Why does philosophical anti-intellectualism have such a bad reputation?

>>2822424
It's not a matter of value; it's a matter of reason.

>>2822424
Put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig.

"Philosophical Anti-Intellectualism" and "Intelligent Design" are dressed up terms for "I'm retarded".

>>2822443
Anti-intellectualism is as valid as anti-clericalism was in the XIXth century.

"Intellectuals" are not just "smart people", they are a caste with a political project, and that project can be disastrous, just see the entire history of communism.

>>2822424
>>2822443
>>2822449
This is why we need to define our terms.

an intellectual, a pseudointellectual and an anti-intellectual walk into a bar, the barkeep says "here's one for ya, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck would chuck wood", the anti-intellectual replied "hurr I dunno", the pseud went on a lengthy tirade, filibustering and using lingo no one has ever heard of before, meanwhile the intellectual was hitting on their girls and walked out with both of them

Reasoning and introspection on experience is how humans form knowledge, so yes real life experiences are valuable when reflected on in the correct manner. This was recognized as far back as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and was preserved by the medieval realists, both Platonic and Aristotelian ones.

>>2822470
The anti-intellectual would be the one getting the girls. The pseud would be going "hurr I dunno" and the intellectual would go into a lengthy tirade using jargon.

>>2822536
the truth is Chad is smart

>>2822884

By what definition would the Chad be smart?

>>2822449
This anon has it right scholars, academic and professionals who don't engage in useless analysis of society, philosophical pondering and promoting an ideology and focus solely on their own specialist fields aren't considered intellectuals

The term intellectual implys a degree of pretense for a reason

Communism is a great example take Marx and Lenin they definitely fit the mold

Intellectuals should definitely be looked at with suspicion that is for sure.

Nobody with an intellect calls themselves an intellectual. Pseuds call themselves intellectuals, however, and I'm all for anti-pseudo-intellectualism.
Why on earth you'd take a category of people as broad as "those who want to know things" and conjure up some absurd strawman of subversives who want to destroy all the values you (yes, YOU!) hold dear just reeks of insecurity.

>>2822449
Jesus Christ we are fucked... People actually believe this now.

I suppose it's just a matter of time before we have another Pol Pot killing everyone with glasses and start watering the plants with gatorade.

Is there any famous or somewhat famous writer/philosopher who claimed that man is governed by natural law and his instincts? l can't find any.

>>2823604
You don't believe the meme version of what is smart, do you?

>>2824004
Criticize something society holds dear and people will absolutely flip out and attack you even if your argument is completely rational. An example might be diversity. If anything it would be insecure not to do it.

>>2824705
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say.
Do you mean to imply that I'm hysterical, or that "I don't like what those smart people come up with" is a rational argument against seeking knowledge of something you find interesting or possibly helpful?? Or that anti-intellectualism is somehow brave?

>>2824779
It is just that last point you made. Sometimes people do indeed want to destroy something you value.

Maybe a better example would be oppressive regimes that don't want people pointing out the fact the government could be lying to them and there is rampant corruption. If you don't want people to figure that out or just be less aware of the reality of things and how they work there will be a vein of anti-intellectualism. Maybe not for neutral subjects like paleontology but definitely in politics and sociology.

>>2822443
>Put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig.

no shit. And you spending all da playing with your dick and thinking up some retarded utopia while others in the real world try to explain why that isnt realistic is another thing.

"""intellectuals"""" are a cancer on modern society. Utterly worthless post modern oikophobes who ad nothing interesting to dialectics of any kind. Go write a dissertation about how triggered you got at the new marvel movie for not including enough minority actors.

>>2824209

>You guys are up your own asses and are pseudo-intellectuals

>OMG THIS IS JUST LIKE POL POT ALL OVER AGAIN!

Reminder that western """intellectuals"""" like chomsky shilled for Pol Pot because he shared in their autistic dogma.

>>2824606
Rousseau