Rating: 
Summary: Breezy, humorous, quirky revelations
Review: Johnson wields his sword yet again. For years, the The Left has held an almost universal hold in public intellectual discourse. The result is a monochrome landscape in which only "correct" attitudes are permitted. Those thinking otherwise are dismissed out of hand. The current totalitarian nature of academic intellectual life - "non-progressive" ideas are not tolerated -is a fitting conclusion. Perhaps the rampant rise of anti-Semitism among the Left is yet another sad ending.That said, this is not an intellectual study per se. It IS a very entertaining series of intellectual biographies of many of the major icons from the past 300 years. The question of whether one's personal foibles affect the veracity of their political ideology is an old debate. What one can say with assuredness is that intellectuals have given rise to some of the most heinous movements in the history of mankind: communism, socialism, fascism, tribalism and religious bigotry. The result of all these various experiments in tyranny were as grim as they were predictable. Concerning the role of intellectuals, a casual study of Africa reveals that the overwhelming majority of future dictators were from academia, and their heroes were Western intellectuals. Like many featured in the book, few had any practical experience outside the world of ideas. Yet - and this is the point of the whole exercise - they and their Western counterparts were more than willing to tell the rest of us how to live. Worse, the solutions almost inevitably involved violence (Marx's secret obsession). Elaborate abstract schemes for implementing these plans percolate to the top every few years and when they prove uttery unworkable they are quietly discarded. The essays vary in quality and detail but all are easy to digest. For a counterpoint to the prevailing winds, read this book.
Rating:
Summary: One of my favorite books
Review: Intellectuals
I notice many of these reviewers complain that author Paul Johnson unfairly criticizes only intellectuals from the left. I must point out that he has a perfectly valid reason for doing that. He defines Intellectuals as not thinkers in general, but those special thinkers who "[lay] claim to guide society," "assert that they [can] diagnose the ills of society *with their own unaided intellects," and "devise formulae whereby not merely the structure of society but the fundamental habits of human beings could be changed for the better." This excludes those who want to preserve traditional ideas and institutions rather than radically alter them in the name of improving society--in other words, religious or politically conservative minds are not Intellectuals. I suppose if Johnson had dug even harder, he might have found some characters who are nominally associated with the right but who have some radical ideas or personal flaws he could critique--Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine, for instance, or from the modern era, Ayn Rand--but the intellectuals he does cover illustrate his point that we should "beware intellectuals" well enough, thank you.
Rating: 
Summary: Ecce Homo?
Review: Let's employ, briefly, Johnson's psychological methods: we have an author who, presumably incapable of writing a book good enough to memorialize his own name, instead spends his time and energy attacking those he envies: legitimate creators, those whose works are rich enough to endure and to be celebrated. We may further presume that Mr. Johnson couldn't offer much in the way of direct argument; this explains why he had to resort to simply putting together as much nasty old gossip as he could, which is exactly what this book is. Any reviewer who enjoyed it, enjoyed it because he envies great creative minds too, whether or not he admits it. Chef Paul Bocuse said recently of food critics that they are like court eunuchs: they know how it's done, but they can't do it. Critics of every kind of creative activity have the same small malicious thoughts; Mr. Johnson and his book are no exception. Gentle reader, why not spend your money on the books of ideas that cannot themselves be attacked? In this way you could find out why Johnson is so angry: they are good books. Sartre is good; Hemingway is good; Rousseau is good. Those books are interesting and have depth; they are the highest expressions of their authors, and like their authors are imperfect; on the other hand, this book by Mr. Johnson is trash through and through, and represents its despicable author's best effort to dissuade people from reading real books. Finally, if you just want gossip and malice and trash, at least be honest about it and go get a tabloid from the grocery store.
