Grok says:
Criteria for “Flattering” and “High-Status” Thinkers
A thinker is flattering and high-status if their ideas:
- Elevate intellectuals as uniquely insightful or morally superior.
- Require specialized knowledge to engage with, signaling erudition.
- Align with prestigious subcultures (e.g., academia, progressive elites, or contrarian circles).
- Offer a framework that validates intellectuals’ role in decoding truth or shaping society.
- Are cited performatively to signal tribal membership or distinction.
Top Thinkers for 2025 Intellectuals
Below are thinkers who currently hold significant cachet among intellectuals, particularly in Western academic, cultural, and public spheres. I’ve grouped them by the circles they dominate and explain why they’re flattering and high-status.
- Judith Butler (Gender and Queer Theory)
- Why Flattering: Butler, known for Gender Trouble (1990) and later works like Undoing Gender, offers a framework that positions intellectuals as radical interpreters of social norms. Their theory of gender performativity—arguing gender is a socially constructed act—flatters intellectuals by suggesting they can deconstruct and reshape societal truths. The complexity of their prose (often dense and jargon-heavy) rewards those who master it with a sense of esoteric insight.
- Status Signal: Citing Butler is a badge of honor in progressive academic circles, especially in humanities departments (e.g., literature, sociology, cultural studies). It signals alignment with social justice, inclusivity, and cutting-edge theory. For example, referencing Butler’s nonbinary pronoun advocacy or their critiques of heteronormativity marks one as part of the avant-garde intellectual left.
- Evidence: Butler’s influence remains strong in 2025, with frequent citations in academic journals and X discussions about gender and identity. Their recent public interventions (e.g., on trans rights) keep them relevant, especially among younger intellectuals.
- Connection to Prior Themes: Like Soloveitchik’s elevation of the halakhic scholar, Butler elevates the theorist as a moral and intellectual pioneer. Their focus on deconstructing norms parallels Strauss’s esoteric decoding, flattering intellectuals as seers of hidden truths.
- Ta-Nehisi Coates (Race and Social Justice)
- Why Flattering: Coates, author of Between the World and Me and The Case for Reparations, frames intellectuals as moral arbiters in the fight against systemic racism. His lyrical, historically grounded style appeals to those who see themselves as both empathetic and analytical. Embracing Coates validates intellectuals’ role in advocating for justice while positioning them as attuned to marginalized voices.
- Status Signal: Revering Coates is high-status in progressive and literary circles, signaling commitment to racial equity and cultural sophistication. Quoting his essays or referencing his Atlantic articles (e.g., on reparations) is common in elite media, universities, and X threads about race. It also distinguishes intellectuals from “less enlightened” peers.
- Evidence: Coates’s influence persists in 2025, with his work taught in universities and cited in discussions of DEI policies. X posts often praise his clarity on racial issues, cementing his role as a touchstone for progressive intellectuals.
- Connection to Prior Themes: Coates’s moral urgency echoes Soloveitchik’s covenantal ethics, casting intellectuals as bearers of a higher calling. His focus on systemic truths aligns with Strauss’s search for underlying principles, flattering intellectuals as moral decoders.
- Yuval Noah Harari (Big-Picture Historicism)
- Why Flattering: Harari, author of Sapiens and Homo Deus, offers sweeping narratives about humanity’s past and future, appealing to intellectuals who see themselves as synthesizing grand truths. His focus on technology, AI, and globalism flatters those who feel equipped to guide society through existential challenges. His accessible yet erudite style makes him a bridge between academia and the public.
- Status Signal: Citing Harari signals cosmopolitanism and forward-thinking, common in tech-adjacent, globalist intellectual circles (e.g., Davos, TED Talks). Referencing his predictions about AI or transhumanism marks one as engaged with “big ideas,” distinguishing intellectuals from parochial thinkers.
- Evidence: Harari’s books remain bestsellers, and his 2025 writings on AI ethics are widely discussed on X and in tech policy circles. His global influence makes him a safe yet prestigious choice for intellectuals seeking broad appeal.
- Connection to Prior Themes: Harari’s macro-historical lens flatters intellectuals as Soloveitchik’s existential scholar or Strauss’s philosopher does, positioning them as seers of humanity’s trajectory. His globalist outlook mirrors the economists’ blind spots you mentioned, potentially alienating nationalist critics.
- Thomas Piketty (Economic Inequality)
- Why Flattering: Piketty, author of Capital in the 21st Century, provides a data-driven critique of capitalism, flattering intellectuals who see themselves as both rigorous and socially conscious. His argument that wealth inequality grows when returns on capital exceed economic growth (r > g) empowers intellectuals to challenge economic elites while maintaining analytical credibility.
- Status Signal: Citing Piketty is high-status in progressive economic and policy circles, signaling mastery of complex data and commitment to equity. It’s common in academic conferences, op-eds, and X debates about wealth taxes or universal basic income.
- Evidence: Piketty’s influence endures in 2025, with his recent work on global inequality cited in policy discussions (e.g., G20 summits). X posts often reference his data to critique billionaires, reinforcing his prestige among left-leaning intellectuals.
