'Rules' for Intellectuals

In a letter to William Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson wrote: 
 
"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." (April 22, 1800).

I stand by it and I try to live it every day.

Given the fact that discourse is becoming more of a minefield rather than a roundtable, I have decided to present here a few rules for people, who would like to see an improvement in culture, and who would like to raise the level of thought in the public sphere.  One of the reasons why I choose not to focus on universities only is because I think that we have to begin from a larger exteriority (society-at-large) and move toward a specific interiority (e.g., state of the Humanities in universities, etc.).  Despite the fact that I am calling this “Rules for Intellectuals,” my objective is not to create a rigid, immovable set of rules – the title is more of a jab at Saul Alinsky.  My objective is to move from an ideological and “group think” approach into an intellectual and individual thinking whereby two or more human beings can come together in an encounter in order to exchange ideas.

1.     Establishing that there is an order of things

2.     Bringing in a higher level of a conversation, in other words, challenging your intellectual opponent

3.     Before you even engage in an attack of ideology, attack the sloppy scholarship of an ideologue.  Ideologues, by their very nature, do not engage in stable scholarship precisely because they rely on the “shock” of their statements and the inversion of what is good and orderly

4.     Don’t be afraid of what might be a “mad” idea.  You should be secure in your own thoughts and conclusions.  Keep in mind that sometimes a “mad” idea is the best thing which could happen.  The difficult task of thinking is to discern whether the supposed madness is grounded in reality and the order of things, or whether it has the potential to contribute to the erosion of culture, and more importantly to the suppression of human spirit

5.     Use facts and do not be afraid to agree with your interlocutor if in fact you do agree.  It is quite helpful to establish a commonality as well

6.     Do not get flustered.  Emotions can be intelligent, but visible agitations are not

7.     Recognize your interlocutor as a human being first, and understand that you are attacking the ideas, not the personhood.  Only then can you be both intelligent and charitable

8.     Do not force a “conversion” on your interlocutor.  Remain steady.  You are arguing for your position – that is true – but your dialogue partner (as well as yourself) should arrive at the truth by him or herself in their own time, in their own journey, in their own arrival

9.     Never make comments or conclusions on a book or an article or a film until you’ve read it or seen it.  This kind of approach will make you weak. 

10.  Lastly, ideas do have consequences, be they good or bad.  Take the thinking and the dialogue seriously, but never lose a sense of humor or wonder.