Rating: 
Summary: The "Ad Hominem" is not a valid debating tactic
Review: I picked up this book expecting to find a well-nuanced history of intellectuals and academia. What I actually encountered was an amusing but incredibly biased series of Ad Hominem attacks against some of the greatest intellectuals of the past 200 years. Johnson seems to want to criticize and discredit leftist thinkers based on their sometimes shaky personal lives. There are 2 problems with this approach: 1) The Ad Hominem is a weak and faulty form of argument. All humans have their flaws, that does not necessarily mean that their ideas are incorrect. 2) Why does Johnson not criticize conservative or right-wing thinkers for their eccentricities as well? Why not point out the [adultery, absent-mindedness or the racism and alchoholism] of many of the American founding fathers? Don't the personal foibles of these conservative thinkers make their ideas less valid as wel, (...) The book is entertaining and gossipy but I find find its central argument to be weak and logically inconsistent. (...)
Rating: 
Summary: Kudos to Johnson
Review: Johnson's book is not merely a history, nor a philosophy book. As some have noted, it deals with much of the seedy side of various intellectuals. It is not pure history, nor philosophy. Johnson choose to look not only at what the supposed beliefs of these intellectual were, but whether they actually followed those beliefs in practice. I have read the reviews critical to Johnson and after having read the book, think they fail to lay a glove on him. The work clearly gives the message that ideas have consequences. Moral relativism is very much with us, and may be the one true religion of the 20th Century. It has lead to the mountians of bodies piled up various socialist utopias which were imbued with Rousseau and Sartre. The reader who thinks that Rousseau was the central philosophical figure of the American Revolution should sue his university for giving him a diploma, without an education. The primary philosophical tenets of the American Revolution were Lockean. Rousseau's claim to fame would be the French Revolution, which of course ended like the others to follow his writings..."The Reign of Terror."
Rating: 
Summary: A biased but interesting view of intellectuals
Review: Paul Johnson reviews the life and influence of many important intellectuals since the eighteenth century, from Jean-Jacques Rousseau to Noam Chomsky, including Percy Shelley, Leo Tolstoy, Karl Marx, Bertrand Russell, Bertolt Brecht, Jean-Paul Sartre, and James Baldwin. In all cases, Johnson documents the strking contrast between these intellectualsfprinciples and actual deeds. They all have, at some point, severely failed to privately follow the principles they were publicly promoting, including behavior towards women, honesty, money, violence. Another common point among them is precisely their relation to violence. Often condemning it aggressively, sometimes justifying it by invoking higher causes, it seems that all these intellectuals are fascinated by or subject to it. One can argue that Johnson has chosen a particular subset of intellectuals, and focused on some particular aspects or periods of their life. Johnson chooses Rousseau over Voltaire, Tolstoy over Dostoyevsky, etc. His ranking of intellectuals in term of their influence is subjective (although this point is not raised at all in the book), and one could probably find more pragmatic or "respectable" (to the conservative eye) intellectuals who carried as high an influence as the ones studied in the book. On the other hand, strong influence often takes the form of overwhelming breakthroughs and rebellions. In this sense, Johnson's result is almost tautological, as a certain degree of originality and strong character is to be expected from those whose writings have been the most influential. Regarding the second point, Johnson does a convincing job at showing, through quotations and stories, that there was something really wrong with the intellectuals he has chosen. This evidence constitutes the richness of the book, and leaves the reader with troubling truths about the behavior of these well-known intellectuals. For example, it is striking to contrast Russell's accusation (among many others) that "all Russians crawl on their bellies to betray their friends," with the cool-headed logic that he otherwise developed. Logically, though, the fact that a man's life does not follow his principles does not necessarily invalidate the principles themselves. This reminds me of the Chinese proverb gwisdom is to know what to do next, virtue is to do it.h In that sense, Johnson's intellectuals could be wise but not virtuous, which does not necessarily undermines their theories. That some intellectualsftheories had a disastrous influence on History, such as Marx, or Nietzsche, is hardly controversial. Then again, why did Johnson choose Karl Marx over Adam Smith? Why did he choose Jean-Paul Sartre over Raymond Aron? It might be fairer to intellectuals to warn the public about their potentially dangerous magnetism, rather than stigmatize them as a class. With this important reserve, Johnson's warning against the "mieux vaut avoir tort avec Sartre, que raison avec Aron" temptation is an interesting and well illustrated one.
Rating:
Summary: Setting up the world in which we live
Review: I was interested in the Intellectuals because I enjoyed Modern Times so much. The Intellectuals could actually be considered a primer for Modern Times. The two books are much better together, if you read the one it is good to compliment it with the other. Johnson's description of how Sarte's ideology shaped modern Europe. With Sarte being born in Alsace/Lorraine, his German upbringing influencing French thought, and then being exported back to Germany was nothing but a amazing. He does touch a little too much on personal issues, yet, he does expose people who were idolized as mere humans, not demigods. To think that thought alone could change the world as it has. His challenge to us might be framed 'was rational thought really rational and did it have the effect that the thinkers really intended?' Does someone who is for the worker so much exploit others while promoting a doctrine of fairness? Does he take care of his own? This is a very interesting book for anyone interested in seeing behind the scenes of those who have shaped the thoughts of the world we live in.
Rating:
Summary: Great Book
Review: In Intellectuals, Paul Johnson balances the philosophy of the so-called "intellectual" with a profile of their actual lifestyle. What ensues is a quite an extraordinary entertaining and hilarious book. Mr. Johnson has quite a sense of humor and in publishing this book has earned the wrath of academia to be sure.
Rating:
Summary: A rather interesting read
Review: First, the problem with this book. As has been mentioned by many reviewers (both here and elsewhere), this book is effectively concerned with left-leaning intellectuals, and not merely intellectuals generally. Johnson may have been better served focusing on some others of a more conservative bent, but then again, perhaps not. I rather doubt Michael Oakeshott was living the swinging lifestyle, and the oddites of the Objectivist Ayn Rand are well-known. Burke may make for an interesting story (though not a scandalous one), but might be questionably an "intellectual" (more a thinking practitioner). And Strauss is a whole complexity in and of himself.... Johnson's book does a wonderful job of poking some holes in the grand histories of various intellectuals, from Rousseau to Hellman. With many of them, it's rather enlightening - while preaching love of humanity and so forth, these people tended to use and abuse those around them in almost aristocratic fashion. Collecting the various unpleasantries about these high figures, Johnson in a way makes them more human. This is not necessarily a good thing for them, as they tend to be rather horrid human beings. This book's strength is it reminds the reader to be cautious regarding those considered "intellectuals" - indeed, it fosters some useful skepticism. Even the highly educated can tend towards a herd mentality - Johnson's book does a good job of illustrating that. It is a good and enjoyable book, especially worthwhile for those in/interested in academia and some of its major figures. Recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Intellectual suicide via opening a Conservative Pandoran Box
Review: I can only wonder what Johnson's intent was by sandwiching a perfectly good idea, and the excellent advice regarding the context in which we embrace an intellectual's thoughts, between the caustic partisan bread of conservatism gone mad. Does he actually believe a *non-intellectual*, i.e. someone not proven capable of changing a well-educated mind, and creating a revolutionary world outlook in the context of timeless moral truths, should have a position of power in the United States government--or ANY government? (I'll refrain from commenting on our current administration.) Has he not read Chomsky's AMERICAN POWER AND THE NEW MANDARINS, which predates Johnson's not so revolutionary topic by a few decades, as he (Chomsky) explains--with solid journalistic/historical proof of the State-sanctioned mass murder of innocent Vietnamese civilians with chemical weapons during the war--how intellectuals can easily become propagandists for political mass atrocities? Does he have anything to say about J. Edgar Hoover's cross-dressing hobby while running the FBI, and how that influenced his criminological philosophy--represented in his decision to authorize the obsessive illegal wiretapping of Martin Luther King's bedrooms? Or Nixon's reported spousal abuse and historically documented racist paranoia that influenced both his domestic and foreign policy? Has he thumbed through THE CASE AGAINST KISSINGER by Christopher Hitchens, about our oft-celebrated foreign policy/diplomacy guru, whose books are required reading at most of the nations schools of government, with the intent at gaining a new perspective on his