New trend of Society: The Intellectual

Perhaps I'm missing something here but I consider a true intellectual as someone who:

Possesses insatiable curiosity AND the intellect to explore any known answer, absorb it, sift the plausible from the implausible, and then is capable of formulating his/her own plausible world view.

All others are pseudo intellectuals (wannabes).

Sofia-I hear what you are saying about people with limited ability, but wouldn't your above definition include a person of modest intellect, who uses the intelligence that he has to come to conclusions, rather than rely on emotion?

I think that in common parlance, when we speak of "intellectuals", we are referring to the philosophers, great thinkers, and rocket scientists of the world. It seems to me that this is a very small group of indivuduals, in terms of total population.

But what about the average guy, who relies on his cognitive abilities, to whatever extent he is able? I think that in a broader sense, we CAN consider these folks intellectuals.

As for the other part of your question concerning the "Trend" toward intellectualism:

I consider a true intellectual a fairly rare species----as the population increases so will the number of intellectuals but the percentage will remain constant IMHO.

Phoenix-- You are so right. I caught myself in my own smackdown.

I have changed my opinion a smidge.

I think Craven was right about intellectual 'capacity' not being criterion. Mayhap an intellectual is a practioner (at any level) of arriving at life's decisions, conclusions through logic and gathering knowledge, eshewing religion, creed, emotion, 'feeling' etc as planks in their decision-making process.

Cavewoman draw picture: Intellectualism does not equal intelligence attained, but methodology is decision making.

How many people here actually think that they are an intellectual?

I would say that I'm not.

Perhaps the world is becoming so dumbed down that a few choice people have observed that with merely average intelligence they can live like gods among the natives.....

or among the naive...

<smile> No apologies for being naive...

truth
This is a very difficult kind of problem. Are we are talking about definitions, or are we trying to uncover the essential nature of "the intellectual"? I tend to agree with Phoenix' discussion. But we must keep in mind that when we discuss the essential nature of something there was (if you'll excuse a little "origin myth" here) once a time an occassion when someone asked of another "What shall we call a young dog?" and the other answered, "How about 'puppy'?" Years later people try to figure out what is the essential nature of a puppy--i.e., "what is puppiness?"
I used to think that an intellectual is a member of society's "intelligencia", those who work at intellectual tasks (sorry to beg the question), usually as writers, teachers, journalists, scientists, etc. But I do think that many of the people in these forums are intellectuals in that they truly enjoy the exercise of their intelligence (whatever its level) in reading and answering IN WRITING theoretical issues with others. But, again, that's merely my slant on what I think SHOULD be the definition. Unfortunately, the dictionary is of no real help for those who are looking for essences; it only tells us what people have decided to call a young dog.

Bad dog!

Re: New trend of Society: The Intellectual

No.

Some very interesting comments concerning intellectual activities----Phoenix and Letty mentioned the ability to think in the abstract which I considered self evident but perhaps needs a review. The following is from the thinking of John Dewey, a very influential thinker on education, and is titled "from the concrete to the abstract"

http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/dewey/Dewey_1910a/Dewey_1910_j.html

Craven has the opinion that only curiosity is required and has nothing to do with ability.

I equate ability with intellectual capacity which we all have in varying degrees and I would present an example of what I mean. It seems that all great thinkers possess two separate qualities in common.
1. An insatiable curiosity at a very young age.
2. The mental capacity to devour and absorb knowledge. This requires a very special memory capacity AND the special ability to RECALL that memory. Memory is what limits each of us----with out memory we are vegetables walking around in a human shell. Memory is strictly a bioneurological function and is determined at birth by the genetic template which in turn determines the mix of chemicals that will control the ability of the brain to formulate memory AND to establish the tracks to recall that memory. That same genetic template also determines the amount of curiosity which triggers all intellectual activity.

JL's point about the participants of this forum engaging in intellectual activity, is well taken and can only improve the ability of each of us to broaden our horizens and to stimulate what intellectual capacity we possess. IMO however, merely engaging in intellectual activity does not make any of us a true intellectual. That title should be reserved for a rare few such as Noam Chomsky (I don't agree with his political views ) or a Steven Pinker, author of the "Blank Slate". There are many others of course but the sum total of intellectuals in any society IMO would be less than one half of one percent.

There was also reference to the ability to make common sense decisions. In what little study I have done in this regard, there seems to be little correlation between intellectual capacity and ability to make sound everyday decisions. We all know of brilliant people who cannot balance a checkbook or perform other everyday functions consistently. Letty mentioned an uncle who is a brilliant businessman but no intellectual. I would guess that it is only because his curiosity has not expanded to include ideas other than those needed to make money. He may have the mental capacity to become an intellectual but right now he is having too much fun making money. However as Phoenix mentioned, one must possess the innate need to examine ideas therefore in all probability he will never be curious about other ideas----perhaps when he has made all the money he feels he needs----he may then turn to intellectual pursuits.

truth
But Pacco looks like SUCH a good dog with his green ribbon. Merry Xmas, Osso.

I tend to align myself with Phoenix, Jl, Letty, and perception.

When I think of intellectuals, I think of those writers who have commented on our society and its institutions and government. The intellectual as I see him/her is a person conversant in a wide variety of knowledge and able to integrate that knowledge into some coherent view of, criticism of, or cogent comment upon our life in society, how it all works, and how it relates to other societies. I like to think of them as making their living in a more or less open market of ideas. My idea here is a little vague, but I'm thinking that I respect someone as an intellectual who sets forth his own ideas to be accepted or rejected by his peers and his general audience. In contrast to this I sight the scholar for heir. Someone employed by someone else to put into writing the thoughts of his employer. I acknowledge that there is no sharp distinction between the two.

I prefer to think in terms of degrees of intellectualism as well as in terms of real and pseudo intellectuals.

Examples:
George Orwell
H.L. Miencken
Joan Didion
Edmund Wilson
Mary McCarthy
Cynthia Ozick
Gore Vidal
W.H. Gass
Annie Dillard

This is a very short list and can be disputed.

There are a few people on AK2 that is think of as intellectuals in the above sense.

I concur. There are no intellectuals on this planet.

words
Intellectual is a word, it means nothing unless you give it substance.

An intellectual is nothing.
Without a subjective assumption nothing is.

I could call myself gay, call myself straight, call myself black, white, woman, male, but it doesn't gain any credence unless it is subjectively suggested and objectively reinforced.

With regards of calling a man a charlatan due to his transgressions of calling himself an Intellectual you give yourself too much authority, thus assuming you know something more than this man/woman, you know something personal about this person. Your direct or indirect distrust can only encourage conflict and competition, and after all an intellectual hates having smart combatants (but loves intelligent friends), allow the person speech, and decide after you have heard this harmful pollution, and never make your decision seem weighty.

Although, perhaps the idea of intellectualism is resurfacing solely due to the French's need for a new intelligence movement, Derrida's dead and Foucault has been before him…