Intellectuals and Society: Revised and Expanded Edition by Thomas Sowell (PDF)

Description

This title offers a withering and clear-eyed critique about (but not for) intellectuals that explores their impact on public opinion, policy, and society at large. 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 holders in democratic societies, whether or not those power holders accept the general vision or the particular policies favored by intellectuals. In “Intellectuals and Society”, Thomas Sowell not only examines the track record of intellectuals in the things they have advocated but also analyzes the incentives and constraints under which their views and visions have emerged. Ultimately, he shows how often intellectuals have been proved not only wrong, but grossly and disastrously wrong in their prescriptions for the ills of society.

User’s Reviews

Editorial Reviews: Review “Thomas Sowell is, in my opinion, the most interesting philosopher at work in America.”―Paul Johnson, author of Modern Times”It’s a scandal that economist Thomas Sowell has not been awarded the Nobel Prize. No one alive has turned out so many insightful, richly researched books.”―Steve Forbes“Certainly passionate about the subject, Sowell is perceptive and at times brilliant….another well-written work….[A]n entertaining read.”―Choice“Intellectuals and Society unravels in clear, non-intellectual terms some of the puzzling phenomena in the world of the intellectuals—analyzing the nature and role of intellectuals in society and exploring the ominous implications of that role for the direction in which the Leftist intelligentsia are taking our society and Western civilization in general.”―Conservative Book Club“Sowell looks at war with a steady gaze, never supposing that peaceful economic competition will entirely replace it. He makes good sport of deflating the unthinking rhetorical antics of many pacifist intellectuals…He [Sowell] very well knows the most important thing about his life’s work: in the end he is an economist who points beyond the often-dismal science to an economy of the spirit.”―Society (Springer)“One comes away from reading Sowell with a sense of having encountered the kind of analytic incisiveness and depth that was practiced by the best thinkers of the Enlightenment, men like Adam Smith, or the triune authors of the Federalist Papers, who both read the human heart and knew the human story…Sowell is a fiercely polemical writer, yet one whose clear, straightforward prose illumines everything it touches. He’s as honest and valuable an intellectual as America will ever produce. If the force of an example is needed to improve the breed, he’s it.”―Academic Questions (Springer)“Sowell is at his best, which is very good indeed, when he deals with the free market. He points out a fallacy in the complaints of many critics of the market who stress the unequal distribution of wealth and income in contemporary America…Sowell’s skillful use of evidence emerges again when he confronts another popular charge against the free market…an excellent book as a whole.”―The Independent Review“The illustrations of his [Sowell’s] argument are quite compelling…the chapter on intellectuals and the economy is, naturally, among the most illuminating…” ―The American Spectator“Intellectuals and Society is something of a summa of Sowell’s concerns over the last 40 years… The power of Sowell’s book owes to its concreteness. He has an enviable gift for showing that many of our social problems arise from the differences between ‘the theories of intellectuals and the realities of the world.’… this learned and thoughtful book demonstrates what its author has in mind when he calls for a humane reintegration of intellect, wisdom, and respect for the stubborn realities that constitute our world.”―City Journal”It (Intellectuals and Society) is chock full of interesting ideas – like much of Sowell’s work.”―Regulation, CATO Institute“Sowell takes aim at the class of people who influence our public debate, institutions, and policy. Few of Sowell’s targets are left standing at the end, and those who are stagger back to their corner, bloody and bruised.”―National Review Online“Mr. Sowell builds a devastating case against the leftist antiwar political and intellectual establishment” ―Washington Times”America’s best writer on economics, particularly when that discipline intersects with politics.”―World About the Author “One of America’s pre-eminent economists launches a ‘devastating’ critique of liberal elites.” (Washington Times) Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He is the author of dozens of books including Charter Schools and Their Enemies, winner of the 2021 Hayek Book Prize. He is the recipient of numerous other awards, including the National Humanities Medal, presented by the President of the United States in 2003.

