Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky by Paul Johnson

Dec 27, 2012 Erik Graff rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Johnson fans

Recommended to Erik by: no one

Shelves: history

Paul Johnson is a deeply conservative historian who crafts opinionated, but well-written and accessible books. I find much of what he opines, particularly when he approaches the contemporary world, offensive, but that's almost certainly good for me as I'm rather opinionated myself and he often knows more about the particular topic under review than I do. This book tends towards the modern, being a series of ad hominem critiques of intellectuals usually identified as progressive or "Left". The pe...more

like 2 likes · see review

Nov 13, 2012 Frieda Vizel rated it 2 of 5 stars

I read every word of this juicy book even though I lost trust in the author very early on. The book reads like a delicious tabloid writeup of the venerated thinkers; sex, drugs, drinking, mental illness, theft, fighting and a plethora of other personal scandal depicted with questionable reliability. If nothing else, this book feeds our personal cravings for schadenfreude. Johnson loses his credibility when the faults he finds in these thinkers - which at times seem quite human and expected - are...more I read every word of this juicy book even though I lost trust in the author very early on. The book reads like a delicious tabloid writeup of the venerated thinkers; sex, drugs, drinking, mental illness, theft, fighting and a plethora of other personal scandal depicted with questionable reliability. If nothing else, this book feeds our personal cravings for schadenfreude. Johnson loses his credibility when the faults he finds in these thinkers - which at times seem quite human and expected - are depicted with extreme words like "preposterous, ridiculous, gruesome, promiscuous, dreadful, pathetic" and on the basis of small excerpts from their writings or a single sexual episode. He hardly tells you why these individuals are so prominent in our history, except if you believe him, by virtue of their exploitative, hypersexual, corrupt and immoral nature. If you never read the works of these Intellectuals or read a more balanced biography you may quickly be left to wonder why these intellectuals ever achieved acclaim. The positive accomplishments of the intellectuals are hardly expanded on.

Johnson explains this approach with his theory that the icon's personal life is key to understanding the public life, and there is no doubt that this is truth to his philosophy. But from that premise Johnson zooms in almost exclusively on the personal life, dishing about wives, ex-wives, mistresses, sexual exploits, fetishes, in two instances the intellectual's "obsession" with his penis. While all of these would be fascinating and an indulgent read, Johnson comes off so disingenuous that at times he seems more preposterous than the intellectual he's trying to paint as such. Every good thing that is said or done by the intellectual is hyper-analyzed to discover the evil underpinnings, while every bad thing (often related by ex wives) are taken at face value, no analysis needed.

What is most troubling about this book is that it pretends to be a book about individuals. In reality, this is a book about the general Intellectual archetype as defined by Johnson: the secular leader and reformer who is the equivalent of the religious leader (priest, rabbi, imam etc) but without the religious element. Johnson's aim was not to compile a number of biographies, but to prove an overarching theme: that "intellectuals", meaning, secular moral leaders, are not trustworthy. If I had understood this thesis before I read the book perhaps I wouldn't have been so astounded by Johnson's constant tearing down of intellectual after intellectual. But the title doesn't give that away, and the book jumps right in the Rousseau and from there to Freud, Marx, Tolstoy and so on, criticizing them all in turn. In all, it was a fun read but one I would not take very seriously. (less)

like 2 likes · see review

David I think it's worth pointing out, Johnson was very clear in the first sentence of the acknowledgements page, as well as the first two paragraphs of cha...more
Apr 12, 2013 03:48pm

Frieda Vizel I did not read the acknowledgements and I certainly would not consider it an appropriate place for any meaningful prelude to a work. As for what's in...more
updated Apr 13, 2013 05:33am

Feb 01, 2013 Scott rated it 3 of 5 stars

This book opened my eyes to the lives of many movers and shakers of history, though the method of "short biography followed by exploration of sexual deviancy" got pretty tired after a while.

Particularly interesting were the chapters on Rousseau, Marx, and Tolstoy. The later chapters didn't really pique my interest at all.

I will say that I was not a little bit upset to find out that while Johnson rips into the various intelligentsia for their sexual infidelity in marriage, he himself had an aff...more

like 1 like · see review

Feb 23, 2011 Chris rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

As other reviews have pointed out, Johnson has selected a mitt-full of left-wing/atheist writers, thinkers, and philosophers and attempted to sully their names and reputations with copious slinging of mud. Each intellectual - and there are some curious inclusions under this rubric - has their (personal) life strained for gossip and innuendo: the resulting sexual shenanigans, neurotic peccadillos, rampant paranoia, unpleasant interactions and general grade-A assholery apparently should serve as a...more

like 6 likes · see review

Ian Graye I bought this second-hand today for five smackeroos.

