In thinking about the intellectuals as mentioned in class, I have never before thought of them as their social class. These three readings have helped me shift my mindset to see intellectuals as their class. But I think of them as a part of the bourgeois in a way. Not that all people of this high class have the same knowledge or drive for learning as the intellectuals or that all intellectuals are of the same monetary level as the bourgeoisie but rather that they both see themselves as higher up and more advanced than others.
Their relationship as Molnar laid out advanced each other. The intellectuals power seeking mindset is blinded. By this, I mean that intellectuals would not see themselves as power-seeking or greedy but rather they would see themselves as motivated to learn and advance. In the time period in which Molnar wrote this, they would see more of a positive lens on what they do rather than a negative connotation.
When looking at intellectuals’ work we do need to look at them through a slightly different lens through which they view themselves. It is essential to see the world as they do to truly understand their work and how they fit into the social world, not just the intellectual realm. But in order to be critical of their work and of them, one can not look at everything the way that they do because then one too will become blinded and only see through one lens. To answer the second part of the question posed on the blog, yes this is the same for other objects of study. There will be no advancement in the world or righting wrongs if everyone thinks the same. In order to be challenged people need to know why you think the way you do and then push back and ask questions. In this instance diversity of thought becomes the most important. If the group of intellectuals is fading out of existence then that means there is no evolution to them and they have not adapted to the ever-changing world.
Something that I would like to discuss further in this course is why Humanistic intellectuals have become more alienated. Many groups feel as if they should be of a higher status than others and should have more power, and society feeds into that and allows them to do so. So my question is what makes these Humanistic intellectuals so different from the rest of the power-hungry? Is there a difference, or do we no longer value knowledge and look for charisma as a society? With these questions, I want to further understand the difference in which we weigh social groups and the reasoning behind it, especially if it is not due to social identifiers such as race/ ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Or are these reasons why this group of people has dwindled from our social world? Do they have anything in common besides their knowledge? Feel free to comment below or we can discuss it in class.