Personally I've never understood what 'intellectual' means.

Someone who can string words of more than four syllables together?
Someone who has read the 'right' list of classic books (with bonus points for reading them in their original languages)?
Someone who has spent more time at a university than in a workforce?

It's a real mystery to me.

Public is much easier - it's someone who's prepared to stand up and give their views in a place where people may listen (rather than sharing their deep insights with their cat) - and I heartily applaud everyone who is willing to expose their genius and their misconceptions in forums where they can be challenged and stimulated.

Philistines!

Youse all should bow before my righteous intellectualism. Seeing as there's no requirements for public intellectualism, I hereby appoint myself as the Grand High Poobah of What Is Right.

Hrm, actually, I guess the one requirement of public intellectuals is that they're willing to identify themselves. I'm not.

Alas.

But that still places them one step above most online commentators, including myself, who hide behind a cloak of anonymity.

I'd also say that a Public Intellectual (because really, don'cha just think it should be a proper noun?) shouldn't be allowed to subscribe to half-assed conspiracy theories, full-assed conspiracy theories, nutty conspiracy theories, or conspiracy theories involving Vegemite*. Most of which can be pretty easily disproven by those with half a functioning adult brain and a reasonably recent copy of Encarta.

Which also disqualifies many online commentators. Both on the conspiracy bit and the brain bit, also possibly due to a lack of non-pirated copies of Encarta.

So sayeth the Grand High Poobah of What Is Right. Go forth and spread the word.

-

*Marmite and that hideous gunk Promite however, remain well within the accepted topics of conspiracy theories.

Absolutely top grade guidance for OLO, Ken. Real laugh-a-minute stuff.



"No, the test must be of the ability to write plausibly on an area the candidate knows absolutely nothing about. The essays would be judged by people who also have no knowledge in the subject matter. What the examinators must be convinced of is that the writings sound appropriate and believable even if, objectively studied, they are nonsense."



Boy, has Ken got the measure of the standard for being a 'public intellectual'! I wanna be one!




"It will be important for candidates to develop the direct, confident, brook-no-objection writing style that is used by the Pope. Humanae Vitae from 1968 would be an excellent model though of course only for its tone, not its substance. As with the encyclicals, a good public intellectual piece must be sufficiently authoritative to end debate on a particular question."



Magnificent! Couldn't have said it better myself. He's not beyond, our Ken, is he!?

Enough of my mischief for the day. Better hop on my encyclical and pop e-democratic thoughts into a few heads somewhere else.

I've not found the list but a bit more time devoted to searching should turn up a list of those qualified to be public intellectuals - start at http://www.australia2020.gov.au/ 1000 people approved by the PM. Some might not need the tag, awarded actress probably outranks public intellectual etc.

Some may have fallen out of favour since that event but as a starting place it's the list approved by the PM.

R0bert

Perhaps the supporters of a Charter of Rights could specify that only registered public intellectuals would have the right to inform the rest of us of their wisdom. And of course, opinions should be expressable only if they have fairly general support. This would represent a much more efficient distribution of information and wisdom across society, without the irritation of people expressing opinions that upset other people or about which they do not really know much.

Committees of experts could be appointed to vet applications for public intellectual status, which would confer salaries and perhaps be the basis for a hierarchy of public intellectuals, juniors at the bottom being allowed to express opinions on a limited range of topics, while seniors (or elders) would have access to a wider range of topics, with a extremely intellectual senior elder having oversight of the whole structure of opinion management, somebody with immense knowledge and wisdom like Clive Hamilton.

Just joking. No really - just joking.

Good post love it.

Bags being the chief examinator. ;-)