Separating the intellect from the intellectual.

A quarter or two ago, I was trying to get a section of my students excited about Martin Luther. So of course I told them about his fascination with all things defecation. This sorta worked, but not as much as I had hoped.

Too bad, because Luther was a great character and a very interesting man. His theology, of course, is also sorta-kinda important to Western history. Just a tad. In trying to convey this sense of, “Dude, what a crazy motherfucker no?, and look what people did with his ideas!, Jesus fucking Christ” I made clear that I like and admire the man. Afterwards, a student asked me why. I told him he was an interesting character with important ideas. “So do you agree with him, then?” The question caught me completely off guard. Of course, if I had answered completely honestly and inappropriately, I would have responded, “Oh god, I don’t come across as Christian do I?” but instead I just look confused and said, “No, but it’s not necessary that I do to like him and be interested in his theology.” Luther was from the sixteenth century, for goodness sake. Everyone was a little ridiculous back then. How could I possibly pass up the gems of his flair and the significance of his ideas just because I’m not a Protestant, and in fact don’t even approximate a Christian?

The confusion, however, does not seem limited just to somewhat dense undergraduates. Last week a conversation about Foucault was struck up between me and my French tutor, and during some point I lightly made fun of the man. My tutor inquired whether I liked Foucault or not. I elaborated that I find Foucault personally to be pompous without justification – ie all show and no charm – and the sort of intellectual who hordes his intelligence over other people in an effort to intimidate them rather than inform or entertain them. I thought I had already indicated that I appreciated Foucault’s ideas; but she asked, seeming somewhat aghast, “he had really good ideas though, right?” Of course, I replied. I wasn’t even concerning myself with Foucault’s ideas, which whether we like them or not, prove endlessly helpful in historical analysis. But she didn’t seem convinced. Surely I must disagree with Foucault if I don’t like Foucault as a person. But that’s just because she doesn’t know how charming Derrida is in comparison.

My point: half the fun in learning about the ideas and people of the past is engaging through playful love or hate. I certainly don’t buy Luther’s theology – seeing as I am not Christian – but I love the man, imperfect though he was. On the other hand the basics of most of Foucault’s ideas are relatively solid – but I find the man utterly obnoxious, and by this point overwrought. This separation isn’t hard to do. It’s the point, almost, of the process of intellectual engagement with philosophy and the past; it provides the intimacy, and makes you a part of the pantheon.

In conclusion, fuck Thomas Jefferson, that little piss ant.

Obama!

Well, I’m rather happy. As far as events of historical significance go, this nearly tops the list of things I’ve seen and witnessed. 9/11, of course, is the other event that stands out; but this is positive, and amazingly so. That man really has an aura about him which just only comes along every once in a while. History all about him.

And of course it is incredible to actually see irrefutable evidence that racism has abated in this country in the past few decades. As academics, I think, we’re trained to remember what is still around, the racism that is still there, the progress that is yet to be made. But this is really substantial; this is no fluke and wouldn’t have been possible unless racism had lessened its grip on the American psyche.

But to me, Obama intellect is even more singular than his skin color. What really amazes me, to be honest, is that someone this intelligent has been nominated as a President candidate. Not that Hilary isn’t intelligent — she certainly is — but Obama speaks an academic language more often than any candidate I’ve ever seen. His speech on race in the middle of the primary season was probably the smartest, most thoughtful thing I’ve ever heard come out of a politician’s mouth, not to mention incredibly risky and brave. Whenever I’ve seen him on television dealing with ridiculous reports and their ridiculous questions, he always responded with a thoughtful answer that wasn’t the expected denial or assurance. Yet he did so without yelling at the reporters and telling them what dumb shits they are, as I would have.

Anyway. I am very happy. And glad just to see him running. Consider, that the level of discourse might actually be raised in this country. Now that, my friends, is an extraordinary possiblity.

Well isn’t that charming.

A commentator over at CNN apparently thinks Lincoln wrote the Declaration of Independence and, the author who quoted him in the article doesn’t seem to know the difference, either.

“JePerry1972 says, “I never thought I would live to see America exemplify the true meaning of those words in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address; “We hold these words to be self evident, that all men are created equal …” “