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐This is a great book for anyone studying the roots of the Social Justice movements currently playing such a large role in American society and who has found that there are many problems with the underlying theories many of which are just downright weird. A strange thing that such a person will notice is that the higher up the intellectual ladder you go the weirder the ideas of leftist intellectuals become. There are getting to be good summaries of the historical roots of what intellectuals promoting “Social Justice” believe, for example Pluckrose and Lindsay’s Cynical Theories, but the question of why they believe what they do is puzzling.Since Sowell’s speciality is intellectual history and he is a prolific commentator on, for example, the racial issues intellectuals strongly focus on these days he is well qualified to comment on the nature of intellectuals. This book is a goldmine of insights!Sowell speculates that the problem with intellectuals begin when they are young and identified as having certain intellectual gifts. Being often reminded of this fact, they grow up feeling better than those around them. That, by itself, does not seem to be sufficient to become a problematic intellectual. What is further needed is a sense not only of being smarter but an outlook on the world that Sowell calls “the vision of the anointed”. In this vision society is an inherently chaotic thing tending toward bad outcomes which, however, can be solved if only intellectuals analyze the problems, get more involved and have the power to institute their solutions. Sowell contrasts this to what he calls “the tragic vision” in which society is inherently chaotic, but where solutions to this may evolve over time but more from the wisdom of non-intellectuals who collectively have much greater knowledge than intellectuals. A key difference is that in the tragic vision there are certain things inherent to the human conditions such as inequality that intellectuals are not going to be able to “solve”.Thus the typical soon to be intellectual passes through college with early notions that they are an “anointed person” on a mission to solve the problems of the world. Not only are they intellectually but also morally superior to any who would oppose them. These intellectuals tend to think as a group, with Sowell comparing them to being very much like adolescents in this regard, such that they’ll latch onto the dominate views fashionable amongst intellectuals at the time. The nature of the ideas changes over time and can swing from one polar extreme to the other. For example, Sowell documents how the view that the poor were genetically inferior dominated amongst intellectuals in the progressive era sometime even to the point of advocating eugenic programs but by the second half of the 20th century even considering genetic differences a logical possibility would get you mobbed. Now all inequalities are assumed to be due to current and historical injustices of the rich versus the poor. What determines what intellectuals are crusading against in any particular era is not based on any timeless principles unless such a principle is that intellectuals are the heroes of society on a mission to slay its dragons.When the intellectual nears the end of their college days they may find that there is not a great natural demand for them by society. Certainly not enough to match the supply. Any demand for them is mostly stirred up by themselves, in particular by exaggerating and dramatizing the problems facing society. The underlying lack of demand for their talents after all that hard work, however, leaves them bitter about society further convincing them that it is something they need to overturn. Once in academia the pressure to publish “original” ideas regarding the problems of society along with solutions moves them away from merely explaining how things society tends to see as good work as well as they do.Sowell describes various mechanisms intellectuals use to help make their ideas dominate. For example, what he calls their “penumbra” in the media having been forced to be indoctrinated in school rationalize filtering out ideas competing with those dominate amongst intellectuals. Intellectuals will also often dismiss contrary ideas as unworthy of even considering either because they are “too simplistic” or that the very act of holding a contrary view shows that the holder is evil, perhaps obviously racist, for example, and, hence, not worthy of a response. Sowell also documents how intellectuals shield themselves from having their ideas challenged by not testing actual results in the real world or considering their past failures. Not only are they so confident in the results that they find testing hypotheses unnecessary but the satisfaction they get is from doing things to fight society’s dragons as opposed to any real concern as to what the actual results of their policies are. It is about the fight: not the results. As evidence of this, Sowell cites the fact that intellectuals spend very little time thinking of ways to increase society’s total output which would lift all boats but rather focus nearly exclusively on thinking of ways of how to “distribute” its wealth.Another problem Sowell cites with intellectuals is that, due to their arrogance, they feel the need to speak outside their area of expertise where they are then not wiser than anyone else but where their verbal skills and moralism allows them to convince others that they are. What attention to fighting their preferred crusades are they going to get, for example, by sticking to their speciality of late Mayan art or whatever it is? Sowell also describes how intellectuals will typical not face consequences for the times when they are wrong even with serious or catastrophic consequences. Thus unlike a business which would go broke otherwise they have little incentive to care about real world results.Sowell’s writing, as always, is clear. The logic is straightforward and he does not jump from undefined or poorly defined abstract concept to undefined or poorly defined abstract concept as the intellectuals he describes often do. He is writing to be understood by the public at large: not for academics in an echo chamber where only they, at best, understand each other. Sowell always provides clear and generally multiple examples to demonstrate his points. His logic is, nearly always, impeccable.I rate the book five stars since it is much closer to that than four stars. There are some problems, however: for example I felt that Sowell did not always provide the best case he could for the other side. In arguing for “literalist” interpretations of the law, for example, why not provide some real world examples of where one can best sympathize with with other legal schools? For example, it is not clear to everyone that the second amendment applies to citizens who are not members of a militia. Although I think this falls out of more detailed reasoning, as provided in the Supreme Court’s Heller case, even those who fancied themselves “originalists” and wrote the decision came up with a scope of firearms regulation not explicitly written into the constitution. What does Sowell think the constitution implies as to the limits of government regulation of firearms?Occasionally, Sowell also seems to imply that because something happened after something that could intuitively be its cause that probably is the cause. Sowell uses rising crime after the soft on crime policies and general attacks on social cohesion in the 1960s. Possibly the cause? Definitely but others argue that it was the lower average age after the baby boom meaning more young men, the demographic most likely to be involved in crime, that was responsible. There should at least be a footnote warning to avoid “post hoc” conclusions and a pointer to further studies to make his case if, indeed, there are any. Another thing to note is that this is a long book and there is overlap with other books including using identical examples. Finally, the book has been revised and enlarged such that the audiobook is out of sync with the print and Kindle versions, meaning you will not be able to listen to parts while in the car.Overall, Sowell hits a home run for anyone who wants to understand why intellectuals think the way they do.

