On the topic of writing something that has already been said before, it's best to write it anyway. It will likely reach someone's algorithm while the others didn't.
I truly enjoyed this piece—I read every word. It was deeply soothing to the soul, reassuring to know I’m not the only one longing for more depth and nuance in my public life.
Congratulations on such a powerful dissection. In a moment when intellectual curiosity often feels like a burden or even a liability, the real question becomes: how do we make knowledge, critical thinking, and real debate appealing again? How do we invite, not gatekeep, the masses to engage with information, growth, and genuine reflection rather than entertaining distractions or superficial takes? Great topic for such “modern” and “comfortable” times.
I would go as far as to say “debate” itself has been subjected to bastardization. I’ve found myself less willing to genuinely engage in certain conversations with people due to not knowing what their idea of a debate is. It is disheartening to realize how much of it is just an excuse to participate in mental gladiator battles. There is only one true winner but the death of your opponent is a metaphorical killing of their curiosity.
This is one of the best essays I have read about culture. I wasn’t aware that there was a whole culture around what evolved to be from philosophers to debaters on television, to now clickbait podcast bros. The internet has really changed a lot about how discourse is engineered.
public intellectuals at their core were celebrities. sometimes I wonder how much that “celebrity” trumps the “intellectual”… I mean that’s why they put scholars in ivory towers to keep the “outside” “noise” out… but at the same time, those scholars end up not interacting with the real world, because the real world is outside… some intellectuals really struggled to be celebrities, but somehow they are supposed to be two at once. a great historical example is leibniz and voltaire, because voltaire was more of a celebrity and yet he did not quite understand what leibniz was talking about. so when voltaire wrote candide, a book that ripped leibniz idea apart, people just read that and never revisited the cool thing leibniz said unless they were locked in the “tower” ignoring the “celebrity noise” of candide.. I’m all twisted in knots here ):
Given its argument, this essay could have so easily veered off into snobbery or cynicism, but it didn’t at all. Wonderfully articulated, and presented with such sincerity and grace. This was a fantastic read!
“A historian writing on politics or a physicist dissecting philosophy might be met with skepticism because intellectual authority is tightly policed within rigid boundaries. “
I have noticed that thought leaders do tend to be penalised for daring to speak outside of their area of expertise. For instance, I remember Jordan Peterson being criticised for speaking about climate change from his perspective. As a scientist, I am aware that even my area of expertise is highly complex but I do think that having the willingness to speak about other fields could help develop “intellectual dexterity” and even if you do happen to be wrong, it can help generate discourse with other experts in said field? It’s very odd cause we are told to specialise but the nature of modern society seems to demand more generalisation? I would be happy to hear your thoughts :)
Omg! this post is exactly what I've been searching for. A conversation from a much greater conversation of how our societies are becoming increasingly trivialised in all aspects of discourse, whether that be a social, political, or other discourse. We're increasingly dismissing and sidelining intellectually demanding discussions for amusing or validating ones- never or rarely- challenging or probing.
I can see this trend only get worse in a time where our actions, behaviours, and modes of thought are increasingly becoming conditioned by social media trends (ahem, tiktok '67' ref and worse) and algorithmic-driven content. While we're not entirely doomed to be intellectually nullified, addressing this issue and reforming our education systemS to support more argumentative, speech/ debate program's such as MUN may likely redirect youth from the ever growing trivia culture online to more constructive and enlighting discourses.
Not like this idea hasn't been reiterated by others more informed than me, but just pointing it out will help affect a difference.
Ps: capital S in 'systems' stands to emphasis while how some people around the world are privaleged to high quality and prestigious education others are left picking up whatever breadcrumbs their schools resources and educational support can provide thus, their outcomes are often discrepant from their counterparts from the global north or at times vice versa.
(I've written my own peace on education if your interested to read it and leave your comments I'd be honoured.)
@Ina thanks for sharing this, wouldn’t have discovered it if you didn’t 🫶 @Sabine Carys articulates something that I have been feeling so deeply lately.
There are so many important parts in this I can't even start to properly comment on the article... it's definitely an essay to reread in the future. Thanks for sharing it with us!
I absolutely loved this piece. Because it rings so true. And despite some problematic views (which many did have), the energy and wit and fervour for intellectual debate that was provided to us by the late Christopher Hitchens shouldn’t go unnoticed. I disagree with him in many areas, but his passion for public intellectualism and the desire to fight and settle differences with intellect and not aggression is one of the strangely positive fallouts from the narcissistic male ego, a way of swashbuckling and dick measuring without the need to hurt anyone. Albeit a bit of a pantomime of snobbery, a gross male need for attention, but I do miss the public debates about religion, idealogical beliefs and just general modern societal themes that aren’t just foul mouthed us vs. you shoutathons. Anyways thank you! Loved your writing ✍️ 🫡
On the topic of writing something that has already been said before, it's best to write it anyway. It will likely reach someone's algorithm while the others didn't.
