Sounds alot like the sophists.
I am a colossal nerd, but that's all that is required the geekiness is optional.
Are we at CFC Intellectuals?
- Thread starter CCA
- Start date
- Status
Sounds alot like the sophists.
I am a colossal nerd, but that's all that is required the geekiness is optional.
Sidhe, my friend: while I consider that you vastly overestimate the insightfulness and the conclusiveness of your own opinion in the atheism/agnosticism topic, I'll grant you one thing - I too have no illusion that I am an intellectual.
Stephen Hawking is an intellectual. I'm an apt writer and generally sensible enough to stay away from topics I am unaware of. Not more than that, by a longshot.
Regards
.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Goddamnit, quit being so humble!I'll grant you one thing - I too have no illusion that I am an intellectual.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
You don't have to have a nobel prize in being really smart to be an 'intellectual'.
On OT we have debates about morals, ethics, theology, science and technology, politics, economics, art and philosophy. That's intellectual discourse - if you engage in these discussions then you meet the requirements to call yourself an intellectual.
Some definitions:
in·tel·lec·tu·al /ˌɪntlˈɛktʃuəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-tl-ek-choo-uhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. appealing to or engaging the intellect: intellectual pursuits.
2. of or pertaining to the intellect or its use: intellectual powers.
3. possessing or showing intellect or mental capacity, esp. to a high degree: an intellectual person.
4. guided or developed by or relying on the intellect rather than upon emotions or feelings; rational.
5. characterized by or suggesting a predominance of intellect: an intellectual way of speaking.
–noun 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.
Being an intelectual just means interested in improving your mind, not necessarily does it reflect your intelligence, which is obviously something else, if you like expanding your reasoning and thinking alot and pondering the big questions and reading and learning etc,etc chances are your an intelectual. Which is why I think fifty was talking out of his hat, although I'm welcome to criticism.
xpost, that pretty much sums it up.
You mean you appreciate the fact that you almost passed of a matter of opinion as if it had some profound philsophical truth rather than a sort of circular rhetoric, which is why I have no doubt you are a lawyer
Anyway caliming you are an intelectual in no way denotes you are some big genius or something, just that you like to broaden your mind, and there are plenty of people on CFC who do that, and in fact that's probably on reason why many people are here in OT.
xpost, that pretty much sums it up.
Sidhe, my friend: while I consider that you vastly overestimate the insightfulness and the conclusiveness of your own opinion in the atheism/agnosticism topic, I'll grant you one thing - I too have no illusion that I am an intellectual.
Stephen Hawking is an intellectual. I'm an apt writer and generally sensible enough to stay away from topics I am unaware of. Not more than that, by a longshot.
Regards
You mean you appreciate the fact that you almost passed of a matter of opinion as if it had some profound philsophical truth rather than a sort of circular rhetoric, which is why I have no doubt you are a lawyer
Anyway caliming you are an intelectual in no way denotes you are some big genius or something, just that you like to broaden your mind, and there are plenty of people on CFC who do that, and in fact that's probably on reason why many people are here in OT.
On intellectualism:
While I apreciate that no one need to be a worldly recognized one-in-a-generation genius in order to pursuit endeavours of the mind; and while I know that someone with a mediun or even a mediocre performance in such pursuit can technically be an intellectual, thing is that on the common understanding of the term, an intellectual is someone with a remarkable performance, and except in few and far between bits, I don't think anyone here on CFC, your's truly included, have demonstrated it.
Not that some aren't. See, I was clearly one of the classroom references during my post-graduation in Tax Laws, and i did formed opinions and had some classmates which kind of formed a sect of cronies. For performance there, I could accept a judgement as intellectual. I never did, however, offered anything of that level here, too specialized and too off-topic. I also firmly believe that several other OT members never showed here there true level of excelence. Maybe we have intellectuals lurking these forums, but no internet personae I've seen truly deserve to be called that.
Maybe. Or maybe it's you who took an post throughfully opinative and never argued to be otherwise, which however was substanciated enough to justify it's conclusion (wheter you agree or not), and crusaded against it – for, you see, all “philosophical truths” are just that – opinions. What is misleading in that whole debate was your accusation of “usage of style in order to mislead”, towards what was in fact an honest assessment of a proposed question. Your falsity, however, was well presented enough to merit debate, and hence to recieve charges of falts no different than those which you point towards myself. In the end, it shows that while you aren't a lawyer, you share the demeaning caractheristics you suppose a lawyer should have. Though luck.
As for the rest, I think I have already addressed that in the early paragraphs of this post.
Regards.
While I apreciate that no one need to be a worldly recognized one-in-a-generation genius in order to pursuit endeavours of the mind; and while I know that someone with a mediun or even a mediocre performance in such pursuit can technically be an intellectual, thing is that on the common understanding of the term, an intellectual is someone with a remarkable performance, and except in few and far between bits, I don't think anyone here on CFC, your's truly included, have demonstrated it.
