[lit-ideas] A Spirit of Intellectualism
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:04:33 -0700
I wrote about what I was wrestling with and gave some indication of how
widely I was reading, but in the process indicated that I rejected a
particular position: the Leftist position. In the notes responding to my
wrestling, there was no interest in the issues I found interesting -- no
interest in the matters I was wrestling with. There was only a reaction
from the Left, for theirs was the position I had rejected. The reaction
came across to me as extremely uninformed, but how could it be otherwise
when those on the Left hadn't read the two seminal Leftist works on the
modern development of their position: Orientalism by Edward Said, and The
Islamic Threat, Myth or Reality by John Esposito.
I am regularly reminded of the debates I used to have with
Dispensationalists. They knew their position quite well, but they didn't
know where it came from. They didn't know its founder was John Nelson
Darby. They didn't know it was a relatively recent development in theology.
They didn't know its theological flaws or dangerous implications. So in the
midst of their righteous indignation, I would have to educate them about
their own history -- and receive angry challenges along the way.
I had similar debates with Charismatics. I recall one woman who listened in
silence as I quoted the theological reasons, with references of course, as
to why her position didn't hold up. Her response was, "I sense a spirit of
intellectualism in this room." Of course intellectualism to her was a bad
thing and she didn't like it. Charismatics as well as Dispensationalists
weren't interesting in studying history. Why should they when the Lord was
going to return very soon and such studies prove a waste of time?
There is a strong element of anti-intellectualism amongst the Leftists here
on Lit-Ideas and I expect among Leftists at large. Of course they do have
their wizards, people like Chomsky and Churchill who provide them with
things to think about and let them know they are on the right (Left) track,
but do they study? Do they do what they accuse me of not doing: read
widely? I see no evidence of that. They accuse me of not reading widely
because they fancy I don't read their Leftist position, but as near as I can
tell I read their Leftist scholars more than they do. But I don't spend
enough time reading the latest party-line. I don't get out enough. I am
too sheltered.
Consider the reflection of the Lit-Ideas Leftist Poet, Mike Geary, who wrote
to me: " . . . but I don't think we should kill a billion people just so
that you can feel vindicated for all the time you've wasted reading boring
books about Islam." This Leftist poet puts into words what "was often
thought but ne'er so well expressed." What a waste of time to read, to
study, to intellectualize about Islam, Western and Islamic history, War and
Peace, the nature of our enemy, the nature of defense, the best strategy to
use against our enemy, the best tactics, the dangers of misleading the
enemy, the strategies of our allies, etc., etc.. The poet senses a spirit
of intellectualism in the Lit-Ideas room and he doesn't like it.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
