"But why a pure girl should want to get mixed up in such a business is beyond me. If I were a girl I would not marry for anything in the world. And so far as being in love is concerned, for either men and women — since I know what it means, that is, it is an ignoble and above all an unhealthy sentiment, not at all beautiful, lofty or poetical — I would not have opened my door to it. I would have taken as many precautions to avoid being contaminated by that disease as I would to protect myself against far less serious infections such as diphtheria, typhus or scarlet fever."
Leo Tolstoy, quoted in "Intellectuals," by Paul Johnson.
Oh, that book title makes me want to tack on this wonderful quote from that professor who got in trouble for smoking a cigarette and raving about lefty politics on an airplane: "I know that might sound somewhat esoteric to other people, but I’m an intellectual, so that’s what I intended."
The esoteric thing she said was that the cigarette smoking was done for symbolism and it signified "a smoking gun" and "revolutionaries" (notably, Fidel Castro). (And it's just by chance that the first post of the day is on the topic of esoteric writing.)
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६७ टिप्पण्या:
Re: Being an intellectual.
You aren't if you say you are.
@glenn/
In the same way that any institution (university, city, airline, etc) that calls itself "world class," isn't.
"but I’m an intellectual, so that’s what I intended."
And that is how we got Obamacare.
I am Laslo.
And what happened to Tolstoy?
Oh yea, his communist buddies capped him in Mexico, alone.. No wife, no children, no friends.
Yep he was a real expert.. at being alone and friendless.
Next time, that soidisant intellectual should travel by train instead of plane. And instead of boarding the train, she should through herself in front of it. It's just symbolism.
Paul,
That was a great malapropism
Having recently gotten through a sufficient quantity of "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat," I now find most helpful the explanatory presumption that such things derive from a cause that is both organic and inchoate.
If you haven't read the Paul Johnson book referred by OEH (our esteemed host) please do. Time well spent, and reading Johnson is actual fun.
Remember what Dean Martin said: You're not really esoteric if you can lie on the floor without holding on.
"Happy families are all alike-- because they've all been liquidated in the name of the Revolution." --Leo Tolsky-Trotstoy
Paul
I hope you are kidding.
Tolstoy is not Trotsky. Although they both begin and end with the same letters.
""I know that might sound somewhat esoteric to other people, but I’m an intellectual, so that’s what I intended.""
If she had smoked a cigar, I would have believed her. A cigar takes planning--you have to buy one ahead of time. If you smoke cigarettes, you always have a pack. Take one out and smoke it where it isn't allowed: Is this a revolutionary act or the need for a nicotine hit?
Paul Johnson is amazing and a true intellectual. He wrote a good book on the history of Jews because he wanted to learn more himself.
I wonder when Tolstoy said that? In War & Peace, Prince Andrey counsels Pierre at the start of the novel to never marry- with much of the spirit of your cited quote.
Both of the novel's major female characters- Natasha Rostov and Marya Bolkonsky- go through a period in th book where they think they will never marry and indeed should never marry. But both ultimately find love with Pierre and Nikolay, respectively.
Helen Bezuhov (nee Kuragin) marries, but it's clear that she was only in it for the money, and in any case, she lives as if she were unmarried.
All the other female characters of marrying age- from Vera to Julie- do in fact get married off- with the very notable exception of Sonya, whose love for Nikolay causes her to turn down several offers and she winds up living out her days as a spinster.
But I guess was all about, you know, if you have the choice.
Actually, one major reason for the smoking ban on airplanes is that certain aircraft systems involve pure oxygen. Case in point, the emergency masks above passengers' heads are running pure oxygen. You really REALLY don't want an open flame anywhere around an oxygen system unless the goal is to get an explosion and fire.
I wonder how much of a 'revolutionary act' starting a major inflight emergency possibly leading to loss of aircraft would be for Comrade Professor?
She ain't no intellectual -- just a common, garden variety asshole.
What if an intellectual had a nervous breakdown and no one noticed because it was indistinguishable from her political activism.
