Who are the best public intellectuals and why?

Noam Chomsky - he's off a lot, but when he's on, he's great at analyzing why bad things are happening with war, economic exploitation, etc.

Roger Scruton - Bases his conservatism on aesthetic values, understanding that it's harder to build something beautiful than it is to destroy it. That's why it's important to maintain traditional values

Peter Singer - Probably the best living ecological ethicist

Naomi Wolf - This one's testy, but she's a liberal feminist who pushes for equality, individual dignity, writes about how to make social movements effective. Pushes for egalitarianism, rejecting radfems

Cal Newport - neuroscientist who explains from a cognitive/scientific basis how to be effective

First, I need to know what you mean by neoliberal.

If by neoliberalism you mean global free markets, people go in because of profits. They want to make money and be on the winning end, and worry if they don't become a neoliberal businessman, someone else will just take their place. Better to benefit from the system than get run over by it trying to stand in its way. They ignore that it's literally destroying the planet, and humanity with it.

However, a lot of people misuse the term to mean mainstream liberalism. The problem with mainstream liberalism is that they're useful idiots and apologists of the elites, and they facilitate social decay by promoting, or being "cool with" destructive behaviors like drug abuse, abusive relationships/sexuality, etc. You don't have to be a fucking fascist to oppose that. Just figure out what your values are, and then become a strong conservative, individualist, green, socialist, anarchist/unionist, pragmatist, or whatever. Hell, if you realize you really are a weak centre-leftist, you can advocate for that as a strong social democrat. Becoming a fascist just means giving up complete power to another corrupt elite.

yes massive afro and bulging mouth how handsome

I follow the work of
Steven Pinker
Sam Harris
Noam Chomksy
Jordan Peterson
Yuval Noah Harari
Lawrence Krauss
Paul Bloom
Richard Dawkins
Peter Singer
They all tend to (or at least attempt to) derive their beliefs from rationalism and empiricism (with Peterson perhaps being the exception due to his faith) and have backgrounds in science or philosophy.

Hardly. Post pics of yourself so we can compare.

nice bait

too obvious mate, you're not funny

I'm not being ironic. Why is this so triggering to you?

People on both the far right and the far left have pretty much figured out that if they expose their beliefs people won't take them seriously, so when people post stuff they disagree with, they just passive-aggressively insult and deride them to try and plant doubt and troll. Just ignore them.

E Michael Jones

Attached: E-Michael-Jones (1).jpg (264x420, 37K)

Me. I'm the guy that always makes a really good argument in Yea Forums threads

>the jq incel has been backed into this corner yet again
maximum kekery.

This guy's Wikipedia page has been censored. I've never seen something like that before. What is he about?

It's an obvious bait post, with all of /scis/ favourite cumrags on it and /lits/ most hated canadian.

looks like his face is falling off

battling sodomites and jews

Unironically St. Augustine, since all of his works are in the public domain and easily accessible.

Attached: Augustine.jpg (521x661, 157K)

catholic intellectual and writer, probably his most notable works being The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit (a history of the jews from calvary to neoconservatism),
Libido Dominandi (how sex is used for political power/control),
Barren Metal (a history of usury and labor),
and the slaughter of cities ( how urban planning by big cities was orchestrated to break up the small catholic communities)
he talks about these issues on his youtube channel if you dont want to read all the books, some of them are over a thousand pages long.
Hes gained a lot of online fame seemingly overnight, the guy has been doing this for decades but has only recently started becoming a recognized name.

Why? Jared Taylor is much better than this larp

Yes, that's what's happening, I'm quaking in my boots at your intellectual prowess. Take your ignorance back to the brainlet containment board.

Sorry, just realised you're probably not him and on my side.

A public intellectual is generally defined as someone who engages with contemporary issues in the public sphere, but thanks for contributing your thoughts.

I'm not trolling. People with scientific backgrounds tend to make good public intellectuals due to their fondness for empiricism. In regards to Peterson making the list, it's perfectly fine to follow someone's work while not agreeing with them on numerous issues. The fact is he has an enourmous influence and it's best to take his ideas seriously if you intend to argue against them.

This is what I meant when I said that Augustine is one of the most important public intellectuals today, and by public I mean in the sense that:

(1) A great deal of Western thought stems or is described by Augustine. He is one of the earliest, and most important (public) intellectuals of his or any other time since (though, I'm not saying that he wasn't wrong on certain things). His influence ranges to all kinds of people, not exclusively theologians or religious, like: Hannah Arendt, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Descartes, and so on. His ideas are present in many different areas that are connected with our (contemporary) every day life - the public sphere (and people still write and engage in Augustine's thought):
- The examined self
- Problem of evil
- Refutation of scepticism
- Process of learning language
- The importance of travelling
- Theory of time

(2) He is public that he is well known and freely accessible to the public.

>intellectual
>atheist
Kek

If you can't accept that both theists and atheists can be intelligent then you clearly aren't.

The overwhelming majority of scientists are atheist. If the scientific method wasn't so excellent at dispelling theism there would be more believers on my reading list.