I might delve into it on a chapter-by-chapter basis.

This sort of writing is what happens when the...more
Mar 23, 2012 07:38pm

Chris That's an interesting observation, Ian. It's been a while since I read this; I'm a fan of Johnson's writing, not so much of his Catholic conservative...more
Mar 25, 2012 11:11am

Ian Graye I don't think we're that far apart on him.

The bit that made me decide I would relent and buy it was about Edmund Wilson, Mary McCarthy and Philip Rah...more
Mar 25, 2012 01:28pm

Dec 13, 2011 Ensiform rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction

The purpose of this book is to question the moral right of intellectuals over the ages to counsel people on how to behave; to this end Johnson examines several so-called “intellectuals” from Rousseau to Normal Mailer: their private lives, their regard for truth, and their skill in public affairs. It is a fascinating and at times irritating book, made all the more amazing by the fact (never mentioned here) that Johnson, although a profoundly conservative thinker, was a socialist for a part of his...more The purpose of this book is to question the moral right of intellectuals over the ages to counsel people on how to behave; to this end Johnson examines several so-called “intellectuals” from Rousseau to Normal Mailer: their private lives, their regard for truth, and their skill in public affairs. It is a fascinating and at times irritating book, made all the more amazing by the fact (never mentioned here) that Johnson, although a profoundly conservative thinker, was a socialist for a part of his life. Thus his attacks on intellectuals’ credulity in dealing with the Communist Party is somewhat ironic. Leaving that aside, when he exposes the blatant hypocrisy and even cruelty of some supposed champions of the people and self-proclaimed moral paragons (Marx and Rousseau, especially), he is admirable. It is also perfectly legitimate to expose the lying of a Hemingway or a Lillian Hellman.

But I have several objections to the book as well. First, there is no separate intro or conclusion, no preparatory definition-setting. So what is an intellectual, exactly? It seems to be a thinker who believes that intellect alone can change the world, rather than time-honored traditions. Well, maybe, but then it seems Edmund Wilson is a “man of letters,” then an intellectual, then a man of letters again. An intellectual actually seems to be a bright left-winger. Second, who ever said Hemingway or Shelley or Sartre, for example, were paragons of virtue? They might well be exposed as awful people, but their excoriation does not make as much sense as Marx’s. Johnson seems to simply hate creativity, bitterly resenting the fact that 50,000 mostly young people attended Sartre’s funeral (and dwelling rather unnecessarily on his ugliness). Third, his attacks are inconsistent: he berates most of his victims for their adulterous affairs, but also attacks Ibsen for his platonic relations with girls, accusing him of using people as archetypes rather than individuals. Would he rather Ibsen slept with them? Or he will imply that an intellectual’s change of allegiance is a flaw, but also deplores Brecht for remaining loyal to the CP. In any case, this is obviously an utterly absorbing series of essays, thought-provoking and lucid. (less)

like 1 like · see review

Nov 29, 2012 Bernie rated it 4 of 5 stars

Paul Johnson, the British historian, once heard James Baldwin complain about discrimination. His response: "I said, `look here, Baldwin. If, like me, you've been born-left-handed, red-haired and an English Catholic, there's nothing you don't know about prejudice.'"
Johnson wasn't joking. A former editor of the leftish "New Statesman," Johnson turned conservative in the 1970s and served as one of Margaret Thatcher's speechwriters. But unlike the neocons in the U.S., who were angry, humorless and l...more

like 1 like · see review

Jun 22, 2012 Ryan Holiday rated it 4 of 5 stars

Turns out the uber-intelligent are, or can be, or just are, a-holes. Johnson covers a diverse group of intellectuals from Marx to Chomsky. Behind the public face of the intellectual is usually a deeply inconsistent, strange and sometimes appalling individual. That isn't to say their work should be discounted, but it does color it in an important way. You cannot and should not separate the two. Edmund Wilson's socialism rings hollow when you hear that he didn't pay income taxes for 10 years. Rous...more

like · see review

Mar 12, 2012 Dfordoom rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, politics

Paul Johnson’s book Intellectuals is a fascinating examination of the reasons we should distrust intellectuals, especially of the left-wing variety.