Not that some aren't. See, I was clearly one of the classroom references during my post-graduation in Tax Laws, and i did formed opinions and had some classmates which kind of formed a sect of cronies. For performance there, I could accept a judgement as intellectual. I never did, however, offered anything of that level here, too specialized and too off-topic. I also firmly believe that several other OT members never showed here there true level of excelence. Maybe we have intellectuals lurking these forums, but no internet personae I've seen truly deserve to be called that.
You mean you appreciate the fact that you almost passed of a matter of opinion as if it had some profound philsophical truth rather than a sort of circular rhetoric, which is why I have no doubt you are a lawyer
Anyway claiming you are an intelectual in no way denotes you are some big genius or something, just that you like to broaden your mind, and there are plenty of people on CFC who do that, and in fact that's probably on reason why many people are here in OT.
Maybe. Or maybe it's you who took an post throughfully opinative and never argued to be otherwise, which however was substanciated enough to justify it's conclusion (wheter you agree or not), and crusaded against it – for, you see, all “philosophical truths” are just that – opinions. What is misleading in that whole debate was your accusation of “usage of style in order to mislead”, towards what was in fact an honest assessment of a proposed question. Your falsity, however, was well presented enough to merit debate, and hence to recieve charges of falts no different than those which you point towards myself. In the end, it shows that while you aren't a lawyer, you share the demeaning caractheristics you suppose a lawyer should have. Though luck.
As for the rest, I think I have already addressed that in the early paragraphs of this post.
Regards
.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Yes you have! Quit being so damned humble. If you can't be called an intellectual then noone on the face of the frickin' earth should be called one making the term meaningless!
We can't be having meaningless words Fred, that's just bad Mojo!
Accept your intellectual nature and embrace it for the sake of mankind!
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Given the definitions I posted above that seems to be begging that we value one definition over another. You would restrict the label 'intellectual' to an elite, rather than anyone who simply meets the definition. That's like saying you are only an athlete if you compete at olympic level rather than merely if you take part in athletics.
Maybe. Or maybe it's you who took an post throughfully opinative and never argued to be otherwise, which however was substanciated enough to justify it's conclusion (wheter you agree or not), and crusaded against it for, you see, all philosophical truths are just that opinions. What is misleading in that whole debate was your accusation of usage of style in order to mislead, towards what was in fact an honest assessment of a proposed question. Your falsity, however, was well presented enough to merit debate, and hence to recieve charges of falts no different than those which you point towards myself. In the end, it shows that while you aren't a lawyer, you share the demeaning caractheristics you suppose a lawyer should have. Though luck.
As for the rest, I think I have already addressed that in the early paragraphs of this post.
Regards
The trouble with your rhetoric was that you were as guilty of doing what you accused agnostics of doing, this was the irony of the whole statmenet you somehow assumed it was consistent to say that God does not exist may not exist as it is to say you don't know then you said you replace one doubt based belief system with another and so on and so on, when in reality that's precisely what you did unless you of course have some overwhelming knowledge of Gods non-existance, or your a hard atheist.
Thus ultimately all you did was show that atheism and agnosticism are pretty much simillar and there is no reason to hold one more worthy than another which is pretty much my opinion, so in essence you agreed with me, essentially a philosophy has more merit than b philosophy as if somehow because you say it has it must do by definition, when in reality all you were doing was using hollow rhetoric to destroy your own point.
The irony is that people actually congratulated you for destroying any point you could have made, but then that's hollow an meaningless pseudo babble for you, some people will believe anything, you should know you're a lawyer
It's not what you say it's how you say it, sheep will follow any old crap as long as it's dressed up well.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
I can't possibly be an intellectual. I like football way too much
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
Let's see...
Apologies to all for the horrifically out-of-context posts.
You are right, and I accepted that. But if the definition I'm suggesting is too constrict, also to say that any book worm is an intellectual is too open. Look at the other extreme - can anyone truly say that it isn't just professional athletes the ones deserving that title. Would I be an athlete with a mere sporadic athletic activity, player with mediocracy every 15 days or so, just because such activity is athletic?
Not all uses of intellect deserve to be considered an display of intelectualism.
Regards
.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Well, my quote had about as much context here as it did in the thread I posted it.
Please note the lack of FredLC posts in that list, further proving that FredLC is in fact an intelectual.
Perfection
The Great Head.
I think making amazing posts that blow my mind with brilliance counts as a display of intellectualism.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Nope, just Fred.In that case everyone except those on that list is an intellectual right
brennan
Argumentative Brit
The reason you are so well regarded on these boards is your habit of ending on a smiley. Everyone else ends on an ad-hom. It's sooooo off-putting.Regards
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
In that case everyone except those on that list is an intellectual right
Ooooh, that's quite a responsibility. And I can edit! Start sucking up losers
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
