Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Intellectuals and Society

4.11 of 5 stars 4.11 · rating details · 512 ratings · 78 reviews

The influence of intellectuals is not only greater than in previous eras but also takes a very different form from that envisioned by those like Machiavelli and others who have wanted to directly influence rulers. It has not been by shaping the opinions or directing the actions of the holders of power that modern intellectuals have most influenced the course of events, but...more

Hardcover, 416 pages

Published January 5th 2010 by Basic Books (first published December 10th 2009)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

The Constitution of the United States of America by James Madison

The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the U... by Thomas Jefferson

Best Conservative Books

29th out of 148 books — 100 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 1,365)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Apr 14, 2013 Bill rated it 5 of 5 stars

In a free society with limited government, individuals make millions of decisions and live with the consequences. As our government has grown bigger and more intrusive, intellectuals have played a major role telling us what programs will work for our own good. However, they are often wrong, but that doesn't stop them. They pay no consequences. Here is the author quoting Eric Hoffer:

"One of the surprising privileges of intellectuals is that they are free to be scandalously asinine without harming...more

2 likes · like · see review

Jun 27, 2012 Brandon Zaffini rated it 4 of 5 stars

The title of this work, and the thrust of its argument, may initially deceive. It is not a critique of the mind or of intellectual pursuits. It is rather a critique of the god-like mentality many intellectuals assume, wreaking social havoc in their arrogant presumption of knowledge. By "intellectuals," Thomas Sowell means those professional thinkers whose end products are ideas, as distinguised from the end products of other professional thinkers like architects or engineers.

Intellectuals and S...more

5 likes · like · see review

Oct 22, 2012 John rated it 1 of 5 stars

An incredibly biased book that attempts to disguise itself as a scholarly work. Sowell contemptibly describes those who disagree with his views as "intellectuals" and portrays them as know-nothing elites, while excusing those intellectuals who do agree with him from that labeling. The way he manipulates language in the book is ridiculous. When he is discussing something he wants the reader to dislike or disagree with, he uses exclusively negative language, while doing the opposite when he wants...more

1 like · like · see review

Eli It's ironic that you deny the author the privilege to speak freely in his own book, essentially labeling his 'bias' as unacceptable because it disagre...more
Apr 23, 2013 08:04am

John I see the point you are trying to make, but I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying about Sowell having a bias. What you seem to be saying i...more I see the point you are trying to make, but I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying about Sowell having a bias. What you seem to be saying is that any writer would have a bias in favor of the position they are taking in their book or on an issue, since their goal is to convince readers that the position they take is the right one. that being the cases, to charge that he has a bias is unfair. I would agree with that if this is what Sowell was doing, but he is not. He is not just stating the views he disagrees with and then arguing why and how he disagrees. In fact, in much of the book he makes no argument at all. Instead he loads up on value statements that predispose the reader towards his opinion without actually addressing the opposing viewpoint, and more importantly, he inserts value statements where they have no bearing on what he is discussing. For example, if he wants to criticize Keynesian economics and argue that Milton Friedman's economic viewpoint is a better one, he doesn't say "Keynes theories say this, but Friedman's say this and I agree with Friedman." Instead he says something like "Keynes was an arrogant, freedom hating imbecile, and Friedman was a freedom loving genius!" But what does this personal opinion of the person have to do with that person's economic theories? The answer is nothing, at least not without further explanation. There literally are no arguments being put forth when he does that, they are simply personal statements of opinion that have nothing to do with the topic being discussed. Imagine reading a Supreme Court opinion where instead explaining the reasons for taking a position based on the case, the justice wrote something like "the lawyer for the defense was a big jerk and I didn't like his taste in ties so I don't like him!" That's what I felt i was reading in this book.
There are also numerous occasions where he tells us someone was wrong, but doesn't explain why. For instance, I remember a line where he dismisses "Marx's labor theory of value," as ridiculous. That's fine, but there are three immediate problems with that. First, the labor theory of value wasn't Marx's (most classical economists held to it before Marx even wrote his first word; Adam Smith and David Ricardo being two major names that held to this theory long before Marx). Second, he doesn't even tell his readers what the labor theory of value is, and third, he does nothing to explain why he dismisses it. He just expects his readers to disagree with any theory that Marx held to, and to do so without any discussion simply because he told them to.
Because of these and many other examples, I had a hard time taking the book seriously. That has nothing to do with the politics of Sowell, there are plenty of conservative economists with books that require serious consideration and critical thinking which I might disagree with but still garner respect for the serious manner in which they presented their ideas and addressed the topic. This book was not one of them. Sowell comes across not as a level headed economist, but a partisan political pundit whose goal is not reasoned discourse and debate, but emotional responses against the people and opinions he happens to dislike.(less)
Apr 23, 2013 10:53am