philosophy? Regarding less recent history: how about the severe child-abuse that psychologist Alice Miller has proven shaped both the experiences and theology of our first Protestant Martin Luther? Back to today: What are his thoughts on a certain "BOOK OF VIRTUE"-ous conservative blowing almost 8 million dollars in casinos due to a gambling problem, and how that might--oh, I dunno--*color* one's way of perceiving HIS definition of the term? Regarding influential modern philosophers, like Marx: What does he think of (Conservative matron saint) Ayn Rand's deeply adulterous relationship with the young psychologist Nathaniel Branden more than fifteen years her junior (which is a matter of history Branden, author of THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF ESTEEM, has discussed in interviews many times), and what influence getting some Hedonistic young nookie on the regular might have had on her "[sex] Objectivist" philosophy? Do we wanna go back to the "beginnings": Aristotle's view of the universe was proven wrong by Copernicus and Galileo. But, as historian of science Giorgio de Santillana showed in his mind-shattering book CRIME OF GALILEO, the flack Galileo had to put up with came not from the Catholic Church (as the myth clearly states ad nauseum), but from the covert character assassination policies of the European University professors of the time. They agreed more with Aristotle's actual politics (which inspired the squashing of all dissenting opinions and theories) than with his philosophical writings. They in turn convinced the necessary political adherents within the Papacy that Galileo's "theories", while doing essentially nothing to anyone's belief in Christ, would eventually ruin the balance of power maintained by the Church, if they were taken seriously. (Neither Aristotle, the teacher of imperialist extraordinaire Alexander the Great, nor Plato, HIS teacher, truly believed in democracy being the be-all/end-all for humanity--or for even all of the residents of Athens and Sparta.) In fact, Aristotle's belief in the need to *civilize* children through education, because they were naturally evil little "savage barbarians" in his mind, could in the end be considered to be the biggest default influence on Freud. Freud, sometime after reading Nietzsche and discovering the actual root causes of child/adult neuroses, decided to invent his "Oedipus/Electra Complex" myths to define them, instead of inspiring Viennese society to accept the obvious: the consequences of pedophilia. His retrograde Aristotlian analysis of the supposedly "barbaric" impulses of children (aka "Drive Theory") has been subsequently proven to be, ironically, the world's biggest obstacle to revealing the effects of physical, emotional and sexual child abuse on humanity since its invention. And speaking of irony: has the irony of King George III's 18th century Tory intellectuals' view of the Founding Fathers, and its similarity to Johnson's view of some of the revolutionary leftist thinkers he is skewering in this badly disguised political rant, been lost on anyone? Speaking of which, how about the life of Thomas Jefferson: -his long-term affair with his negro slave Sally Hemmings -the DNA proof of the illegitimate mulatto children he sired with her -his unadulterated, unapologetic support of slavery DESPITE all of that, *in the context of the first few lines of the Constitution he so gloriously penned*? Any thoughts on how that hypocrisy has shaped our view of democracy and its morally correct relationship with capitalism over the past couple (Jim Crow) centuries? But perhaps most importantly: what exactly does Johnson think of himself? Are we, as he is an obvious intellectual and not, say, a carpenter, like Jesus, to perceive him as the lone exception to this ten-thousand year old rule, and buy his book accordingly? I sincerely doubt Johnson has the courage to defend this seriously immature approach to what the actual subject of this book is: eternal truths and the flawed human vehicles through which they are usually disseminated (and, how their vehicle's flaws effect how they should be embraced). Instead of writing THAT book, Johnson builds an intellectual Pandora's Box with his approach; refining a timeless, spiritual rumination into an already dated political diatribe. And then he calls his publisher...and opens it. No intellectual could seriously attempt to survive this approach to psychohistory with any self-respect as such...unless he believed his target audience would be 1) more concerned with its propagandistic political effect, and 2) too ignorant to consider its actual merit--or its perverse implications. Which should tell all of his readers that there is some seriously insulting, undemocratic hypocrisy underlying this, regardless of how much they like its surface contents.
| 