He looks at a selection of intellectuals from Rousseau to Noam Chomsky and sees some disturbing common patterns. They achieve a certain eminence in a particular field (Bertrand Russell in mathematics, Chomsky in linguistics, Shelley, Tolstoy and James Baldwin in literature) and then decide they are uniquely qualified to refashion civilisation. They t...more Paul Johnson’s book Intellectuals is a fascinating examination of the reasons we should distrust intellectuals, especially of the left-wing variety.

He looks at a selection of intellectuals from Rousseau to Noam Chomsky and sees some disturbing common patterns. They achieve a certain eminence in a particular field (Bertrand Russell in mathematics, Chomsky in linguistics, Shelley, Tolstoy and James Baldwin in literature) and then decide they are uniquely qualified to refashion civilisation. They turn to politics but their knowledge of the real world is dangerously shallow and naïve, and they are led into a complex web of deception and self-deception.

Since their understanding of the world of politics and of the behaviours and motivations of real people are fatally inadequate they succumb to the temptation to ignore real people and the real world and to put ideas before people. When people fail to react in the desired manner the intellectuals become embittered and increasingly extreme.

Believing that they have all the answers they convince themselves that they do not need to bother with troublesome distractions like facts, and that they are justified in lying in the service of the higher truths that they have glimpsed.

Lying becomes second nature to them. An almost total disregard for truthfulness can be observed in all the intellectuals under discussion. Rousseau, Marx, the left-wing publisher Victor Gollancz, Lillian Hellman and Bertolt Brecht are merely the most egregious examples.

Hypocrisy, selfishness and vicious behaviour towards other people is another common thread, most spectacular in the cases of Shelley, Hemingway and Norman Mailer but present in all to some extent. The intellectual seems to be a person unable to progress beyond adolescence, which explains not only their childish behaviours but also their willingness to embrace remarkable silly ideas (Marx and Tolstoy being classic examples)

Some (Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir) are so sad and pathetic one almost feels sorry for them while others (Shelley, Lillian Hellman and Brecht) are truly repellant.

Johnson also notes the increasing tendency of intellectuals to embrace violence, most notable in the cases of Mailer and James Baldwin, and associated with that a frightening willingness to make excuses for barbarism (Lillian Hellman’s enthusiasm for Stalinism being a particularly shameful example).

There really is nothing more dangerous than an intellectual with a plan to remake the world.(less)

like · see review

Feb 08, 2012 Laurie rated it 3 of 5 stars

A quick look through the table of contents shows that all the intellectuals Johnson writes of are leftist leaning. I thought this odd; his definition of ‘intellectual’ is one who thinks they can refashion the rules of life out of his own head and one who puts ideas before people. Surely not all who fit that definition are leftists? Ah, but his definition is a little more precise: intellectuals throw away the past, all the ways people have lived in the past, and all religion. And, while intellect...more A quick look through the table of contents shows that all the intellectuals Johnson writes of are leftist leaning. I thought this odd; his definition of ‘intellectual’ is one who thinks they can refashion the rules of life out of his own head and one who puts ideas before people. Surely not all who fit that definition are leftists? Ah, but his definition is a little more precise: intellectuals throw away the past, all the ways people have lived in the past, and all religion. And, while intellectuals frequently write about the working class and the downtrodden, they rarely have any real experience, contact or even interest in them.

The book takes the form of 13 chapters, the first 12 of which are brief biographies of intellectuals. There is a short description of what that person wrote and their philosophies; there follows a TMZ style spate of gossip about their private lives and how they did not live up to their own philosophies, the inference being that their private lives made their philosophies meaningless. Don’t get me wrong; these people were all morally deficient by just about anybody’s standards: lying, abusive, egotistical, jealous, lazy, mean with money, cruel to their families, violent, irresponsible and adulterous. Does this make everything they wrote worthless? I don’t think so. Are all leftist thinkers so morally bankrupt? I doubt it. Are conservatives more apt to be morally pure? The American political scene proves that isn’t true. Are conservatives more apt to put people before ideas? The Tea Party proves that isn’t true, either- of course, those folks are the very antithesis of intellectuals.

The best part is when I look into Mr. Johnson’s own life. He is a historian and author, a conservative who served in Margaret Thatcher’s government. That is was a Thatcherite makes me think he might not put people ahead of ideas. He was full of himself enough to tell James Baldwin not to moan to him about being discriminated against because he was black because he, Johnson, was a left-handed, red haired Catholic, which meant he knew all about prejudice! And best of all, Johnson had an extramarital affair of many years standing, an affair which included having his mistress spank him. Considering that sexuality was one of the main things he condemned his intellectuals for, I found this ironic in the extreme.

I must say that I found the book very interesting. It’s quick reading; if you want some brief biographies of these people, along with the juicy gossip, go for it. But while Johnson certainly made his point that these people did not live up to their own philosophies, I’m afraid that he didn’t manage to convince me that this is a leftist trait.
(less)

like · see review

Jan 29, 2012 Bob rated it 4 of 5 stars

I was prompted to re-read this after the Shelley biography, since Johnson bases his chapter in this largely on Holmes. The premise, you may know, is a chapter each on a sequence of literary and philosophical figures who presumed to tell society how to restructure itself and a look at whether the way they conducted their own lives was in accordance with their principles.
You won't be too surprised to hear that it often wasn't though a few of the lesser 20th century figures seem guilty of no worse...more

like · see review

Sep 03, 2012 Greg rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: biography, history

Back in 2001 I had an internship at Verso. They are the publishers of some left-wing books. When I worked there I would come in for a few hours a day. I'd get paid twenty five dollars and I'd be given lunch. I was also allowed to take home copies of any books that I wanted. It was a pleasant arrangement while I was taking classes.

One day, probably a couple of months after I started I showed up at the office and one of the real employees pulled me aside and told me that Alexander Cockburn was in...more

like 22 likes · see review

Jan 24, 2012 Bill rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: books-about-books, non-fiction, history

A devasting critique of the intellectuals who have "shaped the modern world". One after another, Johnson examines the disconnection between the great works and ideals of these world shapers on one hand, and their personal lives on the other. It's a gruelling catalogue of hypocrisy, ego, broken relationships, dishonesty and spectacular moral failure. A difficult but engrossing read. Written before the fall of the Soviet Union, communism seems to be Johnson's ultimate opponent, and he makes a conv...more

like · see review

Apr 03, 2011 Webster Bull rated it 4 of 5 stars

Not until I had finished “Intellectuals” by historian Paul Johnson did I learn that he is Catholic. This does not surprise me; rather, it gratifies me. I admire Johnson even more now that I know. My friend Mike alerted me to “Intellectuals.” As a token of friendship, I picked up the book and started reading. “Intellectuals” has shifted my world-view more than any single book since “My Life with the Saints” by Fr. James Martin, which triggered my decision to turn Catholic three and a half years a...more Not until I had finished “Intellectuals” by historian Paul Johnson did I learn that he is Catholic. This does not surprise me; rather, it gratifies me. I admire Johnson even more now that I know. My friend Mike alerted me to “Intellectuals.” As a token of friendship, I picked up the book and started reading. “Intellectuals” has shifted my world-view more than any single book since “My Life with the Saints” by Fr. James Martin, which triggered my decision to turn Catholic three and a half years ago. I wonder if the Jesuit Father Jim would not be appalled by my interest in brother Paul.

For Johnson is not only Roman Catholic, he is flagrantly conservative, and he comes not to praise intellectuals, but to bury them. His choice is extraordinarily selective. No John Henry Newmans here. Not even any Albert Camus—although Camus’s rival Jean-Paul Sartre gets star treatment in “Intellectuals.” The table of contents of “Intellectuals” draws a straight line from Jean-Jacques Rousseau through Karl Marx to latter-day supporters of Stalin and worldwide communism, including Victor Gollancz and Lillian Hellman. Hellman is the only female in Johnson’s dirty dozen; a final catch-all summary, “The Flight of Reason,” brings the total to twenty by picking up shorter accounts of George Orwell, Evelyn Waugh, Cyril Connolly, Norman Mailer, Kenneth Tynan, James Baldwin (the only African American in the bunch), Noam Chomsky, and the German film director Reiner Werner Fassbinder.

The presence of the Catholic Waugh in this group may surprise, but Orwell, Waugh, and Connolly are grouped as “the Old Intellectual, the Anti-Intellectual, and the New Intellectual,” in a 20th century that has seen left-leaning intellectuals turn their attention from utopianism (Rousseau, Marx, Bertolt Brecht) to hedonism (Fassbinder, most impressively). So Waugh is judged “not guilty” by reason of anti-intellectualism.

What is an intellectual, by Johnson’s criteria? He or she is quite simply a thinker who cares more about ideas than about people. In the main strain of thinkers considered in this book, from Rousseau to the outbreak of world Communism in the 1930s, “intellectuals” are utopians, millennarians, who profess to believe that we have only to generate the right thoughts (especially Marxist thoughts) and the world will become perfect. This preference for utopian ideology shows itself outrageously in several, like Marx and Gollancz (founder of the Left Book Club), who proclaim their loyalty to the working man without ever having met one.