>implying that any 'intellectual' would be allow themselves to fall into the false dichotomy of theism/atheism
>implying science is some profound source of knowledge and not just an applied skill like any other

Our beloved vampire elite

Attached: 1565454159413.jpg (1624x832, 175K)

lmao

To reply to this sincerely would be a waste of my time as it would clearly use up a lot of it. So I'll just say empiricism is indeed a profound source of knowledge and I never argued atheism and theism to be a strict dichotomy, I simply assumed the person who responded to be a theist due to their idiotic disdain for atheism which is common on this board.

It’s what the propaganda wants you to be... simple as that

Pinker was seated next to Eipstein by Krauss and has publicly disavowed his actions. I haven't read Krauss' take on the matter but I imagine it would be condemnation also.

Pinker has definitely admitted to being friends with epstein nigger

It's 2014, five years after Epsteins pedophilia trafficking convictions. The girls have alleged in abstract that they were lent out to academics during Epstein's enormous forays into the science world via his philanthropy fund. Don't be naive, the scandal has yet to hit the science world.

they're all shills for the us government

Show me the evidence. He literally said he "could never stand the guy." Google it if you don't believe me.

That's a cool hat, bud. What is it, tinfoil? Very stylish.

> Yes, he did
> No, he didn't

Proof that "public intellectual" means nothing, read a book.

> He literally said he "could never stand the guy."
He didn't have to like the guy to enjoy the underage sex slaves he procured.

Explain how science is a source of knowledge, this I gotta hear lmao.

Nigger they’re in a picture together, the onus of proof lies on you

>However, a lot of people misuse the term to mean mainstream liberalism. The problem with mainstream liberalism is that they're useful idiots and apologists of the elites, and they facilitate social decay by promoting, or being "cool with" destructive behaviors like drug abuse, abusive relationships/sexuality, etc
That's mostly it. Although, I would add that people become neoliberal because they feel that they are big brained centrists. Look at /r/neoliberal, they laud themselves as being centrists opposing the left who they as revolutionaries and opposing the right who they see as populists or fascists.

Guess that's why he palled around with a convicted pedophile six years after his public exposure. Out of hate.

unironically

Attached: 11111.jpg (480x270, 10K)

You forgot NPR and Malcolm Gladwell. I prescribe you 30 hail Obama's in penance.

Seriously though, who's the biggest pseud on this goy's list? I'm going with Sam Harris because he hasn't contributed anything to science or even contributed any novel ideas.

Slavoj because he keeps you wary of leftist ideologies,
Isabelle Stengers because Whitehead and ecology

>Two weeks later, as if Jeffrey was trying to lighten my spirits, he told me I would be going to his island to meet a new client. He is a Harvard Professor, named Stephen [REDACTED]. I would be spending two days with him showing him around the island, dining with him, and treating him to a massage whenever he wanted. Without Jeffrey even verbalizing the need to have sex with him, he told me to keep him happy like I had my first client.

>Stephen was a quirky little man with white hair and a mad scientist look about him. We arrived separately and greeted him when one of the housekeepers picked him up from the airport and arrived by boat, instead of helicopter as Jeffrey and Ghislane often arrive on. We made our acquaintances and he looked as if he was tripping over himself with words, obviously delighted with his company and location for the weekend. I showed him around as Jeffrey had asked and took him on an adventurous quad bike ride around the small curvy paths, leading the way and letting loose my hair, doing something that gave me a natural high instead of the prescription one.

Attached: feb02, John Brockman, Steven Pinker, Daniel C. Dennett, Katinka Matson, Richard Dawkins Flying to th (620x410, 188K)

Reminder Pinker weighed in during Epstein's 2008 case as a world-class linguistics expert on the extent a law covered certain types of activities for sex trafficking

>I asked the housekeeper Kathy that had been serving us that night to please have someone set up a massage bed in one of the cabana's. I went to my room to down a few Xanax, telling him I wanted to freshen up after dinner but to meet me in his cabana in twenty minutes or so. I was ready to go as I had said, twenty minutes later, with the effects of the tablets mixed with the red wine, and I would be free not to feel anything. He was still dressed when I got in the cabana, obviously not accustomed to this and a lot shyer than what I had been used to, I told him he'd need to undress and lie face down on the table, putting a towel to cover his bare bottom to prevent him feeling embarrassed during the massage. I gave the massage my earnest as I always had, and quickly got through having intercourse with him. Not wanting to make any foreplay or anything extravagant out of it, I let him think that's as good as it got, and by the smile on his face, I thought I had done enough.

Based Jewish intellectuals

Attached: 1562778150624.jpg (750x627, 84K)

"public intellectual"

You should be slapped for using that phrase.

>Chomsky
>Singer
>Wolf
DROPPED

Taleb, Zizek

>To reply to this sincerely would be a waste of my time
yeah because posting on Yea Forums is such a great use of your time

Attached: 1561869078771.jpg (433x427, 86K)

not him

based

Hey why do you believe peterson has faith? I thought his idea was God is an abstract concept that leapt from the human mind.

proof that jews are not only ugly but retarded

>reads and understands the bible in various languages
>hates fags
>hates atheists
>redpilled yet merciful
>based christian

Attached: TvdkgrV__400x400.jpg (240x240, 11K)

How far does Epstein loli circle go?