I truly enjoyed this piece—I read every word. It was deeply soothing to the soul, reassuring to know I’m not the only one longing for more depth and nuance in my public life.
Congratulations on such a powerful dissection. In a moment when intellectual curiosity often feels like a burden or even a liability, the real question becomes: how do we make knowledge, critical thinking, and real debate appealing again? How do we invite, not gatekeep, the masses to engage with information, growth, and genuine reflection rather than entertaining distractions or superficial takes? Great topic for such “modern” and “comfortable” times.
I would go as far as to say “debate” itself has been subjected to bastardization. I’ve found myself less willing to genuinely engage in certain conversations with people due to not knowing what their idea of a debate is. It is disheartening to realize how much of it is just an excuse to participate in mental gladiator battles. There is only one true winner but the death of your opponent is a metaphorical killing of their curiosity.
This is one of the best essays I have read about culture. I wasn’t aware that there was a whole culture around what evolved to be from philosophers to debaters on television, to now clickbait podcast bros. The internet has really changed a lot about how discourse is engineered.
public intellectuals at their core were celebrities. sometimes I wonder how much that “celebrity” trumps the “intellectual”… I mean that’s why they put scholars in ivory towers to keep the “outside” “noise” out… but at the same time, those scholars end up not interacting with the real world, because the real world is outside… some intellectuals really struggled to be celebrities, but somehow they are supposed to be two at once. a great historical example is leibniz and voltaire, because voltaire was more of a celebrity and yet he did not quite understand what leibniz was talking about. so when voltaire wrote candide, a book that ripped leibniz idea apart, people just read that and never revisited the cool thing leibniz said unless they were locked in the “tower” ignoring the “celebrity noise” of candide.. I’m all twisted in knots here ):
Given its argument, this essay could have so easily veered off into snobbery or cynicism, but it didn’t at all. Wonderfully articulated, and presented with such sincerity and grace. This was a fantastic read!
“A historian writing on politics or a physicist dissecting philosophy might be met with skepticism because intellectual authority is tightly policed within rigid boundaries. “
I have noticed that thought leaders do tend to be penalised for daring to speak outside of their area of expertise. For instance, I remember Jordan Peterson being criticised for speaking about climate change from his perspective. As a scientist, I am aware that even my area of expertise is highly complex but I do think that having the willingness to speak about other fields could help develop “intellectual dexterity” and even if you do happen to be wrong, it can help generate discourse with other experts in said field? It’s very odd cause we are told to specialise but the nature of modern society seems to demand more generalisation? I would be happy to hear your thoughts :)
Omg! this post is exactly what I've been searching for. A conversation from a much greater conversation of how our societies are becoming increasingly trivialised in all aspects of discourse, whether that be a social, political, or other discourse. We're increasingly dismissing and sidelining intellectually demanding discussions for amusing or validating ones- never or rarely- challenging or probing.
I can see this trend only get worse in a time where our actions, behaviours, and modes of thought are increasingly becoming conditioned by social media trends (ahem, tiktok '67' ref and worse) and algorithmic-driven content. While we're not entirely doomed to be intellectually nullified, addressing this issue and reforming our education systemS to support more argumentative, speech/ debate program's such as MUN may likely redirect youth from the ever growing trivia culture online to more constructive and enlighting discourses.
Not like this idea hasn't been reiterated by others more informed than me, but just pointing it out will help affect a difference.
Ps: capital S in 'systems' stands to emphasis while how some people around the world are privaleged to high quality and prestigious education others are left picking up whatever breadcrumbs their schools resources and educational support can provide thus, their outcomes are often discrepant from their counterparts from the global north or at times vice versa.
(I've written my own peace on education if your interested to read it and leave your comments I'd be honoured.)
@Ina thanks for sharing this, wouldn’t have discovered it if you didn’t 🫶 @Sabine Carys articulates something that I have been feeling so deeply lately.
There are so many important parts in this I can't even start to properly comment on the article... it's definitely an essay to reread in the future. Thanks for sharing it with us!
Interesting read! 🤎
Interesting read! 🤎
Good read 🙌
I still watch videos of the old debates, like the Chris Hitchens ones. Now its just people screaming at each other on television.
I absolutely loved this piece. Because it rings so true. And despite some problematic views (which many did have), the energy and wit and fervour for intellectual debate that was provided to us by the late Christopher Hitchens shouldn’t go unnoticed. I disagree with him in many areas, but his passion for public intellectualism and the desire to fight and settle differences with intellect and not aggression is one of the strangely positive fallouts from the narcissistic male ego, a way of swashbuckling and dick measuring without the need to hurt anyone. Albeit a bit of a pantomime of snobbery, a gross male need for attention, but I do miss the public debates about religion, idealogical beliefs and just general modern societal themes that aren’t just foul mouthed us vs. you shoutathons. Anyways thank you! Loved your writing ✍️ 🫡
I had the exact same thought. The last 'public intellectual' i could think of, was Hitchens.