which can we live without?.........define either as you wish (although, it is apparent that intellectuals are artists, writers, philosophers, etc).......it seems that we can live without the masses, for what good do the masses provide? one might say work, but even intellectuals do such mediocre jobs....one might say that the masses are means to the end for intellectuals, yet intellectuals can also provide a means to an end.......so what good are the masses?

I could live my life without intellectuals. They seem to provide little other than condescension and mental masteurbation. Most people who actually accomplish something in life do it by spending their time in efforts other than sitting around, stroking their egos, and sniffing disdainfully at the ignorants around them. At any rate, I have little tolerance for people who consider intelligence a virtue, as they're entirely without exception assholes of the highest order.

A soon as an intellectuals think they are part of an elite and the rest of humanity is below them -- they should be out up against the wall and shot.

Intellectuals are part of the mass.

That sounds a bit intelligent to me!!

You're one of them!

*Gathers a lynchmob*

interesting......but why not have pride? is that not a sense of authority and greatness today?

What about the Chemist? the Physicist, and the Engineer? Many would consider these intellectuals. In my line of work the masses, and the intellectuals are very intertwined. A unit of say infantry, could not move forward with a squad of combat engineers. An Air Assault raid could not take place without a technically minded blackhawk pilot.

Sorry, but the damn military is the only thing I can relate to.

i think there are seperate definitons at work here...


but in any case, the original question seems moot. if the world were seperated and the 'masses' or 'intellectuals' were sliced away, in no time flat another crop would be gleened from the group to fit the defintions again.

example, if the 'masses' were all killed, of those who were left, a distinct difference would begin to be be drawn to seperate the 'intellectuals' (who would probably have been the 'SUPER-intellectuals' before the first purge') and the new 'masses' (who are the low end 'intellectuals' from the first purge)...

the same thing would happen if it were the 'intellects' who were first against the wall.

i don't like walls.............

always had to stand on them for recess........all i wanted to do was play kick-ball

This is known as the Wally Principle.

people in communities always tend to find differences and similarities with which to find like people and shun different people...

entropy, i suppose.

you are right......but in, what would it be....fascist (nazi-like) theme....if you eliminated, say the 'masses,' then all that would be left are 'intellectuals'....and you are right, painters will shun writers, philosphers will shun all, it will be catastrophic, but at least it is intellectuals shunning intellectuals.......for a time....dahdumdum!!!!

i wonder... im a writer and a philosopher... does that mean i'd be accepted by both? or shunned... by both?

you're a writer and philosopher? me too.....i would preferably like to be consider a philosopher; however, both philosophy and writing go hand in hand.....

Too many cooks may spoil the broth?

i hate broth... well, no i dont... i just hate everything at the moment because i'm sleep deprived.

When I think of the word intellectual, I don't tend to stick the ideas that those people are only the ones that have an extreme intelligence within one area (ie. philosophers, scientists, writers, doctors, etc.). To me, someone that I consider an intellectual is a person that is able to converse with a variety of people on a world of different subjects. For example, having a technical discussion with someone that works as a technician in the computer field whil you are not in that field, but are also not lost. Partaking in discussions with people that have a differnt educational background then yourself. That's more of what I consider an intellectual.

When you have the personal drive to pick up books on a subject and learn about it, merely for the enjoyment of expanding knowledge on that area, or to be able to ask more indepth questions during conversations, that too is the sign of an intellectual, to me.

So, by looking at it that way, intellectuals become part of the 'masses' and the lines are blurred even more. Sure, you will still have those groups of people that concentrate on one area of expertise, but if they are unable to hold other conversations with others, then they have pigeon-holed themselves and turned away from a broader view of intelligence. And when they do try to have conversations with others along the lines of what they know/study, then an aire of class sneaks into the attitude and then walls get built up.

Again, in my opinion, having a conversation with someone that doesn't deal with knowledge being handed down from a plateau, but on the sharing level is more of an intellectual exchange rather then the conversation becoming a lecture.

They can be one and the same, but the real quandary is the individual vs' the masses. Isn't that what your are talking about? When you denote or introduce the conception of the intelligent individual to the mob, then problems like influence can follow.

true..........

Society has actualy evolved beyond the individual humans' ability to concieve of the big picture. The masses can be seen as the worker ants recieving behavioural orders from those who have more power who may or may not be intellectuals...Intellectuals are used by those with power to amass more power but also to make sure the workers stay happy and productive.

We are not limited to one particular role throughout our lives..we can assume a power role or an intellectual role (and many more) as we evolve individualy..due to proportional mathematics there will always be a similair amount of each category but problems arise when they get out of synch..to see the effects of these changes in a countries social structure you can monitor their stock market figures and gross national income etc.

The machine will descend into chaos if any one value of the system ceases to function..however such disasters tend to be self repairing see 'revolutions'.
When one system impinges upon another both can be thrown into chaos see 'war', 'famine', 'pestilence', 'death'...In the end what matters is not the opinions of the masses or the intellectuals but those who control them..and when I say 'The end' no matter how dramatic these words sound we are only ever weeks away from a complete collapse of all known social units into anarchy..all we need is one man to think he can make decisions for his country without consulting either the intellectuals or the masses.