Attached: iuXM3QKPQI.jpg (427x673, 75K)

>blue eyes
>fairly symmetrical face structure
>nice jaw
>healthy hair

Go back to /pol/ and go watch your YouTube intellectuals

jidf will go so far to someone who looks like they physically reek of deli meat

Lol americans don't know him.
In any way, he is very light and confuse. Check Francis Cousin if you want something serious.

Attached: 1561505670823.gif (250x271, 991K)

where lies the difference between a "neoliberal" and a "liberal"

I'm a kike and I'm handsome. It's only American ashkenazis who look deformed. They even have nazi in their name!

>why do kikes look so ugly
He'd look good if he shaved his head and wiped that moronic smirk off his face.

It's the current power structure, so it's life on easy mode once you get recognized. You will never be controversial for spouting the most retarded statements and throwing platitudes.
As for the question how did it come to be the established power structure in the first place, people like you insisting on 'I despise everything about fascism with all of my heart' have a big part in it.

Attached: mosaic82ef37defb71ab44ed024a61877faba4bf0dcef8.jpg (1225x1225, 341K)

What are your biggest problems with them, and who do you recommend instead?

Honestly seeking recommendations, not looking for a debate

ZIZEK

what the fuck is going on with this guys head, i tought this was some kind of joke but damn

Attached: high res dicki.jpg (2400x1350, 514K)

>egghead

At orgy island we knew him only as Steven "Poke the Pink"er. He was notorious because even though many like Epstein himself had their age limits at about 12, you could find Pinker balls deep in 5 year old girls and it would just be another day at orgy island.

Why the hate for Pinker? How the Mind works seems to be mostly correct.

>reads and understands the bible.

False

Attached: t1.jpg (800x450, 52K)

We'll never know since Trump was on the visitor list for Epstein's pedo island and wanted the evidence to be destroyed.

Are all of them the (((chosen people)))?

Seems like the perfect "intellectual" for the lobotomized christcucks on Yea Forums. He actually may be even dumber than them (which, I know, is hardly possible). Poor research, arguments relying entirely on logical fallacies, extreme puritanism, unfounded antisemitism, he's got them all covered. "B-but he's written books! That means he's smart!" The funniest shit is how his wikipedia page was deleted for being a literal nobody and the christcuck retards got riled up and cried censorship. Can't make this shit up.
Good as a lolcow, but if you consider him an intellectual you should get your head checked.

Would you still be attracted to him if he were a poor and dumb person?

Attached: Pinker.png (486x498, 309K)

If he was poor and dumb he wouldn't look like this, so no.

>Being this wrong
yikes!

Empiricism is a source of knowledge because it acknowledges ultimate human fallibility: understanding needs to be constantly revised by exposure to experience and advanced to keep up with change. This makes experience a field of experimentation. It is a thesis of profound humility, an antidote to the arrogance of presupposed certainty that is the greatest enemy to the advancement of knowledge.

t. reddit

>t. r*ddit
Hi, r*dditor, how are you enjoying your stay on 4channel? If you need any help just ask!

According to your definition empiricism is a source of knowledge because of it acknowledges something else (human fallibility). This statement is logically incoherent, you are simply saying empiricism creates new knowledge based on a priori knowledge (fallibility).
This makes no sense, you are not explaining by what mechanism empiricism is actually producing knowledge.

Combination of his newest book being an apologia for neoliberlism, him being jewish, and most recently his connection to Epstein.

I don't really like liberalism or Jews, but I've read The Blank Slate and it was pretty good and I've heard How the Mind Works is even better.

>St. Augustine is the best public intellectual
>all of his works are in the public domain and easily accessible

What the fuck are you talking about?

The organ is questioning, which creates divergence from existing understanding by following lines of inquiry or "quests." That which is present in conscious experience is that which is present in questionability. We can question our questions, which creates an open-ended questionability where the terms of satisfaction are transformed in the process of inquiry.

This is very similar to biological evolution: questions lead towards potential satisfactions, and choice selects among these potentials according to the criterion of satisfaction. Rationalism is epistemological creationism, requiring an immaculate conception to justify itself.

Asking questions is not exclusive to empiricism, virtually every human across every time period with language has asked questions and contemplated the answers for those questions. If you define empiricism as something so broad that it encapsulated virtually every type of philosophical inquiry then you may as well dispel the label of empiricism entirely.
I asked for you to explain how science/empiricism/rationalism can be a source of knowledge and your only answer is that it involves asking questions and then drawing analogies to creationism. Three replies deep and you have failed to defend a posteriori knowledge.

Me

Attached: 1563998739723.jpg (1476x990, 402K)

unironically Theodore Kaczynski

Attached: Anti-Tech Revolution.jpg (1500x1620, 610K)

internationalism

Slavoj is a human dowsing rod.

Attached: 58272980359320.jpg (240x240, 8K)

Nassim Taleb

Attached: ✡.jpg (474x632, 45K)

>didn't even finish high school
based