Who is an intellectual?

[Unknown Pleasures]

This doesn't quite match up with what I said before, but I'm actually glad you can recognize that personalities as diametrically opposite as Peterson, Chomsky and Hitchens/Dawkins can all fall under the tent of intellectualism. Not a lot of observers can do that nowadays. And maybe there's some validity to the assertion that Shapiro's intellectualism is overrated due to the fact that he can genuinely overwhelm most commentators in a debate; certainly he'd end up burying the majority of left wing radio or YT shows in any kind of debate. Really, he could be arguing that gravity is a Satanic, godless concept and hold his own against a lot of them. Also, I would add that if he does not qualify as an intellectual, than naturally the hosts of the Young Turks or the Majority Report or other such podcasts wouldn't either.

Completely agree on your last sentence w.r.t. Young Turks. I don't know what the majority report is.

 

[emax]

This is one of my favorite statements. I've generally found it be true in almost every field of endeavor from sports to religion to the hard sciences.

And the thing is, going by that definition, as I noted before, even personalities as drastically different as Shapiro, Dawkins, Chomsky, Sowell, Peterson, Pinker, Harris and Hitchens can all fit under the mantle of advanced minds since all of them have shown ability, at one point or another, to seriously engage ideas and not just events or people.

 

[emax]

Completely agree on your last sentence w.r.t. Young Turks. I don't know what the majority report is.

This is the channel, basically a poor man's The Young Turks, so in terms of intellectualism, think TYT and dial it down a notch to get an idea.

 

[Phelly2]

That one person who says those things I like.

Right or left, or whatever your viewpoint, I think this is probably (unfortunately) the most accurate answer.

 

[WTF2008]

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.

We mostly get our information from the same place. It's not like any of us are investigative journalists risking our lives to out some scandal.

The smartest person in the world is retarded if he only has mainstream media to work with.

 

[TheComebackKid]

An intellectual is someone liberals agree with

 

[machidafan99]

If you have a pretentious looking avatar

 

[Possum Jenkins]

As usual, Chomsky is instructive. Here's his definition-



TL/DW: Intellectuals are people with enough privilege to influence public thought. For the most part, they've been servants of power in every society. Dissident intellectuals are either marginalized (in democracies) or straight up persecuted (in authoritarian ones).

 

[JonesBones]

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.

No. Steve Wozniak advanced things in his field and he is not intellectual at all. He cares nothing about intellectual topics. Look at his Twitter. It is all what he is eating or doing. He is not an intellectual person. Being good technically is not intellectual.


It has nothing to do with "advancing your field".

 

[Prokofievian]

No. Steve Wozniak advanced things in his field and he is not intellectual at all. He cares nothing about intellectual topics. Look at his Twitter. It is all what he is eating or doing. He is not an intellectual person. Being good technically is not intellectual.


It has nothing to do with "advancing your field".

What thing do we understand because of Wozniak that we didn't before Wozniak?

 

[JonesBones]

Oh and Freud is MOST CERTAINLY an intellectual. Fuckin christ. What plato said was a bunch of nonsense too. Does that make him not intellectua?

 

[JonesBones]

What thing do we understand because of Wozniak that we didn't before Wozniak?

He is a pioneer in his field of technology. He is an inventor.

 

[JonesBones]

And the thing is, going by that definition, as I noted before, even personalities as drastically different as Shapiro, Dawkins, Chomsky, Sowell, Peterson, Pinker, Harris and Hitchens can all fit under the mantle of advanced minds since all of them have shown ability, at one point or another, to seriously engage ideas and not just events or people.

They have sold books. That doesn't make them intellectuals. Richard Dawkins argues about what animals go to heaven on his Twitter. He picks the lowest fruit there is. I will give you that Pinker and Harris are more intellectual in that they actually think.

 

[JonesBones]

What thing do we understand because of Wozniak that we didn't before Wozniak?

Oh, I got another great example. Francis Collins. Not intellectual at all. There are a lot of people who advance their field and discover shit who aren't intellectual.

Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950) is an American physician-geneticist who discovered the genes associated with a number of diseases and lead the Human Genome Project. He is director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, United States.

 

[Prokofievian]

He is a pioneer in his field of technology. He is an inventor.

That's not really an answer. What thing do we understand because of Wozniak, that we didn't before Wozniak? If you can't boil his contributions down to a novel concept, then it's not really a compelling counter example.

 

[Prokofievian]

Oh, I got another great example. Francis Collins. Not intellectual at all. There are a lot of people who advance their field and discover shit who aren't intellectual.

Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950) is an American physician-geneticist who discovered the genes associated with a number of diseases and lead the Human Genome Project. He is director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, United States.

Why is Francis Collins not an intellectual?

 

[JonesBones]

Why is Francis Collins not an intellectual?

Have you ever heard him fuckin speak? lol. If you can't see why Collins isn't an intellectual we are not on the same page at all and this debate is fruitless.

He has no real interest in intellectualism. Somebody earlier said an intellectual is an avid reader. That is why Freud is an intellectual and Collins is not. Freud is 100 times the intellectual Collins is.

And what if Collins had the same credentials but never found genes or lead the project? Still an intellectual without those discoveries? Stupid criteria. You don't become an intellectual by finding something or discovering it. Einstein was an intellectual way before he did anything. It is a state of mind.

 

[Prokofievian]

Have you ever heard him fuckin speak? lol. If you can't see why Collins isn't an intellectual we are not on the same page at all and this debate is fruitless.

This debate is fruitless. I'm the only one bringing any kind of definition to the table. You're just listing people, and saying they're not intellectual.

If you can't answer the simple question ''why not?'' maybe you should sit this one out, or think about it a little bit more.

He has no real interest in intellectualism. Somebody earlier an intellectual is an avid reader. That is why Freud is an intellectual and Collins is not. Freud is 100 times the intellectual Collins is.

Super necessary ninja edit is super necessary.

An avid reader is not an intellectual. A reader of what? If I read a lot of Breitbart am I an intellectual? What if you read all kinds of stuff, and come away with an ass backwards understandings of them?

I can't think of any more of a ''participation medal'' criterion for an intellectual.

 

[JonesBones]

This debate is fruitless. I'm the only one bringing any kind of definition to the table. You're just listing people, and saying they're not intellectual.

If you can't answer the simple question ''why not?'' maybe you should sit this one out, or think about it a little bit more.



Super necessary ninja edit is super necessary.

An avid reader is not an intellectual. A reader of what? If I read a lot of Breitbart am I an intellectual? What if you read all kinds of stuff, and come away with an ass backwards understandings of them?

I can't think of any more of a ''participation medal'' criterion for an intellectual.

You said people have to make contributions to knowledge. We are not on the same page and I will end with saying Obama is more intellectual than Collins.

Why isn't Kirk Cameron an intellectual? Do I have to actually explain that to you? I won't waste my time since it is subjective and we are clearly far apart on what an intellectual is.

Francis Collins is Kirk Cameron in a lab coat.

 

[RubberGuard5]

Oh and Freud is MOST CERTAINLY an intellectual. Fuckin christ. What plato said was a bunch of nonsense too. Does that make him not intellectua?

I don't know, that's why I made this topic so we can figure out a definition.