⭐I think one of these days I am going to publish a list of the top 10 books that every single thinking person has to read. For a conservative like myself, there are books that have played a formative role in developing, defining, and defending an ideology. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom and Kirk’s The Roots of American Order come to mind – classic works that no serious conservative reader would dare miss.The list has grown by one this year thanks to Thomas Sowell, and I do not make such a claim easily. While his much earlier masterpiece, Conflict of Visions (1987), could arguably be on the list as well, I believe that his newest book, Intellectuals and Society, is not just Sowell at his finest but is perhaps the very essence of conservative thinking at its finest. The book is remarkably readable, extremely practical, and most of all, is such a lethal combination of head shots and body blows to the parasite of modern intellectualism that one finishes the book feeling splattered by the damage Sowell has done.At its core, the book seeks to explore the phenomena of public intellectuals who Sowell carefully defines as “people whose occupations deal primarily with ideas”. There are extremely intelligent people in our society who we do not deem to be “intellectuals” – specialists who possess a particular expertise in a particular field. Sowell provides the important distinction that engineers and scientists and financiers, for example, while not considered to be “public intellectuals”, are judged by external standards – by empirical notions of verifiability. Intellectuals, on the other hand, face no such external test. Rather, it is the mere acceptance their own peers provide them that defines their success. They are judged exclusively by internal criteria, devoid of methods of validation. Yet their ideas have consequences, and as Sowell demonstrates in every page of this 317-page delight, the ideas of the intelligentsia over the last century have largely been an unmitigated disaster. Often lethal and frequently incoherent, intellectuals have survived in the last 100 years despite the fruits of their labors. Sowell laments this development, questions its causes, and demonstrates its truth in crystal clear fashion. Intellectuals lack accountability for their disastrous ideas, aided and abetted by non-intellectual accomplices within the intelligentsia that share their unconstrained vision for humanity.Sowell does not target the flaws of public intellectuals that may or may not exist within their particular field of specialization. The book calls these public intellectuals to the carpet for their espousing of ideas and policies to a wider audience than their field of study called for, carrying the same “air of authority” in the wider field that was outside of their field of expertise as they do within the more narrow field to which they claim some degree of knowledge. Sowell points out that “most non-intellectuals achieve public recognition or acclaim by their achievements within their respective areas of specialization, while many intellectuals could achieve comparable public recognition only by going outside their own expertise or competence.” Public intellectuals feed off of a demand that is almost entirely self-manufactured. As Sowell has laid out in his aforementioned work, Conflict of Visions, the unconstrained vision of the left is one of an arrogant, elite, anointed – a vision that makes claim to the moral responsibility and intellectual ability to cure the world of its ills. The testing of this unconstrained vision through conventional and empirical validation methods has been devastating in its conclusiveness that the unconstrained vision has been a disaster. The challenge, though, is the lack of accountability that exists for these public intellectuals. Sowell makes clear that their vision is not only one for the world “as it exists and a vision of what it ought to be like, but it is also a vision of themselves as a self-anointed vanguard, leading toward that better world.” For Sowell, “the role that they aspire to play in society at large can only be achieved by them to the extent that the rest of society accepts what they say uncritically and fails to examine their track record.”The real target of Sowell’s book are those members of the “intelligentsia” who either make up these public intellectual frauds, or worse, serve as their willing accomplices. Judges in the legal system, politicians in government, journalists in media, and worst of all, academic charlatans in the academy, have all served as the support system for this age of public intellectuals promulgating their anointed vision to the world. Sowell meticulously walks through the effects intellectuals have had in 20th century economics, law, foreign policy, and media. He laments the attack on the very concept of truth itself that the intellectuals have launched, and again points out the self-serving nature of their vision.Sowell is a brilliant thinker himself – an idea man – a scholar. But unlike the targets of Sowell’s attacks, he does not claim that his expertise in socio-political thoughts exempts him from external validation tests should he branch out into other arenas of thought. Sowell invites external criticism. He holds himself to the standards that public intellectuals refuse to hold themselves to. And while Sowell is an ideologue, he is keenly aware that the repudiation of the unconstrained vision of the anointed – public intellectual leftism – is unlikely to take place as long as this vision maintains its dominance in our school system and modern media. The arrogance of collectivism and surrogate decision-making can be rebuffed in print (as Sowell does in decisive fashion), but the battle must be won where the battle is being fought. Sowell’s book is a treasure for those who want to be armed when they engage this fight. The future of our civilization depends on those who hold to the constrained vision – the vision of the founders – taking this fight to the public square. The fight will not be won without Sowell’s decimation of the likes of John Dewey, Bertrand Russell, Paul Ehrlich, and dozens of other blowhards whose ideas have represented indescribable agony for citizens of the 20th and now 21st centuries. But as Sowell makes painfully clear, the vision of the anointed is now the property of the teacher’s unions and the New York Times. Conservatives have a lot of work to do.I do not recommend doing anything else when you are done reading this review besides buying Sowell’s book. Intellectuals and Society is the magnum opus of this man’s life and career, and I have barely scratched the surface of what he accomplishes in this book. Read it. Encourage your kids to read it. And engage the fight. The arrogance of the self-anointed elites will not be defeated until we do.See […] for more

