No one attacks loose-thinking and folly with half the precision and zest of Thomas Szasz.
Liberalism has become a special kind of stupid, and it's on full display now, which I think ultimately has the potential to be a good thing.
Philosophy has its bugbears, as well as superstition.
I began demonstrating against serious culture. In hindsight, the actual course of events has been very humiliating for me, because no one picked up on the intellectual critique I made.
It is scarcely a mark of intellectual profundity to have noticed that our society is big.
Revisionism is a healthy historiographical process, and no one, not even revisionists, should be exempt from it.
Even now, the irony that so non-intellectual a man should choose to engage the Soviet Union on the battlefield of ideas has eluded most commentators and historians.
My favorite definition of an intellectual: 'Someone who has been educated beyond his/her intelligence'.
The assumption that Derrida always knows what he is talking about is not Derridean.
Professors of theory merely hold post-mortems.
The avocation of assessing the failures of better men can be turned into a comfortable livelihood, providing you back it up with a Ph.D.
In its artless cruelty, Dallas is superior to any "intelligent" critique that can be made of it. That is why intellectual snobberymeets its match here.
I look at 'The New York Review of Books.' It's what it has been for 35 or 40 years, which is a highly sophisticated vehicle for anti-American self-hatred.
It would have more meaning for me to hear what critics have to say if their values and their ways of living were deeper and more serious.
