Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
anyway, somewhere in the book (i confessed to having skipped parts) he talks about training in "useless" professions as a sign of status. the more money a society has, the more artists, philosophers, writers, and thinkers it's able to afford. the renaissance exploded in a handful of italian city states for a reason-- they were fucking loaded. same thing with athens. the enlightenment was propelled by the rise of capitalism that was fueled by gold and silver from the americas, as well as the slave trade. wherever you find intelligence , there is money backing it up.
|
And in each case, I would argue that the sum body of theory in those times was also neurotic from an outside prospective. Indeed, I believe that one needs to detach oneself from reality in order to reconsider and represent the world in a new, relevant understanding. It's not so much that intellectuality *improves* humanity but, I think, that humanity requires intellectuality. If intellectualism is so connected to wealth, as you say and I don't doubt, does this make the case that an era of poverty is less "bullshit" and then better that regard? I don't think so. I've never lived in a dark age but I think the lack of artists, philosophers, writers, and thinkers (or, rather, lack of their presence in society as they are there, just not funded) leads to confusion, dejection, and dogma.
So, in my largely unqualified opinion, I don't think critical theory is responsible for this in anyway exceptional.