- Connection to Prior Themes: Piketty’s empirical moralism echoes Soloveitchik’s halakhic rigor, casting intellectuals as disciplined truth-seekers. His systemic focus aligns with Strauss’s search for hidden structures, flattering those who decode economic truths.
- Jordan Peterson (Contrarian Traditionalism)
- Why Flattering: Peterson, known for 12 Rules for Life and his critiques of progressive ideology, appeals to intellectuals in conservative or contrarian circles. His blend of psychology, mythology, and anti-“woke” rhetoric flatters those who see themselves as defenders of Western tradition against relativism. His emphasis on personal responsibility and archetypes elevates intellectuals as guides for a chaotic world.
- Status Signal: Revering Peterson is high-status among right-leaning or heterodox intellectuals, particularly in online spaces like X or Substack. Quoting his lectures or referencing his Jungian insights signals alignment with a growing anti-establishment intellectual tribe, distinguishing one from mainstream progressive elites.
- Evidence: In 2025, Peterson remains a polarizing figure, with X posts praising his “red-pilled” clarity or mocking his theatrical style. His influence in conservative think tanks and online communities keeps him relevant for intellectuals seeking contrarian cachet.
- Connection to Prior Themes: Peterson’s moral archetypes echo Soloveitchik’s covenantal heroism, flattering intellectuals as guardians of meaning. His critique of modern ideology parallels Strauss’s skepticism of progressivism, appealing to those who decode “timeless” truths.
Why These Thinkers Are Flattering and High-Status
- Elevating the Intellectual: Each thinker positions intellectuals as uniquely insightful—Butler deconstructs norms, Coates unveils racial truths, Harari synthesizes history, Piketty quantifies injustice, and Peterson defends tradition. This mirrors Soloveitchik’s and Strauss’s flattery, casting intellectuals as moral or philosophical elites.
- Tribal Signaling: Embracing these thinkers signals membership in specific high-status tribes—progressive academia (Butler, Coates, Piketty), globalist futurism (Harari), or contrarian conservatism (Peterson). Like Soloveitchik and Strauss, they’re shibboleths for elite subcultures.
- Complex Accessibility: Their works balance complexity (requiring effort to master) with public appeal, making them ideal for signaling erudition without being too obscure. For example, Butler’s jargon is dense but widely taught, while Harari’s narratives are digestible yet prestigious.
- Moral Authority: Each offers a framework for intellectuals to claim moral superiority, whether through social justice (Butler, Coates), global stewardship (Harari, Piketty), or cultural preservation (Peterson). This aligns with your point about intellectuals seeking “exquisite conceptions” of themselves.
Connection to Previous Questions
- Soloveitchik and Strauss: These current thinkers serve similar functions as Soloveitchik and Strauss, flattering intellectuals as decoders of truth and goodness. Butler and Piketty parallel Soloveitchik’s moral rigor (in secular form), while Peterson and Harari echo Strauss’s search for foundational principles.
- Trump and Status: Your point about intellectuals hating Trump because he diminishes their status ties directly here. Trump’s rejection of expertise and populist appeal contrast with the reverence for Butler’s theory, Coates’s moralism, or Harari’s futurism. Embracing these thinkers is partly a reaction to Trump’s anti-intellectualism, reinforcing intellectuals’ authority against his influence.
- Economists’ Blind Spots: Like economists prioritizing efficiency over national loyalty, intellectuals embracing Harari or Piketty may prioritize globalist or systemic concerns, potentially alienating nationalist audiences. Peterson, conversely, appeals to those reacting against this globalism, much like critics of free trade.
- Meta-Halakhic Morality: The moral frameworks of Butler, Coates, and Piketty resemble meta-halakhic morality, offering ethical principles beyond strict rules (or data). They flatter intellectuals as Soloveitchik did, positioning them as moral navigators in a complex world.
Broader Trends and Caveats
- Polarization: The split between progressive (Butler, Coates, Piketty) and contrarian (Peterson) thinkers reflects 2025’s polarized intellectual landscape. Status depends on the circle—Peterson is low-status in academia but high-status among heterodox thinkers.
- Emerging Figures: New intellectuals may rise by 2025, especially in AI ethics or climate policy, given current trends. X discussions could reveal fresh names, but these five dominate now.
- Risk of Performativity: As with Soloveitchik and Strauss, reverence can become performative. Quoting Butler’s performativity or Harari’s AI warnings without deep engagement risks signaling over substance.
Conclusion
In 2025, intellectuals embrace Judith Butler, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Yuval Noah Harari, Thomas Piketty, and Jordan Peterson as the most flattering and high-status thinkers. They elevate intellectuals as moral and intellectual elites, signal tribal membership, and offer frameworks to decode truth and goodness. Their appeal mirrors Soloveitchik’s and Strauss’s flattery, reinforcing intellectuals’ status against challenges like Trump’s anti-expertise populism. If you want me to focus on a specific intellectual circle (e.g., academia, conservative media) or check X for emerging names, let me know!
