FP's Top 100 Public Intellectuals

Canada is represented by way too many liberals when some of the most outstanding intellectuals in this country are clearly on the left.

Naomi Kline is not on the list. Neither is David Suzuki. And, in Latin America, Eduardo Galeano is missing. Those are gigantic omissions.

In my own Winnipeg, Arthur Schafer and Nick Ternette would get my vote. And so on.

Such a list is worthless unless the political biases of the list maker is admitted up front. Some of the people on the list are merely hired intellectual guns, e.g., Samuel Huntington, the Bishop of Rome, etc. Who the fuck are they kidding?

Avi Lewis isn't a public intellectual, just a public figure, and not as much of one as he once was for that matter. He's not known for any kind of original idea (which you can at least say of Ignatief, and certainly of folks like Zizek and Eco).

That said, Gore should not be on the list. He also doesn't have any original ideas, he just packaged other people's. And he did it 8 years too late for that matter. Even in America, there are some politicians that don't have to wait for involuntary retirement before discovering issues that are important to the public well-being. Gore has no excuse.

If I were going to add folks to the list, I'd say somebody like bell hooks, Norman Fairclough, or Judith Butler.

Pope Benedict makes the list and the Dalai Lama doesn't? Right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Canada is represented by way too many liberals when some of the most outstanding intellectuals in this country are clearly on the left.

Naomi Kline is not on the list. Neither is David Suzuki. And, in Latin America, Eduardo Galeano is missing. Those are gigantic omissions.

In my own Winnipeg, Arthur Schafer and Nick Ternette would get my vote. And so on.

Such a list is worthless unless the political biases of the list maker is admitted up front. Some of the people on the list are merely hired intellectual guns, e.g., Samuel Huntington, the Bishop of Rome, etc. Who the fuck are they kidding?[/b]

---

For sure if it had been a Canadian list David Suzuki would have made the final cut.

Some people are way too Canadacentric.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]

Look at the list. They managed to choose 3 Canadians: Ignatieff, Taylor, and Pinker. I'd just rather pick an award-winning researcher turned environmentalist like David Suzuki over an imperialist warmonger and supporter of torture like Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff.

signed,
Canadacentric and loving it[/b]

---

Of course you would rather pick the person whom you agree with more on a personal level, and who has larger influence among your community.But N.Beltov's circle is probably not among the criteria they were seeking to adress. They looked for people who have a lot more influence.

Lastly, Suzuki had a minor academic and research honour, his main career has been as an activist, writing popular science and children's books. Calling him an intellectual is a stretch.

*****

To be completely honest, I can't think of many other Canadians who deserve to be on such a global list. Maybe Ignatieff does not, but Taylor and Pinker stand out.

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Ha ha. I see you've backed right away from supporting Ignatieff now that I've pointed out that 3 Canadians were included in the list, that they are all liberals - or worse - and now you've taken to trivializing the contribution of David Suzuki to Canadian political and intellectual life and suggesting that he is something other than an intellectual.

Aren't there some weapons scientists that you should be trying to add to the list? There's still time! [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]

---

I am not "backing away" from "supporting" Ignatieff. I reviewed my posts after just to make sure, and I wrote nothing positive about him, you need to review the posts you're responding to before replying.

It matters not if Taylor and Pinker have the same ideological positions as N. Beltov, what matters is the rigour of their work (to qualify as intellectuals) and the broad appeal of their more popular work.

You and I seem to have distinct notions of what an intellectual should be. For you, an emphasis on left-wing politics and popular discussion are very important, whereas I would consider impressive intellectual accomplishments as preconditions. Suzuki writes children's books and has no impressive intellectual accomplishments. He is primarily an activist.

Lastly, I'll again note that [b]this is not a Canadian list[/b]. It seems that if you had grown up in new york you would have scoffed at a list that didn't include 100 New Yorkers. Such a stance would not just be ignorant, but actually racist against as it would imply people of white countries deserve to be overrepresented. It smacks of colonialism.

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by melovesproles:
[b]What were Hitchens's "impressive intellectual accomplishments"? Perhaps coining "Islamic Fascism" for his propagandist buddies in the Bush administration?

This list is a joke, I've never even seen a Suzuki kids book in my life but he has done more to communicate an environmental consciousness to the public than anyone on this list.

[ 04 May 2008: Message edited by: melovesproles ][/b]

---

Suzuki is a Canadian activist, not a public intellectual. Don't get me wrong, I like Suzuki. When I was six my parents bought me one of his books on plants, I liked it.

Hitchens is an author, journalist and literary critic, whose ideological positions are irrelevant to such a list. To his credit he does get read in more than just one small and regional country. I read some of his book reviews and his comments on atheism and they are done at a high level of vocabulary, knowledge and insight.

[ 04 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

Another person I would consider worthy of such a list is Sunera Thobani.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]

Suzuki is a Canadian activist, not a public intellectual. Don't get me wrong, I like Suzuki. When I was six my parents bought me one of his books on plants, I liked it.

Hitchens is an author, journalist and literary critic, whose ideological positions are irrelevant to such a list. To his credit he does get read in more than just one small and regional country. I read some of his book reviews and his comments on atheism and they are done at a high level of vocabulary, knowledge and insight.

[ 04 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ][/b]

---

There is no disputing Hitchen liquidity in the usage of verbiage. However there is no content. It amounts to snake oil. Mostly he thrives on his accent, and a complete lack of modesty when it comes to being demeaning, both things that compliment well his extraordinary personal arrogance, and his complete lack of intellectual honesty.

If that doesn't work he goes for the ad hominem. I don't know how many times I have seen him basicly call other people "terrorists" because they happened to point out that there are causual circumstances surrounding suicide bombing. Just low ball histrionics pitched in an oxfordesque accent. Basicly he is Barnum and Bailey "British Intellecual", accent, rumpled tweed suit and all -- this does not seperate him qualatively from Jerry Springer.

Many people conflate personal arrogance with intelligence. Its about low-self-esteem.

Funnily enough I also disagree about Suzuki. I definitely [i]do not[/i] "like" David Suzuki because he has many of the same qualities as Hitchens, though I would categorize him definitely as public "intellectual", way more so than Hitchens, and he is at the least intellectually honest, if not particularly nice.

[ 05 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]