Tolstoy was notorious for his many rolls in the hay with the peasant girls of his estates.
Of course HE wouldn't want to marry.
Blogger Dale Light said...
She ain't no intellectual -- just a common, garden variety asshole.
3/18/15, 10:32 AM
---------------
Incredibly common in academia.
"Yep he was a real expert.. at being alone and friendless."
And a man presuming to speak for a girl.
I would have to agree with him that a person born into a rigid upper class with enforced ways to keep you there could easily forgo marriage without any loss.
For those of us in the lower classes however, an economic partnership like marriage is one of the few ways out of poverty.
So it would appear that "intellectual" is a special kind of stupid that views thugs like Castro, Guevara, and Chavez as heroes.
A pure girl is very hard to find.
Plain old human girls are all over though. No reason, or much opportunity, for us depraved characters to limit ourselves to pure girls.
Tolstoy was a romantic hypocrite with PTSD - he was a survivor of the trenches at Sepastopol.
Roy Jacobsen said...
So it would appear that "intellectual" is a special kind of stupid that views thugs like Castro, Guevara, and Chavez as heroes.
3/18/15, 10:55 AM
That sort of stupid crosses all sorts of social and intellectual lines.
Re: Tolstoy -- where did he ever get the idea that girls were "pure"?
I liked how the intellectual smoking on the plane tried to blame it on the guy sitting next to her. Not too bright, righteous, or brave, but Intellectual! Viva la revolution!
Whenever is see one of those pretentious little shits wearing a Chi shirt, I want to slap the crap out of them and then explain to them that if they had actually been there, they would have likely been one of the first to get a bullet in the head.
They are not only "raging" against themselves with that shirt but are also celebrating someone that would have ended their existence.
Asshats...
Ann, you really thought that was a wonderful quote?
The minds of academic intellectuals must work in an entirely different way from us regular intellectuals. /s
Too bad no one thought to tell that dingbat sociology professor that smoking, far from being transgressive and revolutionary, is utterly bourgeoisie.
Paul Zrimsek on Leo Tolsky Trotskoy at 1004 caused me to burn my mouth on my morning coffee laughing-- thanks! :-)
Scott at 1027, so when we could smoke in flight, back in the last century, they turned the oxygen off? I vaguely remember having to sit at the back of the plane to light up.
I hope Mrs Clinton has signed Mad Professor Esoteric to be one of her campaign advisers.
""I know that might sound somewhat esoteric to other people, but I’m an intellectual, so that’s what I intended.""
So, you're a philosopher?
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes
I think very deeply, I think very deeply, I think very deeply
I think, I think, I think very deeply, I think, I think very deeply.
(Crack would get the reference)
Bit anyway, if you describe yourself as such you're not.
It reminds me of Harvey Korman in Blazing Sadddles describing his thoughts.
Hedley Lamarr: My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
Your honor, my driving drunk was an esoteric aesthetic protest against the lack of critical thinking in our culture and therefore is protected speech under the First Amendment...
There's a movie about Tolstoy's last days with is wife called The Last Station, starring Christopher Plummer and Helen Mirren, which is not bad.
Um, Paul... wasn't that Trotsky?
If this deep young man expresses himself
In terms too deep for me,
Why, then what a very deep young man
This deep young man must be. — W.S. Gilbert
Glenn: Quantum self-awareness. You alter yourself by describing yourself.
"Wiley E. Coyote, SUPER Genius!"
"She ain't no intellectual -- just a common, garden variety asshole."
Please read Johnson's book and consider his meaning of the word.
A symbol so symbolic that nobody else can see the symbolism.
I'm pretty sure Eco would tell us that that sign had lost all semiotic power - or never had any.
Or, more likely, he'd agree with the rest of us that it was just a cheap excuse for wanting a smoke and/or being barking mad.
"I know that might sound somewhat esoteric to other people, but I’m an intellectual, so that’s what I intended."
People who make statements like this are in need of a beating to within an inch of their lives. Some levels of arrogance are simply being beaten to a pulp worthy.
