My reading list varies between that of a law professor, or graduate student in psychology or philosophy; so I'm not anti-knowledge. Yet I, like Gerry Spence, don't think highly of intellectuals. If you were going to run for political office, would you really care about what John Rawls had to say? If you were going to organize a society and listened to John Rawls, you'd have total collapose. Karl Marx, after all, was quite the intellectual. Anyone American readers want travel back in time to live in the Soviet Union; or to move to Communist China?
If you were going to invest your money, and you had listened to the pointy-head economists, you'd be in ruins. The economists are lining up to offer solutions to the economy's current problem; yet those same economists never even say the problem coming. So what good are they?
In a way, then, the debate between Platon and Aristotle will never die. Plato is fun to read, but he doesn't have much to offer one in how to live one's life. Aristotle, on the other hand, wrote the book on friends - why they are good, how to make them, and how to keep them. So, while I'll read Plato for pleasure, I'll recognize it as the intellectual hedonism that it is. Aristotle for the win.