I must plead guilty to the charge that every single intellectual on the list but three was someone I studied or thought I should study, between my adolescent years and my 40s. (The three exceptions I had never heard of: Gollancz, Connolly, and Edmund Wilson.) In several cases (Bertolt Brecht, Ernest Hemingway, and Hellman), we are talking about intellectuals I revered (the word is not too strong). Hellman is the strangest case of all.

In 1977, a movie was made from Hellman’s autobiographical work Pentimento. My right-leaning readers might well wonder what was the attraction for me; the stars were noted lefties Jane Fonda as Hellman and Vanessa Redgrave as her anti-Nazi agent friend “Julia”. The film made both women heroes while highlighting Hellman’s longtime relationship with writer Dashiell Hammett as a literary love match. As part owner of a newly opened cinema, I adored this movie (that word again). Partly I adored it because it was financially successful for us; partly because the women were beautiful, strong, and smart; partly because it was made by Fred Zinnemann, who made my favorite film of all time, “A Man for All Seasons.”

Problem was, the film was a pile of lies, as was much of Hellman’s life and career. The lies Johnson proves at great length. In fact, he didn’t have to work that hard on his research since in 1984, Commentary published a lengthy article by Samuel McCracken entitled “Julia and Other Fictions by Lillian Hellman.” You can look it up, or you can read Johnson’s book.

“Intellectuals” does one thing particularly well. It holds our “great men” and one “great woman” up to the standards of ordinary Christian virtue. From Rousseau to Fassbinder, these ideologues consistently lied, womanized, and abused their families, friends, and enemies alike. Johnson expresses admiration for the works of several (Percy Bysshe Shelley’s poetry, for example), but in each case, the truth of the writing was undermined by the lies of the life.(less)

like 1 like · see review

Apr 28, 2009 Jason rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The three stars I gave this book may be misleading. I didn't like the book at all...but I believe it was entirely accurate.

I initially expected this book to discuss the thinking of the intellectuals therein. However, although Johnson wrote a bit about this, the bulk of the book was basically a catalogue of the vices of these influential writers. In fact, it was too much. I quickly tired of reading about the lies and womanizing. It was not edifying, to say the least. I just skimmed quite a bit.

J...more

like 2 likes · see review

Sep 02, 2012 Chase Austin rated it 3 of 5 stars

"Beware of Intellectuals" could easily be the title of this excellent case study by Paul Johnson of intellectuals from the late 18 century up to the twentieth century. Johnson focuses on common themes or character traits as he studies each of these fascinating individuals and examines amongst other things the moral and judgmental credentials of these intellectuals that dare to tell mankind how to conduct itself. Johnson exploits the personal stories and histories of men and women who could be c...more

like · see review

May 18, 2013 Tam rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fic

This book should be named The Other Side of Left-Wing Intellectuals. It is very misleading to just say Intellectuals because it made me expect that it would talk about prominent thinkers and would analyze their thoughts and their influences, etc.

Well, Johnson does discuss their thoughts, but more importantly, he discusses the personal stories of these people and show how hideous, immoral, cruel, hypocrite, liars they actually are. After reading this book, I think I can never really accept these...more This book should be named The Other Side of Left-Wing Intellectuals. It is very misleading to just say Intellectuals because it made me expect that it would talk about prominent thinkers and would analyze their thoughts and their influences, etc.

Well, Johnson does discuss their thoughts, but more importantly, he discusses the personal stories of these people and show how hideous, immoral, cruel, hypocrite, liars they actually are. After reading this book, I think I can never really accept these men and women and will read their writings and ideas with strong scepticism. While Johnson's book is very close to committing a logical fallacy (attacking the arguers rather than their arguments), I find these intellectuals' morals a very important aspect, in fact, a deciding factor. I cannot judge the accuracy of these accounts but sometimes the evidence is too strong to ignore and no matter how hard I try to stay objective and distanced, I cannot help but feel disgusted by these men at the end of the book.

Anyway, that is another problem with Johnson's book. His voice is very negative, sometimes condescending and most of the time contemptuous, which I find very difficult to digest. More than dozens of figures are featured and all of them are painted so bad, bad, bad. Is it really the case? Was our society really that blind to accept their influences? There must be something good about their thoughts, right? I don't know, I'm quite ignorant now. But I know one thing: I grow tired. And then, all of them are on the left - well, I question the author's agenda then. Intellectuals is skewed badly to the left and virtually none of those featured come from the right, not to mention that more than half of them are from the 20th century and involved strongly with the communists' activities. Perhaps the author could not help it. Intellectuals was written in 1988 when the Soviet Union was not yet dissolved.

Still, I sympathize with Johnson's underlying argument: people come first before ideas. Therefore, 3.5 stars.(less)

like · see review

Dec 15, 2010 Michelle rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: history, politics-economics

I finally finished this--it took me quite a while. I found it necessary to do a few chapters at a time, broken up by something else. This book is an amazing, weighty but readable look at the "intellectuals" we've crowned as "experts" in the last few hundred years. Johnson notes the trend of intellectuals seeking to lead humanity to a better place than the priests and religious leaders of an earlier day, and asks the oddly-rarely-mentioned question "How is this working out?" Are we better off for...more

like 1 like · see review

Nov 17, 2011 Roger rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy-and-ideas

A series of biographies of famous intellectuals showing how they are not trustworthy or reliable. It is likely to provoke strong reactions from most readers, either positive or negative. It starts with Rousseau, Shelley, Marx, Tolstoy and carries well into the 20th century. The book does not develop a thesis, rather the thesis is unstated and obviously shapes the choice of material. I felt that much of the material was strongly slanted to the negative. It got even a little depressing at times to...more A series of biographies of famous intellectuals showing how they are not trustworthy or reliable. It is likely to provoke strong reactions from most readers, either positive or negative. It starts with Rousseau, Shelley, Marx, Tolstoy and carries well into the 20th century. The book does not develop a thesis, rather the thesis is unstated and obviously shapes the choice of material. I felt that much of the material was strongly slanted to the negative. It got even a little depressing at times to read about the inexcusable behavior of such luminaries as Jean Paul Sartre. But I am not surprised that there was plenty of dirt to dig, and I personally buy in to the basic premise that being gifted and intelligent does not invest a person with the right to teach and lead the public, or culture, or opinion, particularly when their personal lives are disasters.

To carry the implicit thesis a bit further, being great at writing novels, plays, philosophy, music or whatever is irrelevant to being qualified as a guide in other areas. But those who disregard this limitation are precisly the least trustworthy, because their arrogance makes them blind to the truth and lacking in compassion for others. Those who advocate universal charity and compassion and seek to tell everyone else how to behave often are despicable to those around them. This despicable behavior is set forth here in startling detail. Don't be surprised if the bubble of at least one of your intellectual heroes is burst.

The point was made in this book, but I would have enjoyed a more balanced account of the lives of the subjects. Even a scoundrel like Brecht must have had more interesting and good traits to talk about.

I was especially interested in the last chapter that covered another six or eight intellectuals and wound up with a discussion of Noam Chomsky's contradictory views of the atrocities of the United States in Vietnam and of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. The USA has made its mistakes, but the government can not be credibly accused of pursuing the single minded brutality of certain mostly communist regimes that are perversely celebrated by the same intellectuals who castiagate the US. I suppose consistency is too much to ask for.(less)

like · see review

Jan 01, 2010 Man Ching rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: commentary-philosophy, commentary-historical, commentary-literary, ebook, ereader, history-biography, biographical, philosophical

What a strange book. The whole point of being is to trash intellectuals who think that the pursuit of freedom (either in behavior, in intellectual pursuits, from society.) Paul Johnson admitted that it was unfair to use the private lives of individuals to judge the strength of their thoughts, but nonetheless he spent the entire book documenting the deficiencies of men who talked big and lived meanly. The quality of the men never matched the beauty of their vision, prose, or poetry.

The futility o...more

What a strange book. The whole point of being is to trash intellectuals who think that the pursuit of freedom (either in behavior, in intellectual pursuits, from society.) Paul Johnson admitted that it was unfair to use the private lives of individuals to judge the strength of their thoughts, but nonetheless he spent the entire book documenting the deficiencies of men who talked big and lived meanly. The quality of the men never matched the beauty of their vision, prose, or poetry.

The futility of such an exercise is noted early, in the chapter about Shelley. Johnson admits that this cad was a wastrel who had no compunction about writing mean letters detailing the failures of his parents while concurrently asking for money. Shelley used people, seeing his family as nothing but a source of income and women no more than a means for physical pleasure. Naturally, he thought himself liberal, dispensing with archaic institutions of monogamy. He expected his wife to accept his mistress to share their apartment, but he graciously extended the same privilege to his wife (whom apparently complained about this arrangement.)

