The search for meaning has long consumed the minds of generations. English professors will teach students that writers such as Eliot and Joyce were searching for new philosophies at a time of secularisation and the fall of empires. Their era played on people’s survival instincts, after life as they knew it in WWII was destroyed. In the aftermath of such catastrophic destruction, an intrinsic urge led people to create anew, so as not to die with their counterparts.
From the ashes of WWII emerged major intellectual figures across philosophy, psychology, science, and the arts. Thinking and inventions were celebrated. Sartre’s ideas were appearing in newspapers, with Simone de Beauvoir and Albert Camus writing and staging plays within the same circle. What they were offering was not necessarily perfect – but it was new. Collectively, movements such as the Gaelic revival in Ireland and the Harlem Renaissance in the United States produced important works in each nation. But where have all these thinkers gone? What has happened tothe collective emphasis on knowledge?
Were these intellectuals eradicated by the dawn of social media and replaced by debaters and podcasters who thrive in controversy and clickbait? One could argue that we have reached the same historical benchmark as our great-grandparents, or that we are still in the same sociohistorical period as they were. No matter the viewpoint on this, one thing is sure: the prominence of intellectual leadership in the war and post-war period was a result of the need for a new intellectual and political order. Whereas our stage in time still seems to be one of destruction and decline.
It would be ignorant not to mention the many great books that are still written, such as…….., which attempt to capture and interpret the world we live in. People on social media and in writing continue to positively contribute to their respective media through their thoughts and critiques of society and culture. However, unless you actively read newspapers or literary magazines, it would be difficult to name many great thinkers of today. The people in the spotlight are those who amass millions of views with their controversial opinions towards issues such as abortion rights and gun laws.
Credibility Issues of Our Age: The Dismantling of the Institution
It must be said that the public intellectual depends on the trust of the public. Such is the case with Noam Chomsky, a widely respected linguist and political commentator. The first result that appears beside his name when you search for him on Google is no longer one of his books but his link to Jeffrey Epstein. This has overshadowed his scholarship and complicated his public image. When a prominent figure becomes associated with a scandal or compromised morality, the damage often extends beyond the individual and reflects on the broader institutions they represent. The distance between the figure and the citizens widens when they no longer seem to share the concerns or the experiences of ordinary people. The very idea of the public intellectual cannot function without the public’s respect and trust.
Social Reverberations of 21st Century Nihilism
The College Tribune discussed intellectual leadership with UCD students, intending to question how we form personal philosophies in times of little intellectual leadership.
Hugo Sánchez, a Stage 2 English Literature student, discussed how a lot of modern thought comes from popular culture. In later decades of the 20th century, it was rock ’n’ roll that gave people a philosophical direction. It came with a lot of questionable practices like drug use, but it gave people hope and a belief system.
Nowadays, popular culture operates mainly online. There is a strong sense of humorous nihilism expressed through memes, short-term jokes, and allusions. Anything and anyone can be satirised on the internet, such as Slavoj Žižek, a philosopher who was mocked and mimicked for his recognisable tone and mannerisms. On the one hand, humour is a healthy coping mechanism, but that is also the problem. Building worldviews should be about creativity and revelation, and not about dismissing somebody’s words for a couple of laughs.
Many adamant professionals are positioned on the conservative side of the spectrum. Ben Shapiro uses spectacle and shock value to emphasise his arguments and create lip service from them. While these clips and videos constantly go viral online, they are brief and lack nuance or any contrasting arguments, therefore lacking the characteristics essential to public debate. Jordan Peterson, a trained clinical psychologist and writer, perpetuates arguments such as the non-existence of the gender pay gap. In a 2018 Channel 4 interview, he even said that women should just “assert themselves” and fight for their wage raises.
Mark O’Flaherty*, a Stage 2 English and History student, discussed his thoughts surrounding Adam Curtis, a linguist and documentary filmmaker. He researches how contemporary people gather information in segments and pieces due to the massive volume of information. He calls this “data fragmentation” and explains that it creates echo chambers for people, which makes it very easy to exist in an ignorant information bubble. However, consuming fragments of facts in many areas of thought can also reveal fundamental truths and connections between the human and scientific world. Therefore, Curtis’ point stands out more in light of the widespread lack of critical thinking in data consumption than in the fragmentary nature of analysis and philosophising.
As we face global political instability, perhaps we may also witness a new era of human knowledge. However, this thought is not one of great promise as transformations in intellectualism often require a political restructuring. A restructuring that could cause immense destruction. Perhaps we should hope for a gradual transformation in intellectualism rather than a whole new way of thinking.
*Name changed for anonymity.
By Sarah-Grace Reilly, Contributor and Maya Diakova, Features Editor