Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky

I would suggest everyone having confidence in the modern secular worldview read this book. It exposes the hypocrisy underlying the ideas of foundational modern “thinkers” regarding the manner in which society should conduct itself. As a vivid contrast I would suggest reading the biblical New Testament gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to see how Jesus of Nazareth, who, despite having no socially acknowledged credentials and, yet, displaying unparalleled power and wisdom, did not use that power and wisdom to exalt himself and live a life of selfish indulgence. Instead he used that power and wisdom to help those in need giving credibility to his message by which people could be saved from ultimate destruction. He even gave his life on a Roman cross for that purpose. Far from hypocrisy, he displayed an unmatched example of his deeds corresponding to his words quite unlike the personalities documented in this book.

In his Republic, Plato had Socrates arguing that in order to create an ideal city-state of perfect justice either philosophers must be kings or kings must become philosophers. In other words, the only rulers of a truly just state must be philosopher-kings. Only the philosopher has the inner vision required to rule justly.The example of history seems to have shown that rule by philosopher-kings is more likely to be the worst and most tyrannical form of government. There have been few, if any, actual kings who have been philosophers or philosophers who have been kings, to be sure, but governments ruled by an inner vision of perfect justice have proved to be devastating in terms of human lives and freedom. The history of the twentieth century ought to have proved that beyond any doubt.Despite the example of history and common sense, there remains a class of individuals who believe that they and they alone, possess the inner vision needed to reform or remake society into a utopia of perfect justice. These individuals have seldom possessed political power, but through their writings and thoughts have had an enormous influence on the society around them. These individuals are often referred to as intellectuals.Paul Johnson profiles a few of these overly influential people in his book Intellectuals. As Johnson notes at the beginning, there have always been people who have held themselves as having a special capacity to determine proper behavior and beliefs and to use this capacity to enlighten their neighbors. These intellectuals, generally priests or teachers were limited by tradition or official doctrine. A preacher could try to create heaven on Earth, but his view of Heaven was determined by scripture or tradition. Beginning in the eighteenth century, the influence of religion in the West declined, and the cleric was gradually replaced by the secular intellectual.These secular intellectuals were quite different from their predecessors. Rather than upholding traditional rules and authority, these new intellectuals sought to tear down the old to make way for a new world based upon their inner visions of justice and reason. It is these people that Johnson writes about. He begins with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and continues with such diverse individuals as Percy Byshe Shelley, Karl Marx, Leo Tolstoy, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, and others. These individuals have been very different in their ideas and lives, yet there are some striking similarities, as Johnson notes. These intellectuals all believed that they should not be bound by the same rules as others. Instead, they needed complete freedom from mundane cares to work out their ideas. They professed to be great lovers of humanity, yet didn’t seem to like the people around them very much, often using their associates as tools.Some might object that Paul Johnson spends too much time on his subjects’ scandalous private lives. One might argue that a thinker ought to be judged by the quality of his ideas rather than the sordidness of his private life. To a great extent, this is true, yet a person’s private and public life cannot really be separated that easily. The private lives of these intellectuals were either a reflection of their philosophy, in which case that life shows the real-life effects of that philosophy, or they were unable to live up to the ideals of their philosophy, which implies that perhaps no human being could live up to such ideals.Most of the people profiled by Johnson might be considered somewhat “left wing” in their politics. This might be because of Paul Johnson’s own political prejudices, but I think that it is also likely that the sort of person who wishes to remake civilization according to his own wishes is far more likely to be drawn to progressive politics. A conservative intellectual, would perhaps, be more inclined to defend and preserve traditional institutions rather than tear them down to be remade. One exception to this rule might be the example of Ayn Rand. She was not a defender of tradition despite her defense of capitalism and she sought, through her Objectivist philosophy, to undo the past two-thousand years of “altruist” Judeo-Christian ethics, so perhaps she fits the pattern of the intellectuals better than it might appear at first glance. It is a pity that Paul Johnson did not include her with the intellectuals since the unrealism of some aspects of her philosophy and her wretched treatment of most of her associated made her a better example than some of the people he did include.I have no complaints about Intellectuals, however. It is a book that anyone who believes that the right sort of ideas or the right sort of people could usher in a perfect world would do well to read this book.

The first thing that strikes the reader about this work is that it is difficult to qualify. Paul Johnson is a master historian, but, in Intellectuals, he puts together pages that could easily be described as biography, psychology, sociology or political science. His efforts have produced an exquisite narrative questioning, in near revolutionary fashion in light of its being penned in the eighties, whether being called an intellectual is a good thing in the least. In fact, given the examples showcased within, it often should be a term of derision.Overall, I was quite astounded by this book. It is comprised of twelve individual chapters addressing the life and work of twelve famous intellectuals of western civilization. Included are the likes of Karl Marx, Earnest Hemingway, Henrik Ibsen, and Lillian Hellman. Although, the best section is the final chapter, "The Flight of Reason," in which he analyzes a great many latter twentieth century intellectuals like Norman Mailer, Kenneth Tynan, and Noam Chomsky. It is a riveting synthesis, and, if I were to reread it, this would be the first chapter I'd turn to.Numerous themes are developed. Perhaps most central is that the intellectual's public stance on moral and political issues often flagrantly contradicts with the values they practice in their own private lives. In all situations, we see this to be to the case in Intellectuals. The prophet's great love of humanity directly clashes with their despicable way of treating friends and associates. Shelley committed boggling acts of larceny and his egotistic outlook on the world vicariously caused some of his friends to be imprisoned for debt. He forgot about them before they were even locked up. Also, it seems that the truth was perpetually elusive to these men and women. Victor Gollancz stated that he was incapable of error, but appeared incapable of recognizing facts. Lillian Hellman's vanity caused her to sue Mary McCarthy for defamation, and the result of the trial was calamity for the playwright. All that came of it was the public's discovery of Hellman's dedication to deception and deceit. Time and time again, we find that these great progressive advancers of women's causes treated the women they consorted with like sexual baubles. A trail of devastation was left in their seminal wake. This was acutely true of Shelley, Rousseau, Tolstoy and Russell. Personal conflicts often, via a deluded narcissistic sense of grandeur, were foisted upon the world disguised as political opinion.Speaking of political opinion, one of the reviewers mentioned that Johnson singled out left-wing personalities alone for disparagement. For the most part, I disagree with this view as artists historically have been predominantly members of the left or at least they have fallen somewhere within the leftist sphere of influence. Although it must be acknowledged that Ayn Rand could have been included here. She would have been a suitable vein for a psychologizing historian to mine. Flynn's recent Intellectual Morons discusses her life at great length, and she would have fit in well within Johnson's narrative. I should further mention that the recent Flynn book was quite good, but it paled in comparison to the profundity of this one.Yes, these lives are repulsive, but I have to say that I believe Johnson treats them fairly. One critic asked, "where are his favorite artists?" Well, I'd say they can be found right here. As human beings, these celebrities did not excel, but, as artists, some were superlative. The narrator diligently refuses to sell them short. He compliments the artistic merits of Hemingway, Shelley, and Tolstoy. Indeed, Johnson never hedges on the matter of Shelley's unworldly poetic talent. With Hemingway, he notes that his artistic integrity was a constant in his life, and it could be negotiated under no circumstance. Johnson also makes mention that Tolstoy produced two of the greatest novels ever. With Norman Mailer, he labels his first book, The Naked and the Dead, as "outstanding."Outside of Roger Kimball, you just cannot find commentary so lucid and challenging in our present day. Intellectuals is a glittering, ornate classic. This book has been around for a long time, and its used copy price is very cheap. Nothing should prevent you from buying, borrowing, or downloading it.