A =>B and you are asking a rhetorical question with B => A. You need to understand the difference between personal beliefs and using those mythical personal beliefs without scientific acceptance as great discussion points. Check the interview of the current ICHR head and he's the prime example of such a condition. The problem my friend is that our definition of being intellectual starts with the misconception of what is your opinion about religion or your own country. There is a huge tendency of believing that if a person believes in Hindu Mythology then he is not intellectual. This myopic view of classifying budhjeevi in India was created during British era and has been successfully followed. Why cannot we ignore the religious angle while classifying people? As we do it for Islamic or Western scholars. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO! Your personal beliefs don't matter - you are creating a straw man. Mandela was a Methodist but is called an intellectual, Sardar Patel and Nehru are both Hindus but intellectuals, APJ Abdul Kalam and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk were Muslims but an intellectual, Lee Kuan Yew was agnostic but still intellectual. In the Indian context, the right IS majority religion based and Hindu - therefore; you see more examples of Hindu mythology. If you were in the Middle East, you'd see more examples of Islam. "Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence". You have already entered this discussion with a loaded and victim point of view "People are ONLY after those who believe in Hindu mythology". That is blatantly false - your religion doesn't matter. I am still not very sure about the criteria of classifying a person into intellectual category. One of argument has come from outty who if I am not wrong tried to convey that a person who talks with figures and facts is intellectual, quite ironic that it has come from him who himself never presents facts and figures while arguing in political section but anyways that was a fair one. Your opinion is not very clear may be due to the fact that you have not attempted to answer the OP question. An intellectual is one who has critical thinking and synthesizes ideas malleably - simple. For a moment, forget what an intellectual is in geopolitics and think about great scientists (for lack of a better examples). Albert Einstein, Von Neumann, Hilbert, Alan Turing, Ada Lovelace, Charles Babbage, Marie and Pierre Curie, Grace Hopper and their likes. They were intellectuals - why? They were open to ideas and possessed critical thinking skills. They were able to absorb and explain their ideas to people based on facts and figures. Now, don't do ulta logic here - it doesn't mean they didn't get it wrong. They did - but they were more right than wrong.
The Outsider Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Being an intellectual has no bearing on what the person's personal religious bearings are. However, if that person uses his personal individual bearings to circumvent established scientific procedures it certainly disqualifies him from being one. Not that being an intellectual is a holy grail or even important for the success of individuals. However, the success of a society can only come by marginalizing stupidity in the guise of scientific practices.
surajmal Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Buddhi to sir hum bhi bechte hain magar majaal hai humay koi budhjeevi kah de. Thoda sa aur vistaar kijiye apne definition ko. If you are one of those that believes that during 20th century Science killed philosophy and 21th century onwards the impossible and fantastical will become usual, then a modern intellectual is simply someone singing paeans to mass culture and stifling conformity i.e. a mediocre human being with an access to a thesaurus.
dial_100 Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 To be honest, when intellectuals cannot prove anything they simply hide behind science to undermine things that they don't understand. Same thing goes for religious and cultural superstitions. When religions can prove something, they use science but the minute they cannot prove it with science, they take shelter in belief system. To me they are the two sides of the same coin.
coffee_rules Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Being rational is more important than being an Intellect. A rational person takes a scientific method to make opinions, but also takes a practical approach when science is not able to define it.
Khalpat Posted July 29, 2015 Author Posted July 29, 2015 Arun Shourie/ABV/APJ are good examples of right-wing intellectuals. They tend to be more towards the center or right of center (I am talking in terms of economics only). Even Pramod Mahajan was more moderate than Modi/Shah. Are you sure in terms of economics Mahajan or ABV were more right wing than Modi?
diga Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Arun Shourie/ABV/APJ are good examples of right-wing intellectuals. They tend to be more towards the center or right of center (I am talking in terms of economics only). Even Pramod Mahajan was more moderate than Modi/Shah. There are more than a fair share of right wing "intellectuals"...the question is how many people from the other side listen to them / read them? Gurumurthy / Swapan DasGupta/Rajiv Dixit /Subrmaniam Swamy can all be classified as right of center
Khalpat Posted July 29, 2015 Author Posted July 29, 2015 See, right here - this is the problem. I said, A =>B and you are asking a rhetorical question with B => A. You need to understand the difference between personal beliefs and using those mythical personal beliefs without scientific acceptance as great discussion points. Check the interview of the current ICHR head and he's the prime example of such a condition. Wouldn't argue on this as it will derail. Mandela was a Methodist but is called an intellectual, Sardar Patel and Nehru are both Hindus but intellectuals, APJ Abdul Kalam and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk were Muslims but an intellectual, Lee Kuan Yew was agnostic but still intellectual. In the Indian context, the right IS majority religion based and Hindu - therefore; you see more examples of Hindu mythology. If you were in the Middle East, you'd see more examples of Islam. "Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence". How the bolded name fit into the criteria of the definiton you gave for intellectuals. An intellectual is one who has critical thinking and synthesizes ideas malleably - simple.