Eli Well, having not read this particular book (however I did read a good chunk of his Basic Economics) I can't speak to your assertions here. However, I...more
Apr 23, 2013 06:06pm

Apr 01, 2013 Jeremy Hickerson rated it 2 of 5 stars

This recently published book (2010) makes a very thorough case against government action of most any kind, with the exception of war. I spent over an hour looking through Sowell's latest book at Borders. The blurb inside the jacket caught my attention because it mentioned how intellectuals influence our democratic process by shaping the thinking of the electorate, rather than directly persuading elected officials. I saw this as a significant insight into how our system works. I extend the theory...more This recently published book (2010) makes a very thorough case against government action of most any kind, with the exception of war. I spent over an hour looking through Sowell's latest book at Borders. The blurb inside the jacket caught my attention because it mentioned how intellectuals influence our democratic process by shaping the thinking of the electorate, rather than directly persuading elected officials. I saw this as a significant insight into how our system works. I extend the theory to any media person with a large audience, the impact of their ideas is greatly amplified. Rush Limbaugh could be an example. A good communicator with a big audience has diproportionately expanded political speech, similar to the expansion of speech rights for corporations under the new Supreme Court ruling. I would argue that the media figure actually has greater power than the corporation. Remember the clashes between GOP chairman Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh over which of them speaks for the Republican Party?

We have all understood how big business and lobbyists are dominating our political debate and many of us see this as very bad for our nation. But I haven't heard much discussion about the great influence of the very small minority of opinion shapers. So I was disappointed to see that Sowell turned from what could have been a full analysis of this phenomenon and instead chose to pursue a one-sided attack on government. That said, he makes some very good points that should give pause to anyone attempting to govern. There is no question that history is full of examples of unintended consequences, government actions that backfire and make the situation worse, and "public intellectuals" being proven totally wrong by unfolding events. Sowell lists these out with relish. It is a truth that we cannot generally see weaknesses in our own beliefs. People with different convictions are only too happy to point these out, and we can learn from them. Sowell is not immune to this, he sees none of the failings of his own hands-off dogma. I will point these out and show that his overall conclusions are incorrect even though much of what he says is true.

One of the main arguments of "Intellectuals and Society" is that there is far more intelligence distributed among the many actors in the market than can be contained in a small group of experts. This makes sense in a certain way, and is really just a restatement of the Adam Smith's invisible hand. Yet we have an example right before us in recent history where the invisible hand guided market players to make extremely risky loans against no collateral. I have heard Wall Street experts describe how in this climate even prudent managers were basically forced to participate because if they didn't they would be outperformed in the short term by those who did, due to the bubble economics at play. In fact, any bet against the bubble would be impossible to collect, since if you were right then the counterparty to the bet was bankrupt. So experts may frequently be wrong, but the market can also be "wrong", or at least lead us somewhere we don't want to go.

When experts attempt to tinker with complex systems they can easily cause big problems, sometimes bigger than the problem they're trying to solve. Sowell uses this to argue against intervening in the system. Taken to the extreme, this means essentially no government. But what is government other than a very greatly expanded version of a group of people combining forces for greater efficiency? If a neighborhood gets together and decides to take care of their own garbage service to save money, this takes some organization, a group decision, and a willingness to abide by that decision. We accept leadership and top-down decisions in the corporate structure (and all of us who have worked in this environment know how disconnected from day-to-day reality these can sometimes be). Yet corporations can have great success being guided by an elite at the top.

Believe me, I'm very much in favor of keeping things simple and keeping an organization lean and small. But does that mean that you should forgo any consolidation of forces to protect individual freedom? This is the trade-off. If you never want someone to tell you what to do, then you are reduced to a lone-wolf status, with no benefit from others resources or know-how. I am arguing that good government may sometimes tell you what to do, but you are getting a great benefit from its efficiencies and combined resources. (I know the idea of efficiencies and government in the same sentence seems ridiculous, but bear in mind that we have a huge country here and so obviously there is a fair degree of waste in this process when you consider the many levels of government involved).

