Are we at CFC Intellectuals?

[sanabas]

A the logcial fallacy is one of making out that you must not be an intelectual if you cannot convince someone you are,so case closed, I even put up the definition of non sequitor, but sadly downtown chose to play dumb.


It doesn't matter what he meant, it's a logical fallacy to assume someone isn't an intelectual just because someone else: fifty says so or he thinks you need to be able to convince people or you need to be able to spell, Mob Boss's entire contribution is essential a matter of his opinion, thus it's pinch of salt time, not to mention the swathes of logical fallacies such as redefining the word intelectual as meaning someone who reads books, where to begin.

Can we have a translation into english, please? I can't work out what you're trying to say, it's coming across as mostly gibberish. You still seem to have missed the point, as well. But I will try and put Downtown's original statement as a logical argument, that way you can deconstruct it, and point out exactly where the fallacy occurs, and exactly what the fallacy is.

A: Bob is an intellectual
B: Bob's words, thoughts & actions convince others he is an intellectual
C: Bob needs to convince others he is an intellectual by telling them he is, as they do not see him as one.
A->B
Therefore ~B->~A (not B implies not A)
C->~B (If others do not see Bob as an intellectual, his words, thoughts and actions haven't convinced them.)
C->~B->~A
Therefore C->~A.
C->~A means that if Bob needs to convince others he's an intellectual, he is not one. That's what the original statement said.

Please point out the fallacy, and tell me which fallacy it was.

I think I've made a solid case in defense of the word intelectual and myself as one, and frankly since I made the assertion I have seen no reason to be disuaded from it, other than fifty acting like a five year old as usual.

And Sanabas as long as you make it clear your defintition is false I couldn't care less, really.

Under the definition I am an intellectual. That is all there is to it. This is sophistry and fifty's contribution isn't even worthy of that term as by assosciation we'd be making equal to a sophist which as far as I can tell he doesn't warrant from the contributions on this thread.

Now can we proceed with the most widely used definition or does someone else want to redefine the word?

I couldn't find the definition you're using within this thread, so I went to the dictionary. Since you're describing yourself as an intellectual, you must be using it as a noun. So, the definitions are:

6. a person of superior intellect.
7. 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, esp. on an abstract and general level.
8. an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings.
9. a person professionally engaged in mental labor, as a writer or teacher.

Which of those applies to you?

And Sanabas as long as you make it clear your defintition is false I couldn't care less, really.

Why would I make it clear my definition is false? When I use 'intellectual' as a noun, I use it in the sense of 'one whose intellect I respect', which essentially comes from #6 and #8 out of the dictionary. What's false about it?

 

[Mise]

Incidentally, I don't think I agree with #8. I don't see why an intellectual cannot also listen to their hearts. In fact, I can't think of a single great thinker who were not also very emotional. Many pursued these emotions just as strongly as those who utilised pure reason.

 

[Sidhe]

I don't understand why you need it spelt out since you know perfectly well what a non sequitor is? Is there no logic in a logic class these days, or are you not allowed to perform abstractions from words yourself?

If A is true, then B is true.
B is stated to be true.
Therefore, A must be true

If you can't make someone believe you are an intellectual, you aren't.

or equally false.

If you can make someone believe you are an intellectual you are.

in a simillar vain:-

An intellectual is someone who reads books.

The defintion of intellectual is whatever the hell I want it to be therefore x.

And let's keep it on topic or specify a definition as not referring to the thread topic; the thread says do you consider the subjective CFC forums participants as intellectuals according to the wiki article, which clearly outlines the definition in a rather historical sense, but since I'd fit in there as well regardless of the fancifull definitions some people are making up, it's irrelevant.

He isnt talking about you, he's talking about Decart. Can you demonistrate, in say, standard form, why this is a "logical falacy"? Also, which falacy is it?

Again why it's perfectly clear what a non sequitor is and it's perfectly defined a couple of posts later? Is this an example of reasoned thinking? Because God forbid, if I ever take a logic class I forgo the abstractions that all thought requires?

And anyway this was clearly done by Brenan, so I'm assuming you missed it.

If you have to convince people you're an intellectual...you're not an intellectual.

Non-sequitur.

 

[sanabas]

Incidentally, I don't think I agree with #8. I don't see why an intellectual cannot also listen to their hearts. In fact, I can't think of a single great thinker who were not also very emotional. Many pursued these emotions just as strongly as those who utilised pure reason.