Regardless, all this is peripheral: Johnson thinks Shelley wrote beautifully, and his poetry moved Johnson. Johnson writes,

The truth, however, is fundamentally different and to anyone who reveres Shelley as a poet (as I do) it is deeply disturbing. It emerges from a variety of sources, one of the most important of which is Shelley’s own letters.”

Great. But why should the gap between artisanal accomplishments and the empty lives of artists be so surprising, in an age when starlets, athletes, politicians, authors, musicians, and entertainers behave as if they were competing for the favor of the Borgias? Johnson already conceded the point that he can appreciate the artistry, if not the artist.

There was one high point in the book, though. Johnson destroyed Karl Marx on both a personal and professional level. In this instance, it seems that there are elements in Marx’s personality that might have directly resulted in the shoddy intellectual quality of his work. Marx made a better short form than long form writer; the long form exposed Marx’s deficiencies as a researcher and investigator. Das Kapital contained a number of misuse of evidence. Marx did do a spectacular job of digging up dirt on his enemies, though.

In a coda, Johnson links 2oth century atrocities to both secular intellectuals ignoring atrocities committed in their name and to the social milieu they created that promoted nihilism (namely in excesses of Communist regimes.) It seems to me a simpler case that these mass murderers were ambitious, ruthless, and disposed to murder even before they encountered post-modern philosophy. As much as I detest social relativism, post-modernism, and religious dogma, I can’t fault these ideas as causing mass effects. I can, however, fault the men who, upon gaining power to commit atrocities, cloak their acts in the trappings of a recognizable philosophy. To suggest that terrorists or dictators valued life until reading a book seems to be placing the cart before the horse.

In the end, I do agree with Johnson in that it is so disappointing that philosophers rarely reach the ideals they espouse. So what else is new?
(less)

like 2 likes · see review

Apr 18, 2010 Eric_W rated it 2 of 5 stars

Paul Hollander, in a review of Intellectuals by Paul Johnson defines "intellectual" as a western concept connoting "preoccupation with and respect for ideas but not for ideas as sacred doctrines." (Society, Se/Oc 1989, p. 97)

The positive embodiment of this ideal is the "fearless social critic, inquisitive and iconoclastic interpreter of ideas, selfless promoter of the common good." To some extent, the role of intellectual is self-defined; there are no specific requirements for the job, unlike t...more Paul Hollander, in a review of Intellectuals by Paul Johnson defines "intellectual" as a western concept connoting "preoccupation with and respect for ideas but not for ideas as sacred doctrines." (Society, Se/Oc 1989, p. 97)

The positive embodiment of this ideal is the "fearless social critic, inquisitive and iconoclastic interpreter of ideas, selfless promoter of the common good." To some extent, the role of intellectual is self-defined; there are no specific requirements for the job, unlike that the cleric. In Intellectuals, Johnson denounces the replacement of the cleric by the intellectual. According to Johnson, the cleric played the role of intellectual prior to the decline of religious institutions in the 18th century. He contends this is a "dangerous" trend. In his book he attempts to display the vast gulf between progressive ideas and personal morality.

His selection of intellectuals for study is peculiar. Hemingway, for one, may have been a genius, but he certainly was not an intellectual of the caliber of Rousseau or Marx or Tolstoy who are also included. Nor are Hellman, or Chomsky or Gollancz. Johnson obviously suffers from the delusion that those who dispense moral advice need to follow their own prescriptions. Since when have clerics been any more upright than others? I would also argue that there are many religiously trained intellectuals writing today. Johnson's selections seem to have been chosen more for their apparent antagonism to capitalistic society.

While eminently readable, if you like gossip, Johnson spends little time on the philosophies of his victims, emphasizing instead their apparent lack of personal morality (at least morality that Johnson supports).

Johnson's flaw is attributing too much power to intellectuals. For example, he writes of Rousseau's distrust of capitalism and private property, declaims Rousseau's enormous influence on society, and then warns us of his dangerous thinking. Oh really? I haven't noticed any great decline in our desire for accumulating wealth or property. Even the National Review decided this book was too gossipy and replete with overblown generalizations. But a little slander is fun too.