I would grant that our government is too big and too centralized, so we can easily find problems with it. I would be happier with a much more local level of organization. However, this is what we've got, I don't think that means that it is useless. I don't think it means that we would be better off with nothing.(less)

like · see review

Feb 13, 2013 Jason R. rated it 3 of 5 stars

I need to preface this by saying that I am a big fan of Sowell's works. But at this point I believe he has been over-published, and much of his work is now repetitive. Intellectuals and Society bears too much similarity to previous works of his such as A Conflict of Visions, and those works are shorter, which means that much of this work will be a waste of time.

Most of the content is superb. Some of his examples of where intellectuals attempt to make pretentious and dubious claims to the right t...more

like · see review

Feb 03, 2013 Ben Batchelder rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

In a devastating critique of intellectuals (academics, writers, journalists, etc.), Sowell demonstrates how monstrously wrong they have been, again and again for over a century now, and their deleterious impact on society, principally in the U.S. but also in Great Britain and France.
He persuasively argues, and marshals evidence, that beyond the dangers of group think, intellectuals respond to perverse incentives. For one, their work is mostly peer-reviewed and applauded by like-minded intellectu...more In a devastating critique of intellectuals (academics, writers, journalists, etc.), Sowell demonstrates how monstrously wrong they have been, again and again for over a century now, and their deleterious impact on society, principally in the U.S. but also in Great Britain and France.
He persuasively argues, and marshals evidence, that beyond the dangers of group think, intellectuals respond to perverse incentives. For one, their work is mostly peer-reviewed and applauded by like-minded intellectuals, and they suffer next to no consequences when their ideas lead to disaster. In one example, Sowell quotes Eric Hoffer, “One of the surprising privileges of intellectuals is that they are free to be scandalously asinine without harming their reputation. The intellectuals who idolized Stalin while he was purging millions and stifling the least stirring of freedom have not been discredited. They are still holding forth on every topic under the sun and are listened to with deference.”
Though they might have notable learning or accomplishments in one field, they believe so highly of themselves to pontificate on issues well beyond their purview. Indeed, rarely held accountable even by other intellectuals, the more outlandish statements they make, the more attention they get. Based on what Sowell calls a prevailing “vision of the anointed,” proving assertions, recognizing reality, and being held accountable are discounted as long as their ideas conform to the prevailing, progressive vision. He notes the disdain with which intellectuals, in general, treat economics, and the lethal consequences for society.
None of this is new. As Sowell reminds us, “George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them.” Bill Buckley gleefully asserted that he would rather be ruled by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. Yet, while we could with some humor dismiss intellectuals and their pretensions in past times, the cumulative impact of their workings in universities, mainstream media, and government is taking a disastrous toll. Perhaps the liberation of ideas via the internet has arrived in time to avoid society’s demise. Or perhaps not.(less)

like · see review

Jan 31, 2010 Linda rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Everyone

Some of the criticism I've encountered accuse Sowell of being the very thing he is criticizing here. I disagree. Sowell uses FACTS and history to demonstate his thesis about the destructive role intellectuals have played. He quotes intellectuals from a variety of spectrums and times in history to support his ideas. This should be required reading for everyone in this media-infested country. We need to WAKE UP in this country. We've forgotten lessons of history and we are lulled into apathy by ou...more

4 likes · like · see review

Sep 29, 2012 Gwern rated it 2 of 5 stars

I started this hoping that it would be a bit like Scott's _Seeing Like A State_, which is one of my favorite books, or if not exactly like that, at least like something Charles Murray, who is one of my favorite writers, might have written on the topic.

I was quickly disabused of both hopes. Sowell is not that great a prose stylist and has a gift for putting things in ways that irritate the hell out of me even when I already agree with him.

More importantly, the promise of the flaps and introductio...more

like · see review

Dec 16, 2010 Marcus rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: political-philosophy, economics

This is a strange book. It's an intellectual speaking out against his profession. Sowell defines intellectuals as a people for whom ideas are the beginning and ending of their work. Tenured professors are the most ready example, but intellectuals can also be found outside academia. For example authors, commentators and public speakers who are paid to continue producing ideas. The key is that intellectuals need only continue to attract an audience for their ideas in order to remain relevant.

This...more This is a strange book. It's an intellectual speaking out against his profession. Sowell defines intellectuals as a people for whom ideas are the beginning and ending of their work. Tenured professors are the most ready example, but intellectuals can also be found outside academia. For example authors, commentators and public speakers who are paid to continue producing ideas. The key is that intellectuals need only continue to attract an audience for their ideas in order to remain relevant.

