Log in

No account? Create an account


Dreams are what you wake up from.

14 years of Livejournalling, and hopefully, more to come.

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

(no subject)

:: Suffer The Intellectuals : The Parochialism of the Present ::

Interesting Article by Owen Harries, ST Page 21

But that, and more, being conceded to the power worship thesis,
It seems to me that it is worth considering another explanation for the intellectuals' error of assuming
That the trends of the moment must inevitably prevail.
In many instances it may be due less to power worship than to a form of egocentricity,
A narcissistic belief that what is happening now,
In their lifetime,
Is uniquely important and valid.
This has been aptly called "the parochialism of the present",
And it represents an utter failure of historical perspective on the part of those
Who are supposed to possess it.
As as explanation of error it is persuasive because
Vanity is such a striking feature of intellectuals.

Is this all worth bothering about?
Probably, yes.
We are living at the beginning of an epoch whose
Essential character still awaits definition.

  • 1
the more i learn about world history the more i am convinced we have a lot to learn.

human brains are essentially unchanged for the last 10,000 or more years so it would be vain to think we live in some uniquely different age.

on the other hand, every age is uniquely different!

he portrayed norman angell (mr leftwing) as a sham(an) who got it wrong; but omitted the glaring difference between 1914 imperial europe and this days' democratic nation-states. on the other hand, daniel patrick moynihan's (mr far-right-wing) erroneous predictions are acquitted as merely "unfortunately timed".

if he was trying to construct this argument - "dont believe in the forces of capitalism, of technology, free trade and liberal rationality being able to prevent great wars: it did not in 1914, it will not now" - then it is interesting that there's only one revolutionary nation in the international system today who's very much on the war-path, and which he is puzzlingly actually defending. and if people failed acknowlege history AND its different variables, he is ironically one of them.

owen harries's drivel, disguised as a critique on the intellectual-left when it's a simultaneous justification of current neocon foreign policy adventures, and a counterattack on their critics - who're mostly democrats, if not reaganites, are not invalid, though his pretense on detachment is - thereby impugning his credibility. and the title should be changed to "i bloody told you so".

but really, he should just keep his affairs to critiquing america's foreign policy as an outsider-postcolonial privileged in right-wing american academy. otherwise, his misleading arguments might do more harm than the intellectuals - because he has access to power and the insufferabl and cantankerous intellectuals dont. *la*

Ha! All the history I have learn/read I still believe we make our own defination..nevertheless, I know everything happen for a reason.

  • 1