Of Paul Johnsons books, "Intellectuals" is the one that most resembles a journalistic cheap shot.
Its an extended argumentum ad hominem.
Fun in a certain sense I suppose, but...
Ann Althouse said...The esoteric thing she said was that the cigarette smoking was done for symbolism and it signified "a smoking gun" and "revolutionaries" (notably, Fidel Castro).
She's wrong: that's not esoteric, that's just stupid. As an allusion it's too on the nose to be interesting (I'm smoking, just like Castro famously smoked, therefore...something about revolutionary ideas) and as a metaphor it doesn't argue what she'd want (me smoking when I'm not allowed to is like Leftist revolutions--they inconvenience, piss off, and endanger others while proving harmful to the "state" that undertakes them in the long run? Leftist revolutions burn brightly for a short time but are ultimately cancerous? Leftist ideas pollute otherwise clean air?)
Ann Althouse said...
"She ain't no intellectual -- just a common, garden variety asshole."
Please read Johnson's book and consider his meaning of the word.
To ponder the meaning of Dale Light's assertion may I suggest Assholes: A Theory by Aaron James? It's not as good (nor as short) as "On Bullshit," but I'm sure Laslo will agree that some subjects deserve a closer look.
Many of Paul Johnson's works are available in audiobook format. Unfortunately, The Intellectuals is not, damn it.
The 19th century was a great time for sexual euphemisms. One very real and widespread hazard incurred by a virginal ("pure") young woman who married a "depraved" man -- a client of prostitutes -- was syphilis, compared to which infections such as diphtheria, typhus, and scarlet fever were, in fact, far less serious. The risk would be shared by the couple's children in utero. Most of Tolstoy's readers would have understood this allusion -- although the innocent young women he sought to protect might not have.
If I had been sitting next to that woman when she lit that lighter it would have never made it to the cigarette ....
Please read Johnson's book and consider his meaning of the word.
I read the book years ago and what I took from it was that letting intellectuals run anything is an exceptionally dumb idea.
He holds intellectuals in low regard.
Thanks for posting the amazon link to Johnson's book. I was looking for this a couple of years ago after seeing it mentioned on another blog, but at the time it seemed to be unavailable. Just downloaded it to my kindle and am looking forward to reading it,
"Many of Paul Johnson's works are available in audiobook format. Unfortunately, The Intellectuals is not, damn it."
It sure is. And if you buy the Kindle text and then take the Audible offer, the combined price is less than half of the Audiobook if you just buy that. Weird. But that's how I bought it today.
I have the paperback too, which I read years ago. Very entertaining.
Paul Johnson is much hated because on top of being smart on stilts and highly productive he is an unapologetic Christian. Daily Mass. Plus a conservative.
I placed a request at the LFPL for "Intellectuals", I rather not buy a book if I can get it at a library.
Paul Johnson is a very prolific author.
"I wonder what Adam and Eve
think of it by this time,
this fire-gilt steel
alive with goldenness:
how bright it shows--
'of circular traditions and impostures,
committing many spoils,'
requiring all one's criminal ingenuity
to avoid!"
RonF said... [hush][hide comment]
If I had been sitting next to that woman when she lit that lighter it would have never made it to the cigarette ....
Really? Why, whatever would you do?
I hope this isn't too esoteric for all you sexually repressed intellectual sociology professors out there — all you transgressive determinist Fidelphilics — but we all have to breath the same collective stale air in this flying bus so would you mind having your revolutionary zipless smoke some other time on your own private jet? On behalf of the entire proletariat, thanks, doc.
Also, I can understand why a depraved nicotine stain fingered sociology professor may find salvation in esoteric lefty politics. But why a young college student should want to get mixed up in such a business is beyond me. If I were a student I would not take Halnon's course for anything in the world. And so far as being in love with revolutionary Marxism is concerned, for either men and women — since I know what it means, that is, it is an ignoble and above all an unhealthy sentiment, not at all beautiful, lofty or poetical — I would not have opened my door to it. I would have taken as many precautions to avoid being contaminated by that disease as I would to protect myself against far less serious infections such as naziism, fascism or islamism.