Sure. But usually when they're putting forth arguments, they rely on intellect over emotion.

@Sidhe: You are still missing the distinction between B & C in the last post I made. There is a difference between people being convinced you're an intellectual without you explaining it to them, and you needing to explain to them why you are.

I just read the wiki page referred to in the OP as well. It is badly written, not very coherent, and has spelling & grammatical errors too.

It is within human nature for one of [intellect] seeks another with the same intellectual level. Fact or [myth]?-All marriage counselors can state the same thing. "Fact" is this idea was a veiw point brought about by [Marx] himself.As humans- the smartest of all species, with the most mental capacity; seeks knowledge (intellect). One may say that a [relationship] has gone "spoil" because the spouse was lacking something. Few can put their hands on it... "my husband is missing something","its not there any more" are all things couples say on the brink of divorce. A proffessional marriage councelor can address this issue and announce that the problem is the intellect shared between the two is unbalanced. Furthermore, it is evident a math proffessor will have less or no attraction at all to some one with a fourth grade education. Attraction of the mind is the [attraction] a decade of marriage thrive off to stay afloat. Invigorating conversation on a saturday is what a woman in mid thirties+ looks for. Ideas, thoughts, and [beliefs] shared on the first date is what an intellectual person notice most about the opposite sex. Fact or [fiction]? ask your self-.. am I intellectual? Then you will find that you bond most with some one on your intellectual level.

But assuming I accept what's in the wiki as gospel, and not as 'fancifull definitions some people are making up', which of the 3 definitions listed in wiki, or the 4 listed in the dictionary, apply to you?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

On Sidhe and logic...

You annoy me with your word salad. Perhaps it will become clearer once I demonstrate which system of logic I am using. Certainly it will become clearer if you demonstrate that you understand this system of logic.

[snip examples of implications and laws of logic]

Well in that case you should make it clear this is hypothetical and does not apply to any real philosophical debate. In fact it is a fabrication pure and simple. Fair enough. Given that faries don't exist.



I'm glad I don't study logic and have no wish too, if it's a simple matter of engineering everything into tight little definitions, oh if only the world was so simple.

 

[brennan]

Therefore ~B->~A (not B implies not A)

This is what Gogf was saying, that in order to class as an intellectual you have to prove it to others. I do not see why this has to be the case, why does being an intellectual require the opinion of others?

 

[Sidhe]

On Sidhe and logic...

I see you don't put it in context, Erik proved free will did not exist by logical means and I called him on it, I stand by that, your conclusion was full of it and you knew it? It only worked in logic world not in the real world, thus as far as I;'m concerned it's like any logic problem, not applicable to anything but logic problems.

I have proven that your logic doesnt apply to reality, therefore only in Erik world had you proven anything beyond an ability to make things somewhat equal that weren't? Assuming even you had which is debateable.

And what is your point anyway? I am right am I not the above was a non sequitor. Sanabas it's a non sequitor give it up.

Now if the general bully squad has finished embarassing themselves can we move on?

Since I'm studying at a University and have a qualification from a University, I would place myself as a literati, enough for you? In the same way Dostoyevski did, not because he was famous, this is before his fame, but because he was a student. in those days the literati in Russia were those in further Education, usually from the middle or upper classes.

And agreed the article is rubbish, but the definition is the definition, can we stop playing word games and move on?

lit·e·ra·ti
persons of scholarly or literary attainments; intellectuals.
[Origin: 1615&#8211;25; < L l&#299;ter&#257;ti learned, scholarly people, n. use of pl. of l&#299;ter&#257;tus. See

Now can we move on or not?

I have a bag of qualifications, and I'm studying for a degree, I have a keen interest in all things philosophical and I like debate, I am always looking to expand my learning? So what am I.

Since I have a qualification from a University I'm also allowed to put some rather stupid letters after my name but I wouldn't even if I had my physics degree.

How far do you want to stretch the term intellectual away from what it actually is, a student or scholar, a person studying an abstract subject or complicated one, a seeker of knowledge, etc etc, now just accept reality or not either way I can live without it.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I see you don't put it in context, Erik proved free will

The context was statements about morality, not free will. I still have the messages.

Since I'm studying at a university, I would place myself as a literati, enough for you?

E-penis length contest, is it?

Spoiler :

I got into university when I was 16, and I'm still studying!

Now if the general bully squad has finished embarassing themselves can we move on?

Two words: Martyr complex.

You seem to be embarassing yourself.

 

[Sidhe]

The context was statements about morality, not free will. I still have the messages.

E-penis length contest, is it?

Spoiler :

I got into university when I was 16, and I'm still studying!

Two words: Martyr complex.

You seem to be embarassing yourself.

I don't even understand this?

What are you blathering about?

I don't see what bearing you studying has on the literal interpritation here, can you kindly stop making stuff up that has nothing to do with anything?

Oh that's right morality and it was still full of it, go ahead put it up. Eriks definition of logic is anything that can't be applied in the real world is logical. In other words if he says it's hypothetically true then it must be.

 

[brennan]

The context was statements about morality, not free will. I still have the messages.

E-penis length contest, is it?

Spoiler :

I got into university when I was 16, and I'm still studying!

Two words: Martyr complex.

You seem to be embarassing yourself.

Can we please cut out this personal ****. This thread is turning into nothing more than a slanging match.

 

[Sidhe]

Seconded you completely failed to stick with the points I raised instead simply resorting to name calling. I suggest we lock this thread before the children get back, this is embarrassing to assosciate with people who can't keep a conversation civil, without hurling abuse around, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves, you know who you are.

I couldn't find the definition you're using within this thread, so I went to the dictionary. Since you're describing yourself as an intellectual, you must be using it as a noun. So, the definitions are:

6. a person of superior intellect.
7. 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, esp. on an abstract and general level.
8. an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings.
9. a person professionally engaged in mental labor, as a writer or teacher.

Which of those applies to you?

We've done this already, if your going to take part in an argument that refers to previous post, read them. This has been done ad infinitum, not my problem if your too lazy to read the thread.

 

[sanabas]

We've done this already, if your going to take part in an argument that refers to previous post, read them. This has been done ad infinitum, not my problem if your too lazy to read the thread.

I searched all 14 pages, I couldn't find it. Care to give me a post number?

as far as I;'m concerned it's like any logic problem, not applicable to anything but logic problems.

If you're going to take part in an argument about logic, learn logic. The above quote indicates you have very little grasp of it.

And what is your point anyway? I am right am I not the above was a non sequitor. Sanabas it's a non sequitor give it up.

No, you are not right. You still refuse to answer either of the simple questions asked in post #261. Please point out the fallacy in that post, and please tell me which of those 4 definitions applies to you.

As for the rest of that post, why should I care? A piece of paper or a few letters do not make you an intellectual. Behe & Dembski has doctorates, how many sane people consider them intellectuals?

This is what Gogf was saying, that in order to class as an intellectual you have to prove it to others. I do not see why this has to be the case, why does being an intellectual require the opinion of others?

In the sense of an intellectual being someone respected for their intellect, I think it does require the opinion of others. Respect is something you earn, not something you need to argue about, and try to convince people it is due to you. If that respect isn't freely given, it's not something you can coerce out of someone, it's not something you deserve.

@Erik: Can I please have a link for the thread/posts you're talking about? I'd like to read them.

 

[Sidhe]

I searched all 14 pages, I couldn't find it. Care to give me a post number?



If you're going to take part in an argument about logic, learn logic. The above quote indicates you have very little grasp of it.



No, you are not right. You still refuse to answer either of the simple questions asked in post #261. Please point out the fallacy in that post, and please tell me which of those 4 definitions applies to you.

As for the rest of that post, why should I care? A piece of paper or a few letters do not make you an intellectual. Behe & Dembski has doctorates, how many sane people consider them intellectuals?





In the sense of an intellectual being someone respected for their intellect, I think it does require the opinion of others. Respect is something you earn, not something you need to argue about, and try to convince people it is due to you. If that respect isn't freely given, it's not something you can coerce out of someone, it's not something you deserve.

@Erik: Can I please have a link for the thread/posts you're talking about? I'd like to read them.

I'm going to quit replying to you I have no idea what you think the discussion about, or want to play the logic game with you either since it's not relevant to any of my points but might have been relevant to the thread 40 posts ago, with a will to stop going round in circles, and admitting that I think logic if any of you are anything to go by is completely suspending your common sense in favour of BS. Since you can't work out anything unless it's presented in some pointless arbitrary fashoin, well I'm sorry I tried to explain it and you wouldn't accept it in either plain english or BS logic form, so let's just leave it as it has no bearing on the topic anyway.


I'll ask again: is the definition ok with people or are we going to all make up our own definitions and then get caught up in frigging logic students arguing with exact phraseology?

Really I am never going to study logic it seems to me it turns people into automatons without a shred of an ability to think abstractly, what a waste of time.

Just learn maths???

Oh and your argument which i refuse to reply to is complete nonsense logically it makes no sense as all the logical fallacy alludes to is a particular post you can't then futuristically apply a further argument to the statement of logical fallacy not in this case it is what it is, nothing more nothing less, thus it's a non sequitor. I don't have to prove that I'm an intellectual to anyone? Whether I do or not does not make a shred of difference to reality?

Frankly what is important though other than peoples inability to comprehend what the word means and to acknowledge that under the definition many people are here, it's beside the point, do you or do you not accept the commonly used meaning of the word intelectual or not?

 

[brennan]

I searched all 14 pages, I couldn't find it. Care to give me a post number?

Without looking back I can tell you it was #7, it's been in about 3 different posts so far.

No, you are not right. You still refuse to answer either of the simple questions asked in post #261. Please point out the fallacy in that post, and please tell me which of those 4 definitions applies to you.

A: Bob is an intellectual
B: Bob's words, thoughts & actions convince others he is an intellectual
C: Bob needs to convince others he is an intellectual by telling them he is, as they do not see him as one.

Neither B nor C need to be true for A to be true, since the opinions of others are irrelevant to whether Bob meets the requirements for A (see below). WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE.

In the sense of an intellectual being someone respected for their intellect, I think it does require the opinion of others. Respect is something you earn, not something you need to argue about, and try to convince people it is due to you. If that respect isn't freely given, it's not something you can coerce out of someone, it's not something you deserve.

But that is to use only one specific use of the word. What basis do you have for claiming this particular definition should be the only one in question?

 

[sanabas]

I'm going to quit replying to you I have no idea what you think the discussion about, or want to play the logic game with you either since it's not relevant to any of my points but might have been relevant to the thread 40 posts ago, with a will to stop going round in circles, and admitting that I think logic if any of you are anything to go by is completely suspending your common sense in favour of BS. Since you can't work out anything unless it's presented in some pointless arbitrary fashoin, well I'm sorry I tried to explain it and you wouldn't accept it in either plain english or BS logic form, so let's just leave it as it has no bearing on the topic anyway.

Neither pointless nor arbitrary. If, as you claim in post #126 "I persue dialogue in intelectual forums including this one? Why am I not an intelectual? Hell I even like discussing philosophy with my friends in bars," and if you are interested in debate, you will find an ability to be both concise and coherent when presenting your arguments makes a huge difference. So does answering simple questions instead of avoiding them.

I'll ask again: is the definition ok with people or are we going to all make up our own definitions and then get caught up in frigging logic students arguing with exact phraseology?

Hard to tell when you don't want to say what definition we're talking about. Earlier this page you wanted to use the wiki-page, in post #152 you said "Let's clarify that the dictionary definition is what we should be discussing," in post #46 you use "Being an intelectual just means interested in improving your mind," you also seemed to interchange freely between genius and intellectual, in an attempt to convince us that you were both. But lets go with the dictionary definition. I don't think #7 by itself qualifies anyone as an intellectual, and that's the only one that you've even tried to convince us applies to you.

Really I am never going to study logic it seems to me it turns people into automatons without a shred of an ability to think abstractly, what a waste of time.

So then what makes you qualified to critique the use of logic by others, if you claim it is pointless, arbitrary, and not worthy of study?

How do you plan on getting through that physics degree you're working on while eschewing logic?

How can you claim to be logical, as you do in post #157 by saying "Cmon show me where I've been illogical", when you see logic as a waste of time?

If you are an intellectual, and thus "interested in improving your mind", why do you dismiss fields of study out of hand as being useless? How is that improving your mind?

You've said a couple of times in this thread that being intelligent and being an intellectual aren't related, and yet you repeatedly try to show how intelligent you supposedly are, in order to bolster your claims of being an intellectual.

Just learn maths???

That would be a start, certainly.

 

[Sidhe]

I'm estewing logic students not logic as such if you are any example then you lost the ability to think when you took up logic, and I'm not going to play your mindless facile games with~ symbols I can barely find on my keyboard let alone care to use, if the argument doesn't stand say so, or just say clarify, I'm not going to resort to talking logo BS everytime I have to make a point, the fact is when stated the comment was a logical fallacy now you can play with that however you like, but it was and it still is. Now can we move on? Look the wiki article and the dictionary definition are the same thing? Good God! The only difference is one is in context with history the other is todays most commonly held definition? They are the same, oh dear this is hard work.

 

[sanabas]

Without looking back I can tell you it was #7, it's been in about 3 different posts so far.

Thanks. I searched again and found it.

Neither B nor C need to be true for A to be true, since the opinions of others are irrelevant to whether Bob meets the requirements for A (see below). WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE.

OK, so that is saying that A->B is false. But there's nothing wrong with the logic, you're disagreeing with one of the assumptions.

As I said before, I disagree. If Bob is of superior intellect, if Bob is able to think logically about a problem, people's opinions will reflect that. The people whose intellects I respect on this forum are respected because of what they post, and of how they post it. They are not respected because they posted saying "I'm intellectual, I'm intelligent because of x, y, z." If they posted something like that, it would be a good sign that they're neither intellectual nor intelligent.

But that is to use only one specific use of the word. What basis do you have for claiming this particular definition should be the only one in question?

Merely opinion. It's what intellectual means to me. If I want to talk about someone employed as a writer, teacher, lecturer, etc, I'll call them writer, teacher, lecturer, etc. I also know people employed in jobs like that with inferior intellects, and worthy of very little respect. I wouldn't use #7 by itself, because I think there's very little substance to it.

 

[Sidhe]

Thanks. I searched again and found it.



OK, so that is saying that A->B is false. But there's nothing wrong with the logic, you're disagreeing with one of the assumptions.

As I said before, I disagree. If Bob is of superior intellect, if Bob is able to think logically about a problem, people's opinions will reflect that. The people whose intellects I respect on this forum are respected because of what they post, and of how they post it. They are not respected because they posted saying "I'm intellectual, I'm intelligent because of x, y, z." If they posted something like that, it would be a good sign that they're neither intellectual nor intelligent.



Merely opinion. It's what intellectual means to me. If I want to talk about someone employed as a writer, teacher, lecturer, etc, I'll call them writer, teacher, lecturer, etc. I also know people employed in jobs like that with inferior intellects, and worthy of very little respect. I wouldn't use #7 by itself, because I think there's very little substance to it.

OK how about an IQ over 140, now I can't prove it frankly I couldn't care less as it's the most meaning statistic in the history of definitions, now I fit two, and yes we've raised this before, you really should read the whole thread next time. Does that make me intelectual and an intelectual, 3 and 7? Does being part of the literati? I think you'll find it does and no your logic is spurious.

It's simply this answer this question.

Given the definition of intelectual do you think that whether someone can persuade someone else that they are or are not an intellectual has any bearing on whether they are or are not in fact an intellectual?

Yes/No that's all I want if yes please explain if not can we continue, we've already done this anyway it's quite obvoius that if Descartes claimed he was an intelectual and no one believed him, that would not make him a non-intelectual by default? What are you trying to say?

This is all covered? I just really don't know how much simpler anyone can make it?

We've had about 8 pages of people just denying reality over and over again, whilst it was rather fun at first now it's just an excercise in continued sophistry, and honestly I take no pleasure in the embarassing lengths people will go to, to maintain black is white.

 

[Gogf]

I'm estewing logic students not logic as such if you are any example then you lost the ability to think when you took up logic, and I'm not going to play your mindless facile games with~ symbols I can barely find on my keyboard let alone care to use, if the argument doesn't stand say so

How does sanabas's logic not stand?

I would think that the ~ is one of the most basic concepts in logic. It means "not." I learned this in geometry class in 9th grade.

 

[Gogf]

In the sense of an intellectual being someone respected for their intellect, I think it does require the opinion of others. Respect is something you earn, not something you need to argue about, and try to convince people it is due to you. If that respect isn't freely given, it's not something you can coerce out of someone, it's not something you deserve.

I still haven't posted what I consider an intellectual to be. However, I think "someone who is respected for their intellect" is the best definition that has been posted in this thread yet.