⭐“Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them” George Orwell is said to have remarked. Thomas Sowell analyses intellectuals’ self-confident promotion of their empirically challenged ideas via media, aides and activists, the influence of those ideas on governments and societies in place of experience or evidence, and the damage caused.Sowell defines intellectuals as people whose occupations deal primarily with ideas, in particular that they deal in the ideas and do not apply them. Scientists and engineers are not intellectuals. Mathematicians are not, so that Bertrand Russell as a mathematician was not an intellectual, however when suggesting in 1937 that Britain should completely disarm, he was. George Bernard Shaw, one of the great playwrights, felt confident in saying in 1939, just one week before war broke out, “Herr Hitler is under the powerful thumb of Stalin, whose interest in peace is overwhelming. And everyone except myself is frightened out of his or her wits!” – he was a professional as a playwright but an intellectual in geopolitics.What does it mean when someone we regard as brilliant, a genius, a mind so superior to ours, says or writes things so silly? One’s own intelligence seems so complex, but so changeable, puny, prone to error – we expect individuals of generally accepted great intellect somehow not to suffer these problems. Yet these demonstrably silly writings belie that confidence. Sowell separates thinkers into intellectuals, for whom far more knowledge and intelligence are available to some people than others, from those who emphasise specialization and social processes whose economic and social transactions draw upon the varied knowledge and experience of millions, past and present.Apart from the “no skin in the game” aspect of an intellectual, Sowell identifies the moralising element, describing an “anointed intelligentsia, on the side of angels against the forces of evil” while ordinary unintellectuals have a “tragic vision [which] is a vision of trade-offs, rather than solutions, and a vision of wisdom distilled from the experiences of the many, rather than the brilliance of the few”. For example, payday loans, where Sowell bravely argues against e.g. the New York Times’ attractive and furious argument against them (denouncing payday loan providers’ “triple-digit annual interest rates, milking people’s desperation” and “profiteering with the cloak of capitalist virtue” and describing a 36 percent interest rate ceiling as something needed to prevent “the egregious exploitation of payday loans”.)How could anyone decent argue against such obvious moral rightness? Sowell writes:“The sums of money lent are usually a few hundred dollars, lent for a few weeks, with interest charges of about $15 per $100 lent. That works out to annual interest rates in the hundreds – the kind of statistics that produce sensations in the media and in politics. The costs behind such charges are seldom if ever investigated by the intelligentsia, by so-called ‘consumer advocates’ or by others in the business of creating sensations and denouncing businesses that they know little or nothing about. The economic consequences of government intervention to limit the annual interest rate can be seen in a number of states where such limits have been imposed. After Oregon imposed a limit of 36 percent annual interest, three quarters of its ‘payday loan’ businesses closed down. Nor is it hard to see why – if one bothers to look at facts. At a 36 percent limit on the annual interest rate, the $15 in interest charged for every $100 lent would be reduced to less than $1.50 for a loan payable in two weeks – an amount not likely to cover even the cost of processing the loan, much less the risks of making the loan. As for the low-income borrower, supposedly the reason for the concern of the moral elites, denying the borrower the $100 needed to meet some exigency must be weighed against the $15 paid for getting the money to meet that exigency. Why that trade-off decision should be forcibly removed by law from the person most knowledgeable about the situation, as well as most affected by it, and transferred to third parties far removed in specific knowledge and general circumstances, is a question that is seldom answered or even asked.”The NYT’s “milking people’s desperation”, “profiteering with the cloak of capitalist virtue” and “egregious exploitation of payday loans” are examples of what Sowell calls “verbal virtuosity .. obscuring, rather than clarifying, rational analysis”. Would that analysis be so very difficult, in plainer words? If borrowers are assumed to have their wits, then laws or regulations would only be needed that prevented lenders using confusion (rather than outright fraud, which is already illegal) to hide loan costs or make them seem cheap. Given that one in ten of of us does not understand percentages, intellectuals’ focus on interest rates is probably misplaced, and borrowers must know more: the cost of the loan as well as its rate. If we wish something that protects borrowers too confused or incapable not to harm themselves with unrepayable loans, then legal, regulated lenders that cannot pursue defaulters with knuckle-crushers (and so have to accept defaults and factor