Are we at CFC Intellectuals?

[sanabas]

What are you talking about, Make a point?

I was simply laughing at your clear, concise definition that a logical fallacy is a statement that is usually totally wrong.

Oh and bloody read the thread? I explain everything if your too lazy to actually read it then this is just a stupid question and which of these are you

All of them, that's the point, oh good God, you people are tiresome.

I assumed you meant that you qualified under all of those, just wanted to check. So if you have a keen interest in philosophy, enjoy debate, have a high intelligence, are able to apply reason, and prefer rational arguments to emotional ones, then who stole your password?

 

[brennan]

Actually, parts of the same definition he gave would indicate that he isnt an intellectual by those standards. As stated before if your standard is so broad as to include anyone that has an interest in anything intellectual, then just about everyone qualifies.

Our standard isn't that broad, your suggestion that it applies to 'anyone who read a book' is a strawman.

 

[Perfection]

Yep Brenan it was an analogy and it went straight over MobBosses head, but never mind it was meant to be a joke anyway.

A simple comparison between you and Descartes is not an analogy.

 

[Atlas14]

Actually, parts of the same definition he gave would indicate that he isnt an intellectual by those standards. As stated before if your standard is so broad as to include anyone that has an interest in anything intellectual, then just about everyone qualifies.

Why did you not include the entire definition, which clearly and specifically narrows the range of qualifiers?

[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.]

is not the same as:

[anyone that has an interest in anything intellectual]

 

[MobBoss]

Our standard isn't that broad, your suggestion that it applies to 'anyone who read a book' is a strawman.

Not a stawman at all. A person who reads a book shows interest. Is reading not an intellectual pastime? Sure it is. When we say a person is 'well read' do you think we mean they are stupid? No.

I will simply say I disagree with you in that rule 7 of that definition is indeed so broad as to include the vast majority of any reasonably developed country.

 

[MobBoss]

Why did you not include the entire definition, which clearly and specifically narrows the range of qualifiers?

[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.]

is not the same as:

[anyone that has an interest in anything intellectual]

Do you not think saying anyone who merely places a 'high value' on things of interest to the intellect' not broad?

Hell, that would cover pretty much anyone that watches Fox News. You dont even have to read to have a 'high value' on knowledge.

 

[brennan]

A simple comparison between you and Descartes is not an analogy.

He did not compare himself to Descarte.

 

[Mise]

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.

The bolded words are quite vague, and certainly open to interpretation. Personally, I think this makes the definition quite narrow, actually. In fact I would put this statement closer to MobBoss's end of the scale than Sidhe's. I can see how it can be perceived in many different ways, however, such that everyone or no-one falls under this definition.

 

[Atlas14]

Do you not think saying anyone who merely places a 'high value' on things of interest to the intellect' not broad?

Hell, that would cover pretty much anyone that watches Fox News. You dont even have to read to have a 'high value' on knowledge.

It may or may not be too broad for my liking, but you keep missing the part where is says

esp. on an abstract level

which would not include most anyone that watches Fox News.

 

[rbis4rbb]

i am an intelectrual i read wikipedia a lot i know a lot of things

 

[MobBoss]

He did not compare himself to Descarte.

If one jokingly compares themself to another...they are still comparing themselves are they not?

And dispite the smiley.....I dont think he was joking that much. Not when I read his comments in this thread.

 

[MobBoss]

It may or may not be too broad for my liking, but you keep missing the part where is says which would not include most anyone that watches Fox News.

*cough* the definition also says 'in a general level' which would cover Fox News viewers.

The bolded words are quite vague, and certainly open to interpretation. Personally, I think this makes the definition quite narrow, actually. In fact I would put this statement closer to MobBoss's end of the scale than Sidhe's. I can see how it can be perceived in many different ways, however, such that everyone or no-one falls under this definition.

Precisely.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

This thread is like a train wreck; horrible, yet you just can't look away.

For what it's worth I think Perfection hit the nail on the head on the first page:

If by intellectuals you mean "verbose opinionated douchebags who blather on about smart-sounding topics" then yes.

CFC - 'tis a silly place.

 

[Atlas14]

*cough* the definition also says 'in a general level' which would cover Fox News viewers.

But it says on an abstract level and a general level, not or a general level, meaning that one must partake in both, not simply one or the other.

 

[brennan]

Not a stawman at all. A person who reads a book shows interest. Is reading not an intellectual pastime? Sure it is. When we say a person is 'well read' do you think we mean they are stupid? No.

I will simply say I disagree with you in that rule 7 of that definition is indeed so broad as to include the vast majority of any reasonably developed country.

If you represent my looser definition of 'intellectual' to mean 'anyone who can read a book' then that is a strawman because that is not my position.

A person who reads a book is reading a book. That on its own does not meet the requirement for showing an interest in intellectual matters and abstract thought. If someone is 'well read' it means rather more than that they have read a lot of books. I've known some rather silly girls who have read a lot of Mills & Boon, this is not material concerned with matters of abstract knowledge so I would not consider them 'well read' unless their reading had gone well beyond that.

You are free to disagree, however I contend that your position is irrational, for reasons I have explained fully - rather than just saying they are my opinion.

 

[brennan]

If one jokingly compares themself to another...they are still comparing themselves are they not?

And dispite the smiley.....I dont think he was joking that much. Not when I read his comments in this thread.

He did not compare himself to Descarte. He substituted Descarte for himself in the reasoning he was given to demonstrate that it was absurd.

 

[Perfection]

He did not compare himself to Descarte.

What did he do thens?

 

[brennan]

The bolded words are quite vague, and certainly open to interpretation. Personally, I think this makes the definition quite narrow, actually. In fact I would put this statement closer to MobBoss's end of the scale than Sidhe's. I can see how it can be perceived in many different ways, however, such that everyone or no-one falls under this definition.

'Placing a high value on' and 'pursuing' 'things of interest to the intellect' would seem to me to imply somewhat more than 'watching the news' and 'the more complex forms and fields of knowledge...esp. on an abstract...level' speaks for itself.

 

[Mise]

'Placing a high value on' and 'pursuing' 'things of interest to the intellect' would seem to me to imply somewhat more than 'watching the news' and 'the more complex forms and fields of knowledge...esp. on an abstract...level' speaks for itself.

I think most people place a high value on something that they also derive intellectual stimulation from. For many people, market exchange rates are especially abstract and complex. (Personally I found GCSE English to be more abstract and complex than anything I did at university, which is probably why I admire writers more than scientists.)

EDIT: I bet if you asked 100 people in the street whether they placed a high value on something of interest to the intellect, or had read about (or saw on TV) anything complex or abstract, more than half would say yes.

 

[brennan]

I think most people place a high value on something that they also derive intellectual stimulation from. For many people, market exchange rates are especially abstract and complex. (Personally I found GCSE English to be more abstract and complex than anything I did at university, which is probably why I admire writers more than scientists.)

Right, but then to take this definition to mean something along the lines of 'anyone who has ever derived intellectual stimulation from something' is to make the definition worthless, which is why I think it should clearly not be read that way.