What do you think?
Prospect is perhaps best known internationally for our polls, in partnership with Foreign Policy, of the world’s top 100 intellectuals. The lists have continued to provoke debate ever since their publication, and are now easily accessible from one place on our website together with links to related articles. Given the constantly shifting nature of the intellectual arena, and of the issues facing the best minds at work in the world today, Prospect invites you to share your thoughts on the world’s most important thinkers in the comments section below. Who is overlooked or overrated, and why? What does it mean to be an intellectual today? What should our best minds be thinking about? Let us know.
Share
Comments
Print
Add Comment
Given that “public” is 50 per cent of “public intellectual,” Jon Stewart (of Daily Show fame) must be worth a top fifty ranking at least. The most trusted man for serious political debate in America is a comedian – which probably says more about the seriousness of the best comedy than about the triviality of our times…
What does it say about “intellectuals” that your vote got hijacked the second time around by an online Turkish campaign? The newspaper and website that whipped up the campaign had far more influence that any of the people on the list. Ideas are important, but it’s the ones that are widely believed and that drive people to act that matter, not the “good” ones as defined by an expert panel. Over time the clichés may vanish and the fine words may endure, but at any given moment there will always be more, and more powerful, clichés in the world than there are great works, and this is only becoming more true.
I think this list is in desperate need of clarification, in particular, of which exact criteria each of the intellectuals on this list are being measured by? Furthermore, given the nature of the list, I do think someone will need to define “public” and “intellectual” for me, words which, up to now, I felt reasonably comfortable in using, having taken for granted their meaning. I can’t help but feel it was a comfort ill-afforded before, and to be urgently dispensed with now in light of this list.
For instance, should there not be some degree to which we try and evaluate whose work(s) shall still be read decades/centuries/millenia from now? This seems to be a reasonable indication of originality, creativity and thoroughness of thought – ’stand the test of time’ and so on. Thus, I find it INCREDIBLE that Christopher Hitchens managed a fifth placing, while Jurgen Habermas came seventh and Ronald Dworkin didn’t even place. Indeed, Peter Singer, the founder of bio-ethics, came 33rd! The latter three chaps will almost certainly still have their THEORIES discussed in decades (at least) to come. This is because such theories will still have relevance beyond our own times. There are quite a few names that have not yet managed an original IDEA, nevermind a THEORY, as yet.
One really can’t help but think that if “public” was taken to mean chosen by the public, and that, given the listing, we really aren’t up to the task of even identifying ideas worth discussing. Rather, we simply can’t see beyond what we ENJOY reading, in our own sorry times.
P.S. do forgive the capital lettering, it is a vulgar method of emphasis, but seems in-keeping with the current endeavour.
Wben I did the Mensa home test on the loo one morning I scored sufficient to be rated as being in the top 2% in the population in terms of intellingence as measured plainly by Mensa.
I have a discussable idea of what one means by intelligence – but what do you mean by the term – intellectual – both as a noun and as an adjective?
Often when I have attended prayer groups where we are asked to pass comments one at a time nowadays about the gospel reading – I have been criticised often and sometimes I feel rather unfairly as being too intellectual – that is my thoughts are too rarefied or too lofty or too high and mighty and by implication – prententious and preposterous – by others in the group including priests.
So what is an intellectual?
I think a lot of the time – but are these the great thoughts that the Wizard of Oz would accept – I am luckier than the scarecrow as I do have a diploma or two or three – and what is it, one must ask with which one is thinking – and thinking about?
In my case, being labelled from time to time as an intellectual is to be denigrated not revered – now that would be good for my humility – but as I said to my parish priest – when he first arrived – I don’t do humility – not that I seek to be harshly critical or unkind – but like to pass the odd comment or three about current events.
No man is an island – unless he is an intellectual – seems to be the loci of the reflective perspective.
Anyway, having writ I must wander on and on.
best wishes
Penvronius Miles Cambrensis, sfo.
Can’t believe no-one has nominated George Steiner – or did I miss his name on one of these lists?