them into loan interest, like any lender) are better than the loan sharks that Oregon-style restraints empower.Where do these intellectuals come from and why are they there, advising, lecturing, haranguing? As one might perhaps expect from an economist, Sowell discusses Supply and Demand… of intellectuals. Why is there a supply? People in utilitarian fields’ results are their own fame – cars, medicine, smartphones, etc.) whereas:“for intellectuals in general, where the primary constraint is peer response, rather than empirical criteria, currently prevailing attitudes among peers may carry more weight than enduring principles or the weight of evidence. This can produce patterns much like those found among another group heavily influenced by their peers – namely adolescents, among whom particular fashions or fads can become virtually obligatory for a given time, and later become completely rejected as passé, without in either period having been subjected to serious examination, either empirically or analytically.”Among the hundred public intellectuals mentioned most often in the media, only eighteen are also among the hundred intellectuals mentioned most often in scholarly literature. Furthermore, most public intellectuals speak outside their expertise (for example Noam Chomsky, the brilliant linguist, whose LALR grammars are much less known to the public than his extravagant political utterances, or John Maynard Keynes, whose biographer wrote “he held forth on a great range of topics, on some of which he was thoroughly expert, but on others of which he may have derived his views from the few pages of a book at which he had happened to glance; the air of authority was the same in both cases”,) or else their expertise is something that can only be tested by other intellectuals, and not empirically.The demand for intellectuals on the other hand is to an extent manufactured, due to an over-supply, by intellectuals, who put themselves endlessly forward, offering “solutions” to social “problems” or by raising alarms over some dire dangers which they claim to have discovered. Don’t forget that the demand for the output of non-intellectuals (cars, planes, medicine, etc.) is spontaneous in the public, whereas the demand for intellectuals has to be stimulated by this endless promotion.How can a few intellectuals have such an effect on governments, public policy and the public at large? Sowell describes the “penumbra” of journalists, teachers, staffers to legislators or clerks to judges and other members of the intelligentsia, whose influence on the course of social evolution can be crucial. In the case of teachers:“who lack either the inclination or the talent to become public intellectuals can instead vent their opinions in the classroom to a captive audience of students, operating in a smaller arena but in a setting with little chance of serious challenge. In such settings, their aggregate influence on the mindset of a generation may be out of all proportion to their competence—not simply in what they directly impart, but more fundamentally in habituating their students to reaching sweeping conclusions after hearing only one side of an issue and then either venting their emotions or springing into action, whether by writing letters to public officials as part of classroom assignments or taking part in other, more direct, activism”That problem has become entrenched in that this learnt activism is often tested in university interviews; in Sowell’s robust words:“As early as elementary school, students have been encouraged or recruited to take stands on complex policy issues ranging up to and including policies concerning nuclear weapons, on which whole classes have been assigned to write to members of Congress or to the President of the United States. College admissions committees can give weight to various forms of environmentalism or other activism in considering which applicants to admit, and it is common for colleges to require “community service” as a prerequisite for applicants to be considered at all—with the admissions committee arbitrarily defining what is to be considered a “community service,” as if, for example, it is unambiguously clear that aiding and abetting vagrancy (“the homeless”) is a service rather than a disservice to a community.”Should schools teach views of complex issues a lot, a little, or not at all? In any measure proselytising must cut into teaching basics accurately, and undermine the difficult business for the pupil of learning and understanding basics and outside classes evaluating complex issues in the world, trying to apply the basics correctly rather than falling for the much easier and more pleasurable route of following our instincts or prejudices, or the urgings of furious and righteous public intellectuals, at which point the process becomes self-sustaining and fact-free.What are the costs of all this intellectualism? How does one begin to calculate the costs of all the mistaken policy, the needlessly state-employed advisors, the subsidies, the deadweight loss of the mistaken interventions, etc.Intellectuals and Society is an attractively written book, but more so a very well informed work, with strong arguments against the expensive, sanctimonious intellectual.

⭐This is the first book I read of T. Sowell. (I’ve read most his works since).In some areas it reinforced my preexisting views, in a well argued, fact oriented way. which is always nice. In other areas (gun legislation, welfare state etc.) it challenged my preexisting views. I spend a couple of years digesting and trying to find arguments to uphold most of my challenged views, but in the end, I had to concede to the better argument. In the end Sowells writings, starting with I&S profoundly impacted the way I view the world and interpret news, and, I think, made me wiser.I wholeheartedly recommends this to anyone who’ll listen. Unfortunately, I have found it almost impossible to get people to even read a book that would challenge their world view. I hope that you will take my advice and give a chance. By the way, it is well suited for listening as audiobook as it, quite frankly, repeat the same points, by different examples over and over.

⭐Thomas Sowell is enthralling to listen to in person but this book is dry. He makes valid points and provides interesting perspectives, but it’s very repetitive and could have been written in half the page count. Also, his continual reference to the view of intellectuals as ‘the vision of the anointed’, and other such terms, gets grating after a while, and ultimately detracts from the point he is trying to make. I wouldn’t recommend this book unless you’re either a die hard fan or are particularly interested in economics. If you’re like me, and just interested to hear more from an interesting man different perspective on why we are the way we are – then stick to YouTube videos of his talks.

⭐Should be required reading for EVERYONE. Would be a better (and quieter) world for it! Why didn’t I find this book fifty years ago… although apparently a much bigger book in this edition, so a double bonus in the (true use of the word) wisdom of the writing and three more chapters of it. Buy it.

⭐A superb book. Lucid and engaging. Compassionate yet forthright in highlighting the vanities of the ‘anointed ones’ and the many great harms they have helped cause. It provides a powerful critique of political classes and their intellectual cheerleaders whose distance from ‘ordinary people’ seems to grow by the year. My primary political concern is over the remarkable, dangerous and damaging growth in the influence of environmental campaigners on government, on the media, on academia, and even on schools from the nursery level onwards. I find insights on almost very page which have helped me make more sense of this. Sowell’s scope is far wider. But he too is concerned about damage being done to society by self-anointed egotistical ‘intellectuals’ intent on imposing their wishes on the rest of us by hook or by crook, and that includes sweeping empirical observations as well as contrary views aside with contempt.

Keywords

Free Download Intellectuals and Society: Revised and Expanded Edition in PDF format
Intellectuals and Society: Revised and Expanded Edition PDF Free Download
Download Intellectuals and Society: Revised and Expanded Edition 2012 PDF Free
Intellectuals and Society: Revised and Expanded Edition 2012 PDF Free Download
Download Intellectuals and Society: Revised and Expanded Edition PDF
Free Download Ebook Intellectuals and Society: Revised and Expanded Edition