This reliance on ideas insulates intellectuals in a way that is uncommon in almost any other profession, they are relieved of accountability. Intellectuals can be, and often are, completely wrong and, as long as they can maintain their audience, they are insulated from the negative consequences of their ideas. Intellectuals and Society is about the sources and rationalization of the ideas of intellectuals, the way their ideas are propagated, why they are so often wrong, and the effects of the ideas on the world.

Sowell is a conservative and, not unexpectedly, his targets are liberals like Bertrand Russell, Noam Chomsky, Edmund Wilson, George Bernard Shaw, John Dewey and others. It may seem like an arbitrary or biased selection, but the reason for the focus on liberals comes down to a fundamental difference between liberalism and conservatism. Despite the popular assumption that conservatives only want the status quo, both conservatives and liberals want change. The difference lies in the types of change each wants. Liberals favor change that centralizes and idealizes decision making and power while conservatives seek the type of change that distributes power and that values tradition over ideology.

Liberals often assume that an individual or small group, knows better than the masses. First-hand experiences succumbs to prevailing notions. A concentration of knowledge is seen as being superior to distributed knowledge. Reason trumps experience. One-day-at-a-time rationalization wins over long-term and big picture thinking. Mundane knowledge is shunned for the specialized knowledge of elites. Sowell calls this the vision of the anointed.

Historically, Sowell argues, that type of reform has a bad track record. There are undeniable successes, civil rights, for example, but the failures of mistaken intellectuals, as seen in the section on intellectuals and war, were often catastrophic. Sowell is thorough, insightful and, while nobody will accuse him of having a great sense of humor, he is convincing. (less)

5 likes · like · see review

Mar 31, 2013 Eddy Allen rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: arts-and-historical

like · see review

Jan 07, 2013 Matthew rated it 4 of 5 stars

While I give this book four stars, it's more of a three and a halfer. It's another good volume by Thomas Sowell, although not quite as excellent as his economics and applied economics books. In fact, the book loses a little bit in that the first several sections are basically a gloss-over of the exact same materials dealt with in his earlier works. But don't get me wrong in thinking this isn't a good book. Those materials are presented from a slightly different angle (the intelligentsia angle) a...more

like · see review

Mar 14, 2010 Longanlon rated it 5 of 5 stars

Интелектуалците са хората, чийто начален и краен продукт са идеи - идеи, които нямат връзка с практиката и за своята оценка зависят не от обективни критерии, а само от мнението на други интелектуалци. Такива области са философията, литературата (и изкуството като цяло), социологията, политологията и др.

Най-характерното за хората с тези професии е, че като цяло тяхната дейност няма никакъв практически измерител. За разлика от другите професии на ума (инженери, лекари, учени, програмисти, дизайне...more Интелектуалците са хората, чийто начален и краен продукт са идеи - идеи, които нямат връзка с практиката и за своята оценка зависят не от обективни критерии, а само от мнението на други интелектуалци. Такива области са философията, литературата (и изкуството като цяло), социологията, политологията и др.

Най-характерното за хората с тези професии е, че като цяло тяхната дейност няма никакъв практически измерител. За разлика от другите професии на ума (инженери, лекари, учени, програмисти, дизайнери) - дали си, примерно, голям философ или социолог не може да се измери или изчисли в някакви парични или материални резултати (излекувани пациенти, построени сгради, спечелени пари) - то се определя само и единствено от мнението на други философи или социолози.

Според Т.Солуел, тези хора определят обществения и политически идеен климат на нашето общество. Но тъй като действителността не им действа като спирачка (те работят само в мисълта си), творейки идеи за обществения и политически живот, те започват да приемат желаното от тях за факт, а предположенията си - за истина, пренебрегвайки реалността.

Политиките и идеите, които те проповядват всъщност често противоречат на всякакви доказателства, а често и на здравия разум, но чрез ораторско майсторство и от позицията си на интелектуални стожери, те успяват да ги оправдаят пред колегите си интелектуалци и последователите си от интелигенцията и да задават курса на развитие на обществените настроения и политики.

Така например фактът, че щедрите социални програми поощряват много хора да не работят, няма значение за интелектуалците - тяхната идея, че тези програми "помагат на бедните" и идеята за "социална справедливост" са по-важни от действителността, която създават. Същото е и с "мултикултурното общество" - за интелектуалците идеята, че трябва да приемаме и поощряваме другите култури е по-важна от факта, че е откровено глупаво да поощряваш някой, който откровено не те харесва. Примерите са много - международното разоражаване създавало мира, въпреки, че така разоражени остават само тези, които искат мир, но не и тези, които планират война - забраната на личното оръжие намалявала престъпленията, въпреки че ако оръжието е незаконно, ще го имат само хората извън закона ... и т.н.

Накратко - левите идеи са продиктувани от това, че създателите им, основно интелектуалци, пренебрегват реалността и я заменят с това какво трябва да бъде и как нещата стават според техните фантазии. Това описва подробно Соуел в книгата си, давайки десетки примери, обяснявайки причините.

Ако Томас Соуел не беше черен, щяха да го изядат, наричайки го "расист", "нацист" и т.н. Не, че той е такъв - нищо подобно. И книгата му няма нищо общо с тези въпроси. Но такива епитети обичат да лепят медийните интелектуалци на хората, които изобличават ирационалния им начин на мислене и кухите им идеи.(less)

2 likes · like · see review

view all 7 comments

Longanlon ултимативната разлика между двата вида интелектуалци е, че едните постоянно сверяват парадигмата си с фактите, докато другите предпочитат да смятат па...more
updated Mar 15, 2010 12:14am

Ilia Markov Точно така. Освен това Левски са добрите, а ЦСКА лошите. Просто защото така ми харесва на моята "парадигма".

Всъщност точно "десните интелектуалци" нос...more
Mar 15, 2010 03:11am

May 23, 2010 Adam rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: worldview, essentials

Though I've read a number of excellent new non-fiction releases in the past couple years, this one beats them all. Not only that, it'll likely be the most fascinating, disturbing, and brilliant thing I read all year.

Sowell lays out a beautifully researched case for his theme of elitist intellectuals in the West constantly attempting to subvert democracy in favor of oligarchy. Sowell defines intellectuals as professionals who live by ideas, whose end product is abstract and often ideological, and...more Though I've read a number of excellent new non-fiction releases in the past couple years, this one beats them all. Not only that, it'll likely be the most fascinating, disturbing, and brilliant thing I read all year.

Sowell lays out a beautifully researched case for his theme of elitist intellectuals in the West constantly attempting to subvert democracy in favor of oligarchy. Sowell defines intellectuals as professionals who live by ideas, whose end product is abstract and often ideological, and whose notions--whether they are successful or disastrous--are checked neither by the marketplace (as are the activities and notions of the "merchant class"), by elections (as are the ideas of politicians), or by other real-world repercussions (as are the work of scientists, for example). Rather, intellectuals need only continue to maintain the goodwill and indulgence of other intellectuals--that is, their peers in academia, media, and the arts.

Sowell supplies numerous examples. Just one is the mathematician Bertrand Russell and his career as public intellectual and pundit for many decades. Russell for a very long time advocated pacifism and was part of the movement toward military disarmament in Britain through the 1930s, stating that if "you are prepared to be defenseless and trust to luck, the other people, having no longer any reason to fear you, will cease to hate you, and will lose all incentive to attack you." Of course it was such notions (Sowell marks a sharp distinction between "notion" and "knowledge") being in vogue right up to the eve of WWII that created much talk about "merchants of death" and the vile "international Bedlam rearmament race" in reaction to Britain's growing but still modest Royal Air Force. Sowell remarks: "We now know that those aircraft and munitions provided the narrow margin by which Britain survived Hilter's aerial onslaught . . . despite a widespread view in 1940 that Britain would not survive."

Most pernicious, however, is not the expression of contrary, baseless, and even dangerous notions by intellectuals--no, much worse is the fact that such pundits continue, undisgraced, to disseminate their nonsense on a wide scale, unchecked by their own consciences, by significant public outcry, or by the rebuff of their peers. And they have the gall, time and again, to assert their right to promote cultural imperialism and to talk about the "stupidity" of conservatives, of ordinary people, and of democratic process. It is just such a bizarre climate among Western intellectuals that makes it possible for someone like Russell to swing from zealous pacifism to making the following sort of hawkish comment (in 1948), with no serious repercussions to his career as a pundit:

"Either we must have a war against Russia before she has the atom bomb or we will have to lie down and let them govern us. . . . Anything is better than submission."

And a decade later Russell was back on the pacifism bandwagon, advocating, if need be, letting the USSR rule the world if it meant preventing a war between nuclear powers. Conclusion? Someone with a healthy attitude toward his own ego would have shut up after the Royal Air Force saved his country from Germany's National Socialist party.

Ah, those crazy intellectuals. You can't live with them. You can't live without them.(less)

8 likes · like · see review

Oct 14, 2012 Allen Martin rated it 4 of 5 stars

Thomas Sowell is perhaps misunderstood. Yes, he takes aim at Intellectuals (who trade in the marketplace of ideas, and not results) but what he is really doing Is something different. Instead, he advocates a thoughtful approach to social issues, using all of the empirical data, and not just that which supports a persons position, agenda, or opinion.he also advocates thinking through second and third order impacts of a policy: ".....and then what happens, and then what happens a after that, " etc...more

like · see review

Sep 08, 2012 Russ rated it 2 of 5 stars

A lot of Mr. Sowell's commentary regarding intellectuals of the progressive movement was worthwhile. However, I did not like Sowell's tone, which seemed to link all intellectuals together in a negative light, usually under the banner of progressivism. All of this while Sowell himself is an intellectual, who, I'm sure, understands the need for formulating and spreading good ideas. I would have loved to see Sowell defend proper intellectualism, instead of, essentially, defining all intellectuals a...more

like · see review

May 06, 2011 Sally rated it 1 of 5 stars

Didn't get into it as his right-leaning slant was extremely obvious. Even how he defined intellectuals seemed designed to exclude all but humanities professors. When he wrote that financiers paid for their mistakes, that was the deal-breaker. Yeah right. And how many Wall St. financiers do you know who are arguing for change so that their decimation of our economy doesn't happen again. Or how many CEOs of failed companies are hired by other companies (after they get their golden parachute)? Are...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 13, 2011 Brian Albrecht rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: economics

Again, Thomas Sowell does not come up short. His attack on intellectuals is well structured and thoughtful. Contrarian on every page, Dr. Sowell shows a different side to policy issues. While most people think of anti-intellectuals as anti-intelligence, Thomas Sowell is clear to make a distinction. Intellectuals have a career where their final products are ideas, often without outside validation beyond their colleagues. Engineers are generally not intellectuals even though they deal with intelle...more

like · see review

Aug 03, 2010 Patrick rated it 5 of 5 stars

Highly recommend. This is an important book.

Amazon:
The influence of intellectuals is not only greater than in previous eras but also takes a very different form from that envisioned by those like Machiavelli and others who have wanted to directly influence rulers. It has not been by shaping the opinions or directing the actions of the holders of power that modern intellectuals have most influenced the course of events, but by shaping public opinion in ways that affect the actions of power holder...more

like · see review

Mar 23, 2010 Blake rated it 5 of 5 stars

This book builds on the framework provided by "A Conflict of Visions" and other books to present a stark picture of what some intellectual movements have left in their wake.
An intellectual is defined in this book to be an individual whose work begins and ends with ideas. There is also an important group around them propagating the ideas of the intellectuals. The bulk of the book discussing intellectual effects on knowledge, economics, social visions, law, war and society. Problems come because...more

1 like · like · see review

Apr 05, 2013 Nick Chandler-klein rated it 1 of 5 stars

Shelves: read-in-2011

A terrible and poorly argued book. I didn't know who Sowell was when I picked it up but I certainly won't be reading anything else by him.

A common approach of his is to define a term, make grandiose and universal claims about it, no-true-scotsman any obvious exceptions (he'll often have one word for the "good" version of something and another for the "bad" as if they were fundamentally different things - what's the difference? Apparently, whether or not they agree with his politics), then make a...more

1 like · like · see review

Sep 20, 2010 David rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: economics

This is perhaps the finest literary societal critique I have ever read. In a masterful display of powerful analytic thought, well-researched fact, and effectively no bias towards any particular group, Sowell tears into the intellectual foundations of our society and reveals just how cancerous they have become. This book was by no means a simple and quick read. It is incredibly thorough in its background research and it is beautifully written. This is an absolute must read if you are interested i...more

2 likes · like · see review

May 02, 2013 Travis Smith rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I wish I had a year to comb through this amazing book of selective bias and write a lengthy rebuttal. If you read this book, keep in mind that his arguments are constructs of half-truths and ironically, represents the perfect example of what he calls, "verbal virtuosity". I found this review on Amazon and I'm reposting it here, as I agree with it in its entirety:

In this unbelievable book, Thomas Sowell has produced what must be the most incomplete discussion of modern U.S. History ever written....more

like · see review

Dec 09, 2012 Jack Durish rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

AS WE EAGERLY AWAIT the release of the first of three films based on Tolkien's classic The Hobbit, I am reminded of another tale of fantasy that Tolkien himself admired, The Worm Ouroboros. Strange as it may seem, my anticipation of seeing The Hobbit has inspired me to reread this other fantasy.
The Worm Ouroboros was written by Eric Rücker Eddison, a British civil servant. Now, before you snigger, civil service in Britain during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was a gentleman's...more AS WE EAGERLY AWAIT the release of the first of three films based on Tolkien's classic The Hobbit, I am reminded of another tale of fantasy that Tolkien himself admired, The Worm Ouroboros. Strange as it may seem, my anticipation of seeing The Hobbit has inspired me to reread this other fantasy.
The Worm Ouroboros was written by Eric Rücker Eddison, a British civil servant. Now, before you snigger, civil service in Britain during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was a gentleman's craft. They are employees of the Crown and do not hold a political office. American civil servants are more akin to British public servants. Eddison was born into a world of privilege and well educated by tutors before entering Eton and Trinity College, Oxford.
Eddison was greatly influenced by the classics of Homer, Sappho, Shakespeare, and Webster as well as Norse sagas and French medieval lyric literature. He borrowed fragments from these works unashamedly.
The Worm Ouroboros is an epic tale of heroes and villains bound up in monumental battles in a fanciful world. The worm is a dragon. The scene in which it is conjured is the finest one of its type that I have ever read. You should be left gasping for breath by its end.
The story begins with a curious scene that reveals the narrator at home in England. Disturbed by signs and portents, he retires to a solarium in private while his wife retires to their bedchamber. Alone he is startled awake or deeper into a dream, by a martlet that escorts him via magical carriage to another land, maybe another world. We're not sure which and we never learn. The narrator never again appears in the story as other than a disembodied observer of the characters and their struggles, triumphs, and defeats. Critics have speculated on this opening. Most complain that it is unnecessary. I am more forgiving.
My library, long since destroyed by my first wife, contained a textbook on mythology published in 1814. It began with a lengthy prologue apologizing for it. The author seemed to fear divine retribution for putting such blasphemous words to paper. He assured readers that there was but one true God and that Jesus was his Son. He went on to explain that he wrote the tome only to provide students of literature with these mythological references that they might encounter while reading early literature. He begged God's and the reader's forgiveness, and assured everyone that he did not believe in these pagan things. I suppose that Eddison was doing something of the like in distancing himself from what might be mistaken for pagan sagas.
The Worm Ouroboros should appeal to anyone who has read and enjoyed Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien himself recommended the book. If anything, Eddison's villains are more vivid than Tolkien's.
One last note. Don't skip to the end. Stifle the urge. It is a treat, an unexpected treat. Eddison ended his tale with the most startling twist that I have ever read, and I've read a great many books in almost seventy years.(less)

like · see review

Sep 28, 2010 Anthony rated it 4 of 5 stars

Worth reading. Is Sowell breaking any new ground versus his earlier work, unlikely, but it does make a concise argument based on previous ideas Sowell has advanced about race and economics. Similarly, we return to the conflict of visions the tragic vision of man versus the vision of the anointed. Although he is covering this in other areas of his work (e.g. The Vision of the Anointed), it hasn't stopped those with the vision to continue their work towards a non-existent Utopian version of societ...more

like · see review

Sep 04, 2010 Elizabeth rated it 1 of 5 stars

Shelves: get-again

from the library

This guy is a smart guy who bought into Milton Friedman's view of the world and he's carrying water for MF to this day. He could use a little down time to think for himself.

from the library computer:
Aims to unravel the world of intellectuals so that lay people may understand an important social phenomenon--how the thinkers of our society mold that society, leaving an impact on people in every walk of life, even if the thinkers are basically unknown to the world at large. - (Baker...more

like · see review

Oct 14, 2010 Skylar Burris rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: economics, politics, sociology, philosophy

I’ve read a lot of Thomas Sowell. Sometimes he can be accessible, and sometimes he can be very difficult to plow through. This one tends toward the latter. While I admire his reason, wealth of knowledge, and logical support for his arguments, this book seems to repeat a lot of what I have already read in his other books, including Basic Economics, A Conflict of Visions, The Vision of the Anointed, and Race and Culture. It’s not only redundant with other works he has written, but it’s rather redu...more

like · see review

May 27, 2012 Kirt rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: academics, current-events

It is ironic that one of our most brilliant intellectuals (IMHO) should so roundly trounce the intelligentsia for their irresponsible and reckless contribution to so much of the world's ill. Sowell exposes the world's elite and their ego-fueled "verbal virtuosity," both historically and in modern days, as the self-appointed movers of society. They have done more damage than good as they proclaim new ideas intended to fix what is not broken in order to align the world with their vision. He remind...more

like · see review

Sep 11, 2011 Spencer rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: history

A dangerous book for someone already harboring suspicions about public intellectuals. An excellent book for someone that is neutral or supportive of public intellectuals. I have not encountered anything like this. It is at the same time the complete opposite of the mindless vitriol against intellectuals by the conservative right and the near worship of intellectuals by the left.

Provides an intelligent and well researched argument to be wary of smart people who are trying to tell you what to do.

1 like · like · see review

Apr 30, 2010 Ilia Markov rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This book is so poor that it is hard to keep a straight face when discussing it.

For the better part it sounds like a 'rant' against 'smart people who assume too much' on the part of the author. Mixing wild examples, assumptions and generalizations on the basis of limited experiences, the author vents his frustration.

Just to make it worse the author does not make a critique of intellectuals in general, just of those who are 'liberal', 'left', etc. There are intellectuals, who are bad, and preside...more

2 likes · like · see review

Sep 08, 2011 Wj is currently reading it

So far I've gone through, it's about how shallow and limited intellectuals could be - despite their thinking of otherwise.

The points are well made, but the book is written in a quite arrogant tone... This makes it actually fun to read, as I can't help wondering whether the author himself is (or, would acknowledge as being) one among the group, the illness of which has been so relentlessly exposed by the book.

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 45 46 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (12)

More editions...

Genres

Politics

33 users

Economics

22 users

Non Fiction

22 users

Philosophy

17 users

History

14 users

Sociology

9 users

Education

6 users

Social Science

4 users

Politics > Political Science

3 users

Culture

3 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell is an American economist, social commentator, and author of dozens of books. He often writes from an economically laissez-faire perspective. He is currently a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. In 1990, he won the Francis Boyer Award, presented by the American Enterprise Institute. In 2002 he was awarded the National Humanities Medal for prolific scholars...more Thomas Sowell is an American economist, social commentator, and author of dozens of books. He often writes from an economically laissez-faire perspective. He is currently a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. In 1990, he won the Francis Boyer Award, presented by the American Enterprise Institute. In 2002 he was awarded the National Humanities Medal for prolific scholarship melding history, economics, and political science.

Sowell was born in North Carolina, where, he recounted in his autobiography, A Personal Odyssey, his encounters with Caucasians were so limited he didn't believe that "yellow" was a hair color. He moved to Harlem, New York City with his mother's sister (whom he believed was his mother); his father had died before he was born. Sowell went to Stuyvesant High School, but dropped out at 17 because of financial difficulties and a deteriorating home environment. He worked at various jobs to support himself, including in a machine shop and as a delivery man for Western Union. He applied to enter the Civil Service and was eventually accepted, moving to Washington DC. He was drafted in 1951, during the Korean War, and assigned to the US Marine Corps. Due to prior experience in photography, he worked in a photography unit.

After his discharge, Sowell passed the GED examination and enrolled at Howard University. He transfered to Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics. He received a Master of Arts in Economics from Columbia University, and a Doctor of Philosophy in Economics from the University of Chicago. Sowell initially chose Columbia University because he wanted to study under George Stigler. After arriving at Columbia and learning that Stigler had moved to Chicago, he followed him there.

Sowell has taught Economics at Howard University, Cornell University, Brandeis University, and UCLA. Since 1980 he has been a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he holds a fellowship named after Rose and Milton Friedman.

(less)

More about Thomas Sowell...

Books by Thomas Sowell

Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy

The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy

Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Intellectuals and...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Intellectuals and Society

“Intellect is not wisdom.” — 29 people liked it

“If facts, logic, and scientific procedures are all just arbitrarily "socially constructed" notions, then all that is left is consensus--more specifically peer consensus, the kind of consensus that matters to adolescents or to many among the intelligentsia.” — 6 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: Intellectuals and Society
avg rating	preview: Intellectuals and Society Goodreads rating: 4.11 (512 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7285385-intellectuals-and-society?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1328841736l/7285385.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7285385-intellectuals-and-society?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Intellectuals and Society by Thomas Sowell[/url]

Intellectuals and Society

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website