Filtering What’s “Important”
January 29, 2011 Leave a comment
Part philosopher part layman. Spend too much time in academia and you’re a snob. Take pains to be accessible to the masses and you’re no longer a cutting-edge thinker. Thus, the public intellectual’s place is a precarious one. Despite this caveat, many have proven capable of juggling these apparently different spheres to serve an important role in the transfusion of information from inception to societal importance. Serving as a sieve for information, public intellectuals have the unique ability to sift through complex ideas to deliver to the public an iron ore core. But public intellectuals are only human and must choose what information and advances to pass along to the public’s eager ears. Although we hope public intellectuals can compartmentalize their predispositions and base their points on “reason and evidence,” often times even the most intellectual of public intellectuals can fall victim to rooting their arguments on unsound logic. Therefore it’s the responsibility of readers to take into account each intellectual’s background before choosing to follow any sort of doctrine. Religious intellectuals’ inherent bias, arising from a narrow academic focus, oftentimes leads the public (outside the belief) to discredit their work. But bias is not a unique phenomenon to religion. All public intellectuals must decide what to write and how to go about doing so. Is this not determined by their background, both academic and social? Even scientists, whose academic disciplines are firmly rooted in evidence and logic, choose to share with the world what they feel is important and relevant. Carl Sagan, though a brilliant researcher, did not merely write academic research papers. Sagan held influence during the Cold War and oftentimes spoke about the dangers of nuclear war. Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot expresses the imperative for everyone on earth to play nice. My focus is not to argue for the benefits of nuclear proliferation and warfare, but rather point out that Sagan had an agenda. And like Sagan, religious clergy most definitely has an agenda. Yes, religion through the ages has brought about pain and suffering, something Sagan outwardly fought to counteract. But religious intellectuals derive power because people lend an ear. In today’s information age, the public can be overwhelmed by intellectuals and those who proclaim to be so, some of whom are motivated more by gaining prominence than contending for a higher purpose. That places a pretty heavy burden on society. This onus, however, is not insurmountable. The public intellectual in America today seems to have people willing to listen. And although Sagan has passed, his legacy will be remembered. May he posthumously encourage society to challenge the norms of today and constantly inquire. As the man himself said, “somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.”