She also looks a hell of a lot like you Ann. Some of my friends have started referring to her as the bizarro world Ann Althouse.
Oh THAT Tolstoy.
Well he strangely had a wife till in his 80s (do as I say, not do as I do) yet died alone of pneumonia at Astapovo train station, after a day's rail journey south.
Seems he left his wife in the dead of the night.. and was dead the next day.
And instead of communist harassing him, it was the Tsarist secret police.
Paul Johnson is lofty. Couldn't get through it. Donation. 20 years ago. Lots of new books by him since then that do look more achievable for me, much smaller books about the politicians. Love David McCullough.
Scott at 1027, so when we could smoke in flight, back in the last century, they turned the oxygen off? I vaguely remember having to sit at the back of the plane to light up.
Not quite. Caveat here, I worked on oxygen systems but as a USAF fighter plane mechanic, so I don't; have the hands on with a 747 that I do with a F-16. that said some principles apply.
In the emergency oxygen system, the way it's designed to work is when the masks drop, pulling them to you opens a flow valve that sends pure oxygen to the mask. the pilots won't have any control over the oxygen for the crew compartment, the principle is like pulling the cork out of a wine bottle, once it's open, it's going to stay open and release the contents. The reason you want to take precautions is if the valve has a leak (or the tubing), you will be squirting pure oxygen into the cabin atmosphere. Which is harmless apart from the risk of fire.
Now to the issue of smoking in aircraft. You really only need emergency oxygen if the plane is flying over about 15,000 feet which requires a pressurized cabin/some way for the humans on board to breathe. Below that, you can breathe the air normally, flying at 5000 feet is no different than visiting Denver, for instance, you can do it in a open-cockpit airplane if you dress warmly.
Early passenger aircraft which flew relatively low and slow didn't need this system. With the development of high-altitude jet aircraft the need was there and at that point, was when the anti-smoking regs really started to be enforced for safety and other reasons. If they allowed for smoking in a flight, the design would have to take that into account and make a designated area relatively fireproof, for instance the Hindenberg had a sealed smoking lounge (although the fire hazard in that case was hydrogen vs oxygen).
Bottom line, it's a basic truism of airplane design that on-board fires are Extremely Bad Things and regulations and plane design are intended to minimize them. If you want an example of what a on board fire can do here's a good example (albeit not caused by passeneger stupidity) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592
I am predisposed to like Paul Johnson because of his world view. However, "Intellectuals" was an extended gossip column about the hypocrisy of intellectuals. What a surprise that supposed intellectuals are not what they seem to be.
His "History of the American People" was insightful, but tedious and pedantic. The man could really use a good editor. I would be willing to volunteer.
Forget about the drunken rant on the plane about attacking Venezuela and lighting a cigarette. To say: "I know that might sound somewhat esoteric to other people, but I’m an intellectual, so that’s what I intended" is nuts. It's "don't you know how incredible I am" sort of statement. That's a woman who lacks self-awareness. Only if you're claiming to be Napoleon Bonaparte would you actually say that sort of thing. And then the restraining vest would come out.
The same way that any Mexican restaurant that calls itself authentic, isn't.
Scott,
There are some serious anachronisms in your exposition about smoking bans and high-altitude/pressurized-cabin flight.
The first pressurized airliner went into service in 1940, and by the time of the jet airliner age all airliners were pressurized.
The first smoking ban on US domestic flights was issued in 1988.
You do the math.
I'm a little surprised, and a little disappointed, that no one on that flight made the reasonable decision that the idiot professor's behavior was threatening, and applied some legitimate self-defense.
Full Moon,
If you're so clueless as to see someone getting out a cigarette lighter on a commercial flight, and NOT assume the person is up to no good...
buwaya,
You could not be more wrong about Intellectuals. Johnson's entire premise--and he was quite up front about this--was "here are people telling us how to live... but look how they live." That's not ad hominem.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा