Reply
Fri 19 Dec, 2003 03:44 pm
For the past few years now I've been noticing a steady increase in charlatans pronouncing themselves as "intellectuals". What exactly does it take to qualify as an intellectual? Simply thinking for yourself? Quick wits? An observant nature? Nowadays everyone conceives an intellectual as someone who simply has "knowledge" which has nothing to do with being an intellectual. And to boot, everyone is calling themselves intellectuals. If you go to college, and aren't a redneck who drives a truck, or a cheerleader, or a jock/preppy, it automatically means you're an "intellectual" because people have the misconception that jocks and cheerleaders comprise ninety percent of society. Last time I stopped and looked, when I was still in high school, at least four out of every five kids played computer games, or listened to "alternative" music. Has anyone else noticed this growing stupidity of naming yourself smart simply because you're different? Share your thoughts.
Depends on whether you think there is a benchmark for "smart" or whether it's graded on the curve.
If "smart" is to have any meaning it might have to be a differentiating factor and not all inclusive (which would render it meaningless).
In any case I don't notice many people naming themselves intellectuals.
Hey, KnightoftheNile, Welcome to A2K.
I have always considered an intellectual to be one who can think in the abstract. Perhaps you can answer this query that has haunted me for some time:
Have you ever come across a study that shows a negative correlation between intelligence and creativity.
Letty- I agree, but would expand on the definition. To me, an intellectual is one whose life is focused on that of ideas. He/she needs to be able to abstract well, but also needs to have a working knowledge of philosophy, politics, the arts, etc. and needs to be capable of discussing these subjects in a rational fashion.
A person can be smart, but that does not necessarily mean that he is an intellectual. I have an uncle, very shrewd, who made a fortune out of nothing. I don't know if he has ever read a book, or had a discussion of philosophy. He is a brilliant business man, but no way is he an intellectual.
On the other hand, you have people who read many books, have seen all the latest plays, and go to lectures on everything and anything, but do not have an original idea in their head. They parrot the latest "in" thing. They are the "pseudo-intellectuals", who possess more style than substance.
Well put, Phoenix. I have always thought that "cracker barrel" philosophers were intellectuals in a rural way. My father-in-law was a genius, but not what I consider an intellectual. He could design a machine in his mind and then build it, but his interpersonal skills were lacking...
Sooooooo. You're right--It a multi-colored concept.
You gotta at least consider the possibility, Knight, that if you are interested in finding out what an "intellectual" is...
...you may have come to the wrong place!
Well, at least Frank didn't throw down the gauntlet, Knight.
Re: New trend of Society: The Intellectual
KnightOfTheNile wrote:For the past few years now I've been noticing a steady increase in charlatans pronouncing themselves as "intellectuals".
Maybe the number of people claiming to be intellectuals is the same, but as you gain experience and wisdom, you simply recognize more of them as charlatans?
To me the word has to do with one's interest. Some shun learning, others don't.
To me "intellectual" has to do with curiosity and not ability.
Boy, do I agree with Craven.
I have many intellectual interests. I am mediocre in my ability to communicate about them coherently, probably because my interests are broad but I don't retain great swaths of information in detail, and while I do have a kind of outline in my brain for the information, I am fairly slow at accessing it.
I have a lot of curiosity. Because of my wide but fairly shallow knowledge I can and do see correlations between different subjects and enjoy doing that. I don't think intellectual is a negative adjective. As a noun, it can engender respect for the person, or not, depending on your point of view.
I think intellectuals are always learning, always review past conclusions based on new information, and vice versa. The intellectual life is a process. Many people take part in it, in a non-pseudo way.
An intellectual is nothing without wisdom.
I don't' agree. Wisdom is hard earned and one can participate in the intellectual process before getting to the step called wisdom. That participant is not nothing.
The participant isn't nothing, It's impossible for him to be an intellectual (in my own definition) without wisdom. You can know many, many things but you aren't an intellectual until you know how to use your knowledge. Otherwise, it's useless trivia bound for Jeopardy.
On top of needing wisdom, you must also have creativity. There is no use in being an intellectual if you are only repeating what other people have already said - wether you understand it or not. If you invent your own ideas, opinions, and theories - right or wrong - and you have the full manipulation of wisdom, then, and only then, may you be considered an intellectual.
Insomuch as wisdom isn't static, I can see your point. One person's wisdom is another's lack of it, generalizing of course.
An intellectual is anyone I conclude is smarter than me.
er, PDiddie, that should be "....smarter than I..." Does that make me an intellectual?
An intelligent person would be someone who intellectualizes, makes connections, remembers something from the past and connects it with something just noticed today to come up with something yet new.
They hold a vast amount of knowledge yet continue to slough off outdated superfluous information that clogs the brainwaves. They cease to believe what others say they are and become individuals.
An intellectual knows the art of searching the brain waves for that little bite of information to bring about a completion. You could say an intellectual knows the answer comes first, then seeks the question.
Something like that. Figure things out. Know the goal but complete the road map to it.
I think the 'curiosity' or 'search for knowledge' definition is wrong.
A person of limited understanding, or memory, or IQ could really be on a quest for greater understanding or enlightenment--and never make it past ...a high school level of knowledge.
Certainly, this person isn't an intellectual...?
I read the definition, and came to this conclusion.
It is someone, when faced with a decision, question, problem---employs reasoning and logic to the resolution, rather than feeling, creed, or emotion. Guess this is why religionists aren't considered intellectuals.
Letty wrote:er, PDiddie, that should be "....smarter than I..." Does that make me an intellectual?
Give that woman the gold star. :wink:
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace