Who is an intellectual?

[RubberGuard5]

In the war room there is a lot of talk about "real" and "fake" intellectuals, pseudo intellectuals, good and bad intellectuals and such. However, I don't think I've ever seen anybody provide a specific definition of what an intellectual is, so that we can determine if a said person truly qualifies to hold such a title. So my questions are:

Can you define what an intellectual is, but using specific objective criteria? More importantly, can you include criteria and examples of what excludes someone from being considered an intellectual?
Can you give examples of someone you consider to be an intellectual and give examples how they fit in your definition?
Can you give examples of someone that is often considered an intellectual by (part of) the public, but not by you? Again, give examples how their actions are contrary to your definition.

 

[Neph]

There's no real objective measurement of an intellectual as it literally means someone of high intellect. I suppose you might argue it knocks out those below 100 IQ, and likely 115 and 130 as they are the first and second standard deviations from the mean.

In the end it's just a word for a smart person. PS you misspelled the title. Edit: Fixed now

 

[tonni]

That one person who says those things I like.

 

[Bullitt68]

There's no real objective measurement of an intellectual as it literally means someone of high intellect.

That's just one way of using the term "intellectual."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/intellectual?s=t

I think more relevant are numbers 7 and 9 there, "a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, especially on an abstract and general level" and "a person professionally engaged in mental labor, as a writer or teacher."

If you're working from the above, then it starts to get a lot easier to sift through the Petersons and the Saads and the Shapiros and the Crowders and the Milos and all the rest. Just to use that recent Crowder thread and the side debates in there of whether or not Crowder and Shapiro qualify as intellectuals (or, if they do, if they're on the same "level" or if they're the same "kind" of intellectual), I think it's safe to say that Shapiro is an intellectual (because he writes and speaks in a way that demonstrates his own quest for knowledge and that demonstrates a desire to impart knowledge [whatever you may think of how he actually goes about his quest or of what specifically he's trying to impart]) and Crowder isn't (because he conducts himself as a provocateur/entertainer).

That one person who says those things I like.

This is what should be the #1 definition there on dictionary.com

 

[Prokofievian]

An intellectual is someone who significantly advances human understanding in their field. A public intellectual is first and foremost an intellectual, as previously defined, who uses their clout, and possibly their theories to influence society.

 

[Billy no mates]

I am .

 

[emax]

Discussion of ideas can theoretically count. Since Shapiro, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Jordan Peterson, Doug Murray, Stephen Pinker and Daniel Dennett are discussing idea,s all of them can go in some sort of broad tent of intellectualism. Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people and so on. Breaking it down, though, Shapiro, Sam Harris, Dawkins and Dennett are often going after what are now established as low hanging fruit, religious literalists and obnoxious youth activists. And Shapiro's book titles do suggest he's going after a political pundit route more than truly philosphically deep material. But all of them can do proper dissections of political, religious and cultural concepts. And above them would then sit Noam Chomsky and Thomas Sowell who are particularly advanced in how they can use hard evidence to make cases for certain ideas. As for Crowder, he along with Milo and the wave of third wave feminists on the opposite side of the spectrum are more or less political and social Howard Sterns or Bubble the Love Sponges. All of them are largely focused on going after people instead of concepts, and all of them can make you cringe in huge way with how badly they mess up important topics. Crowder stands out because he does have awareness than he's an entertainment provocateur and not an intellectual and is skilled at rolling with it. That's at least part of why he's currently leaving most other YT and radio hosts in the dust, his subscriber list is at over a million and a half subscribers without being nearly as established as other radio and internet shows. I mean, he's got the Young Turks pretty soundly beat in terms of following relative to how long he's been established.

 

[TheTimeIsNotNow]

Partisan hack that uses big words

 

[RubberGuard5]

An intellectual is someone who significantly advances human understanding in their field. A public intellectual is first and foremost an intellectual, as previously defined, who uses their clout, and possibly their theories to influence society.

Where would you draw the line of what is a significant advancement?

In a way I agree that is a neccesary condition, but I don't think it's sufficient. For example, Freud absolutely did that, but when you read how he got to his conclusions, it's bunch of nonsense. He didn't engage in critical thinking, he just used logical fallacies to fit the data in his theory. He was lucky enough that some of his ideas were actually good, but he was wrong a lot. And this isn't rare in science, a lot of breakthroughs were made by people that later refused to drop their theories in the face of the other ones that explain the data better.