Crookbond Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Wouldn't argue on this as it will derail. How the bolded name fit into the criteria of the definiton you gave for intellectuals. You need to read up more on Sardar Patel and Nehru - to understand my point. In the Indian context, both Patel and Nehru were as intellectual as one could get. In order to appreciate intellectuals from a gone by era, you need to think of living yourself in a gone by era. Their letters would tell you how they thought and reasoned. Patel supported Gandhi's non-coperation movement. He was against caste discrimination and untouchability; no matter what his contemporaries and his party told about it. A clear indicator of critical thinking. There are many examples of Patel but one post isn't enough to cover it. Same for Nehru - his policies (it is easy for the 15 year olds on the Internet today to criticize him via keyboards) made him a respected scholar (pandit) and an architect of India. To this date, our governments including BJP follow his principles.
Crookbond Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 There are more than a fair share of right wing "intellectuals"...the question is how many people from the other side listen to them / read them? Gurumurthy / Swapan DasGupta/Rajiv Dixit /Subrmaniam Swamy can all be classified as right of center People who espouse clear unscientific crap can NEVER be intellectuals > Next govt should catch gays and confine them in Ramdevji's ashram till cured https://twitter.com/Swamy39/status/412458060032929792 > You need to go to a hospital. Being gay is mental disorder. https://twitter.com/Swamy39/status/338840073850195970
Detonator Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 See' date=' right here - this is the problem. I said, A =>B and you are asking a rhetorical question with B => A. You need to understand the difference between personal beliefs and using those mythical personal beliefs without scientific acceptance as great discussion points. Check the interview of the current ICHR head and he's the prime example of such a condition. [/quote'] A systematic set of belifs or codifications of behaviour does not need scientific acceptance. Not all religions are dogmatic which are established by mass genocides (i.e Crusades and early caliphs). The Right is not majority based on Indian context. I don't think there are LW or centre based muslim/christian parties. Even AIML borders on radical right in the name of conservative ideology. The very quote, "Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence" can be used as a pro-religion. Well said.
Detonator Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 People who espouse clear unscientific crap can NEVER be intellectuals > Next govt should catch gays and confine them in Ramdevji's ashram till cured https://twitter.com/Swamy39/status/412458060032929792 > You need to go to a hospital. Being gay is mental disorder. https://twitter.com/Swamy39/status/338840073850195970 Almost all the indian "intellelectuals" sprouted non-sense and involved in corruption.
diga Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 People who espouse clear unscientific crap can NEVER be intellectuals > Next govt should catch gays and confine them in Ramdevji's ashram till cured https://twitter.com/Swamy39/status/412458060032929792 > You need to go to a hospital. Being gay is mental disorder. https://twitter.com/Swamy39/status/338840073850195970 my response was to coffee's post where he mentioned specifically about right wing economics
Khalpat Posted July 29, 2015 Author Posted July 29, 2015 You need to read up more on Sardar Patel and Nehru - to understand my point. In the Indian context, both Patel and Nehru were as intellectual as one could get. In order to appreciate intellectuals from a gone by era, you need to think of living yourself in a gone by era. Their letters would tell you how they thought and reasoned. Patel supported Gandhi's non-coperation movement. He was against caste discrimination and untouchability; no matter what his contemporaries and his party told about it. A clear indicator of critical thinking. There are many examples of Patel but one post isn't enough to cover it. Same for Nehru - his policies (it is easy for the 15 year olds on the Internet today to criticize him via keyboards) made him a respected scholar (pandit) and an architect of India. To this date, our governments including BJP follow his principles. This was Nehru's reply in parliament after the loss of land in war with China, “Not a blade of grass grows in Aksai Chin; loss of Indian Territory to China is a loss too little.†Not sure how would you categorize this statement of intellectual, factually he would be right but as a Prime Minister of the country he shouldn't have said this IMO.
Khalpat Posted July 29, 2015 Author Posted July 29, 2015 Get a book published' date=' you are an intellectual.[/quote'] The writer of Mastram is intellectual?
Precambrian Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 The writer of Mastram is intellectual? Without doubt. They are the real intellectuals. .unleashed dreams in millions of young people...
Recommended Posts