(less)

like 2 likes · see review

May 14, 2011 Jonathan rated it 3 of 5 stars

With much success, Johnson lays out the hypocrisies of a large sample of public intellectuals. His variation on the "ivory tower" criticism: an inability to connect with fellow men causes them to retreat into a tyrannical world of ideas-come-what-may. Repeated attacks on personal relationships, while contributing to the gestalt of his thesis, are not always tied as tightly to that thesis as they should be. What results can seem at times prurient and malicious, rather than informative and critica...more

like · see review

Mar 18, 2012 Karen rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: history, philosophy, politics

The premise of the book is that we can't trust intellectuals because they have horrible personalities and are hypocrites. So the author picks some people with awful personalities and dishes the dirt on them. I enjoyed reading about that; but (1) some of his choices weren't known as intellectuals; and (2)there do exist intellectuals with decent personalities. I think Thomas Sowell is a pretty nice guy, for instance. It's more like he found bad personalities, described them, and then made a genera...more

like · see review

Apr 29, 2012 Tim rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: biographies, general-non-fiction

I found this book hard to rate, as I really loved it: as a comedy. The bit about Rosseau marking his place in his friends' books using rashers of bacon is priceless.

But does Johnson seriously think we should go back to the clergy telling us how to live our lives? I think he does, and that makes me dubious of how fair the aim of his gattling gun was.

He's a right wing shit-stirrer. Not to be taken too seriously but extremely amusing nonetheless.

like · see review

Mar 15, 2013 Erskine rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: biography, history

This book was both interesting and irritating. I enjoyed reading about the various intellectuals covered in the book, but Johnson seemed more interested in dishing dirt on them in an effort to discredit the ideas for which they stood. Though I'm certainly no fan of Marx, to take one example, does it disprove communism to show that the man mistreated his wife?

Still, the book is worth reading, if you can disregard the ad hominem.

like · see review

Aug 08, 2009 Petunia is currently reading it

Chapter 1 (Rousseau) was like doing a cannonball into a swimming pool of ice water. My default opinion of "the greats" will probably be one of intense skepticism if not distrust from here on out, and I'm not sure that's a totally bad thing.

Johnson definitely has his own opinions, which not everyone will agree with, especially if they are great admirers of the intellectual under scrutiny. Luckily he provides extensive references.

like · see review

Jul 29, 2012 Tim Lockman rated it 2 of 5 stars

An interesting exploration of the less-flattering sides of some major intellectuals. It's worth a look, but Johnson brings a heavy-handed ideology to his subject. If you read this book, be sure to also have some more balanced background on these characters. If you don't, you may end up thinking that they never did *anything* right. I think his basic point is well-taken: people who are really smart in some ways, and therefore highly respected in the academy, are often really stupid in others; bew...more

like 1 like · see review

Jul 28, 2011 Lisa rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I was first introduced to Paul Johnson as the author of one of my college textbooks. I found his writing style to be very amusing as well as informative. Since that time I've read many more of his books. Intellectuals is fabulous because it looks at the personal lives of the great thinkers and wonders how thier ideas line up with how they lived and what some motivations may have been for their ideas.

like · see review

Dec 05, 2012 Teofil Stanciu rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

O carte ce merită citită pentru materialul pe care-l inventariază. Autorul pare totuși părtinitor și lipsit de bunăvoință pentru „personajele” sale (acuză pe care o aduce el însuși unuia dintre intelectualii luați la bani mărunți), ceea ce dă o notă răutăcioasă sentințelor sale.

Problema de fond însă rămâne: dacă n-ar fi avut de unde, Johnson nu avea cum să inventeze toate circumstanțele agravante și faptele incriminante pe care le trece în contul fiecărui intelectual studiat. Bibliografia e deo...more

like · see review

Oct 27, 2009 David rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction

I really enjoyed this book. It did a great job of showing how the intellectual trends and movements I was taught to admire in my formal education were often the product of compensation for the same human weaknesses that prevent many of us from actually being "great." It helped me realize how important striving to be a good person is to actually being great, no quotation marks needed.

like · see review

Jan 23, 2013 Gerard Pairó vinardell rated it 5 of 5 stars

He disfrutado mucho este libro. Obviamente Johnson ve a los intelectuales desde sus gafas conservadoras. No lo comento tanto por el tema de "sexo, drogas y rock and roll" sino por el tema de que el humanitarismo altruista es por definición falso. Johnson no se atreve a dar el paso final y aplica sólo esta conclusión a los intelectuales. Aún con esta limitante un gran libro.

like · see review

title link	preview: Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky
avg rating	preview: Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky Goodreads rating: 3.76 (671 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55302.Intellectuals?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347332845l/55302.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55302.Intellectuals?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky by Paul Johnson[/url]

Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (20)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Paul Johnson

Books by Paul Johnson

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Intelectualii