So I don't think a single advancement gives you a title of an intellectual for the rest of your life, because you can easily behave in an non-intellectual way in other areas of science or life.

What do you think?

 

[loyalyolayal]

Commies.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I would say anyone who pursues knowledge for its own sake.

 

[Billy no mates]

I would say anyone who pursues knowledge for its own sake.

That's me to a T , I know shitloads about Pokemon .

 

[Armbars]

"The guy i agree with"
People are far too ignorant to respect the words of a man they don't agree with.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

That's me to a T , I know shitloads about Pokemon .

Liar! Shenanigans forever!!

 

[salamander]

Someone who gets paid to not actually work a real job.

 

[Madmick]

A professional reader.

 

[Last Samurai]

I have a functioning head


if that counts

 

[Prokofievian]

Where would you draw the line of what is a significant advancement?

In a way I agree that is a neccesary condition, but I don't think it's sufficient. For example, Freud absolutely did that, but when you read how he got to his conclusions, it's bunch of nonsense. He didn't engage in critical thinking, he just used logical fallacies to fit the data in his theory. He was lucky enough that some of his ideas were actually good, but he was wrong a lot. And this isn't rare in science, a lot of breakthroughs were made by people that later refused to drop their theories in the face of the other ones that explain the data better.

So I don't think a single advancement gives you a title of an intellectual for the rest of your life, because you can easily behave in an non-intellectual way in other areas of science or life.

What do you think?

I really don't know enough about Freud to comment intelligently about him. So I'll comment on the bolded.

Significant progress in any field is often met with great resistance, and at some point, you will likely encounter more convincing counter evidence than you have proof for your assertions. Scientific breakthroughs don't often happen in isolated Eureka moments. At some point, you'll likely just be pursuing a conjecture, or a hypothesis that honestly seems hopeless. Belief, even irrational belief, is necessary for the breakthrough in this case. Passionless, cold logic alone won't do. You have to have some reason to pursue your wild ideas. As an example, I'd give Sir Andrew Wiles. He undertook great personal risk in pursuing that problem. It was entirely possible, likely even, that it would have given him nothing.

People behaving in ''non-intellectual'' ways later in life, or in other aspects of life is therefore, IMO, an artifact of what made them intellectuals in the first place.

As for what makes someone's contributions significant, I would say that it either creates a new major domain in their field (for example, behavioural economics, or neurolinguistics, or galois theory), or resolves/ends a major problem in a field/that field entirely, or serves as a critical link to one of those events.

 

[Leonard Haid]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual

 

[Bullitt68]

An intellectual is someone who significantly advances human understanding in their field. A public intellectual is first and foremost an intellectual, as previously defined, who uses their clout, and possibly their theories to influence society.

I really don't know enough about Freud to comment intelligently about him. So I'll comment on the bolded.

Significant progress in any field is often met with great resistance, and at some point, you will likely encounter more convincing counter evidence than you have proof for your assertions. Scientific breakthroughs don't often happen in isolated Eureka moments. At some point, you'll likely just be pursuing a conjecture, or a hypothesis that honestly seems hopeless. Belief, even irrational belief, is necessary for the breakthrough in this case. Passionless, cold logic alone won't do. You have to have some reason to pursue your wild ideas. As an example, I'd give Sir Andrew Wiles. He undertook great personal risk in pursuing that problem. It was entirely possible, likely even, that it would have given him nothing.

People behaving in ''non-intellectual'' ways later in life, or in other aspects of life is therefore, IMO, an artifact of what made them intellectuals in the first place.

As for what makes someone's contributions significant, I would say that it either creates a new major domain in their field (for example, behavioural economics, or neurolinguistics, or galois theory), or resolves/ends a major problem in a field/that field entirely, or serves as a critical link to one of those events.

Much like @RubberGuard5, I kind of want to press you on this. This sounds more like what you'd have to consider to determine not if someone is an intellectual but if they're a good or great or important or revolutionary intellectual.* In short, what you're discussing seems more to be how you'd describe/rank/categorize/evaluate intellectuals than strictly defining them.

*Not to mention that bringing up "fields" makes it sound (especially in your second post there) like you don't think that anyone should be classified as an intellectual unless they're also an academic, and it's not obvious to me why that should be the case. Would you deny someone like Emerson or Coleridge the title of intellectual just because they made their careers outside the academy?