Are we at CFC Intellectuals?

[Mise]

I agree with you on that one.

I always find it amusing when I see cars on the side of the road broke down. If the driver is a woman she's sitting in the car waiting for assistance to arrive.

If it's a man then they have the hood open and they're looking at the innards as if they might be able to fix something. The truth is that 95%(or more) of men have 0% probability of actually diagnosing and fixing a modern automobile mechanical problem on the side of the road. So why bother? Call a tow.. move on with your life.

I always at least attempt to find out what's going on when there's a problem with my car (or anything else). I know how to check the oil, brake fluid levels, coolant levels, etc, and can follow the instructions in the car's owner guide. Once the list of things that I can do personally to resolve the problem has been exhausted, I'll get someone else's help. Even when the breakdown guy comes out, I still ask him what's going on, and they're typically more than happy to explain it to me (who doesn't get all chatty when someone asks you about their job?). It means that I learn more about my car and can help me diagnose problems in the future. It also means that I know what not to do in the future, if the problem was to do with my driving style.

Additionally, when you call them out and tell them that you've checked the oil, coolant level, battery, leaks, etc, they've already narrowed the problem down, and can come out with more appropriate tools to do the job. Makes their job a lot easier.

You learn by doing, not by sitting in your car waiting for someone else to do something.

 

[Swedishguy]

Some people are intellectuals, yes. But guys like me, Swedishguy, are real idiots. There, I said it.

 

[Fifty]

I don't think I'm an intelectual I know I am, and I don't and never have given a damn what you think anyway as there are plenty of others on CFC, don't confuse Fred LC's gift of the gab with intelectualism, although he probably is, at the end of the day it's content not flowery prose that counts as I aptly demonstrated with his nonsense about atheism being better than agnosticism, pure opinion accepted as fact by idiots.

In order to be an intellectual, you have to be at least something approaching an expert in at least one field. Heck, you aren't even one of the most knowledgable persons on OT in any given subject

Also, if you were an intellectual you'd understand that just because you don't or aren't capable of understanding someone's argument does not mean that the argument is incorrect, especially when the argument is articulated clearly and logically (as Fred's was).

And you also have to be able to articulate sentences and arguments clearly in your native tongue at least, which you thus far have shown yourself to be utterly incapable of doing.

On the larger subject of whether any CFCers are intellectuals, I'd say Fred is the closest thing in CFC to an intellectual. What you seem to see as some sort of sophistry and word-play is really usually a nuanced and logical argument.

I'll grant that there may be some intellectual types that are less well known (some of the math people perhaps, as well as maybe few of the History forum regulars). And there's also a certain geophysicist from Plano, but apparently his work on earth is done so I don't think he'll be posting here anymore anyways.

But declaring yourself an intellectual despite what anyone (in fact, probably everyone) may think smacks of arrogance and an over-estimation of your abilities.

As always I think you fifty are reflecting your own insecurities.

I confess, calling Fred (and Garry) an intellectual is the only thing that brings comfort to me

The more i inquire about what or who is an intellectual is one to be bother with another question on how to know what is a good one and a bad one?

My general criteria are:

1. The ability to clearly express themselves in the language of the field in which they are an intellectual (so e.g. Saul Kripke is still an intellectual even though his speaking style is very strange, because he communicates his logical and linguistic ideas very well).

2. Solid knowledge of the field(s) in which they are an intellectual. This almost ALWAYS amounts to graduate training in the field, or at least in a related field. This is because many amateurs tend to vastly overestimate their insights into the field when they've had no formal training.

 

[CartesianFart]

My general criteria are:

1. The ability to clearly express themselves in the language of the field in which they are an intellectual (so e.g. Saul Kripke is still an intellectual even though his speaking style is very strange, because he communicates his logical and linguistic ideas very well).

2. Solid knowledge of the field(s) in which they are an intellectual. This almost ALWAYS amounts to graduate training in the field, or at least in a related field. This is because many amateurs tend to vastly overestimate their insights into the field when they've had no formal training.

So in conclusion it is on how you write or speak very well on a particular subject that denote what an intellectual really is?

 

[MobBoss]

I don't think I'm an intelectual I know I am

It has been my experience all throughout my life that someone who ardently lays claim to such a label is most often not.

Obviously, a person who is a true intellectual has no need to state to others that 'he knows he is'. Because it is not ones opinion of oneself that makes one an intellectual, but of others opinions of you that makes the case for it.

And I am entirely with fifty in his opinion on the matter.

 

[Sidhe]

In order to be an intellectual, you have to be at least something approaching an expert in at least one field. Heck, you aren't even one of the most knowledgable persons on OT in any given subject

Also, if you were an intellectual you'd understand that just because you don't or aren't capable of understanding someone's argument does not mean that the argument is incorrect, especially when the argument is articulated clearly and logically (as Fred's was).

And you also have to be able to articulate sentences and arguments clearly in your native tongue at least, which you thus far have shown yourself to be utterly incapable of doing.

On the larger subject of whether any CFCers are intellectuals, I'd say Fred is the closest thing in CFC to an intellectual. What you seem to see as some sort of sophistry and word-play is really usually a nuanced and logical argument.

I'll grant that there may be some intellectual types that are less well known (some of the math people perhaps, as well as maybe few of the History forum regulars). And there's also a certain geophysicist from Plano, but apparently his work on earth is done so I don't think he'll be posting here anymore anyways.

But declaring yourself an intellectual despite what anyone (in fact, probably everyone) may think smacks of arrogance and an over-estimation of your abilities.

Fifty that's just total BS, you don't have to be an expert in a field to be an intelectual?

And if you think my argument is so bad argue against it.

I happen to be quite knowledgeable about fantasy and old world religions and mythology, in fact dare I say it a bit of an expert anyway, everyones an expert on something, even you although God knows what.

I confess, calling Fred (and Garry) an intellectual is the only thing that brings comfort to me



My general criteria are:

1. The ability to clearly express themselves in the language of the field in which they are an intellectual (so e.g. Saul Kripke is still an intellectual even though his speaking style is very strange, because he communicates his logical and linguistic ideas very well).

2. Solid knowledge of the field(s) in which they are an intellectual. This almost ALWAYS amounts to graduate training in the field, or at least in a related field. This is because many amateurs tend to vastly overestimate their insights into the field when they've had no formal training.

No no no, you have no idea what intelectual means, if your going to throw the term around at least learn what it means, and please don't resort to talking about language, this coming from a guy that uses phrases such as you is not even funny. Besides at least I have the excuse of being dyslexic, I suppose that's ripe for mockery, you really do need to get off your high horse here, you just said something that was total asshattery and now your digging yourself deeper? OK so if Freds points were so coherent? Tell me why? Or explain why it's pertainent to put scientific method into philosophical issues?

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.

Right now without rewriting the definition of intelectual tell me why I am not an intelectual? You are thinking of either and academic or something else I'm not entirely sure what? Are you going to tell me there's nothing complex about studying physics too? Or reading philosophy or learning about various fields, or wanting to diversify my learning?

Fifty you don't have to have a PhD to be an intelectual in fact you don't have to have any qualifications whatsoever, you just need to be curious about the world, and seek to expand your knowledge either in areas of science or areas of philsophy or theology or whatever, that is being an intelectual.

You seem to be confusing intelect with study and intelligence and I can assure you that's not what it means, if anyone thinks I'm not by the real definition apart from fifty say so.

 

[MobBoss]

Fifty that's just total BS, you don't have to be an expert in a filed to be an intelectual?

How about we narrow the definition to simply be you have to be able to spell it correctly in order to be one?

Its intellectual.

And if you think my argument is so bad argue against it.

I think thats all the proof we need right there.

And no..I am not in the habit of wearing the badge and hat of spelling cop. However, I cannot help but point out the irony of someone claiming to be an intellectual and not even spelling the word correctly.

Right now without rewriting the definition of intelectual tell me why I am not an intelectual?

Because you fail to qualify as one under any of those points? You argue from emotion and feeling far more than the average CFC poster and the more emotional you get, the less logical you are. You are even getting emotional over this particular issue, because it apparently bugs you that some people here at CFC wouldnt consider you intellectual.

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Masquerouge]

In order to be an intellectual, you have to be at least something approaching an expert in at least one field.

I think not.

My general criteria are:

1. The ability to clearly express themselves in the language of the field in which they are an intellectual (so e.g. Saul Kripke is still an intellectual even though his speaking style is very strange, because he communicates his logical and linguistic ideas very well).

2. Solid knowledge of the field(s) in which they are an intellectual. This almost ALWAYS amounts to graduate training in the field, or at least in a related field. This is because many amateurs tend to vastly overestimate their insights into the field when they've had no formal training.

This is a very narrow definition. Maybe it's like liberal, the word means one thing in the US and a completely different thing in France.
But a French intellectual is basically someone close to a philosopher. It's someone who prefers thinking and reflexion over action, and who has a lot of culture. Intellectuals are very good at debating and discussing issues.

Technical expertise in a field is irrelevant.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Reminds me, Stephen Coonts or someone wrote a book about flying across the country in a biplane, but he discussed this phenomenon. ]

Saying, "as an intellectual, I believe . . ." is roughly equivalent to saying, "as a pompous overeducated horse's a**". And of course, saying that one is an intellectual doesn't make one's statements better.

"As an intellectual, I believe that fat books are heavier than skinny books, and take longer to read."

Eh, had to be there I guess.

 

[Sidhe]

How about we narrow the definition to simply be you have to be able to spell it correctly in order to be one?

Its intellectual.



I think thats all the proof we need right there.

And no..I am not in the habit of wearing the badge and hat of spelling cop. However, I cannot help but point out the irony of someone claiming to be an intellectual and not even spelling the word correctly.



Because you fail to qualify as one under any of those points? You argue from emotion and feeling far more than the average CFC poster and the more emotional you get, the less logical you are. You are even getting emotional over this particular issue, because it apparently bugs you that some people here at CFC wouldnt consider you intellectual.

How about we cease trolling. And I do not fail under any of those points, it's just you and Fifty both happen to detest me so I think that may be the real reason your judgement is only based on biased, so to you I'm average and thick and an idiot and not an intelectual. Well I was skipped ahead a year at school twice so no I'm not thick, and dyslexia means I don't spell to well, or sometimes I misunderstand things but that's hardly a reason to start flinging around BS like this is it consider yourself reported, I unlike you will not tolerate discrimination or trolling because you happen to have a personal grudge against me.

Actually I'm annoyed far more at fifty for claiming that most people here aren't iintellectual, most are here because they are that's what p's me off, I can't stand arrogance particularly when the person in question doesn't even know the meaning of the word intelectual.

So in conclusion it is on how you write or speak very well on a particular subject that denote what an intellectual really is?

Since Cartesian is a bit of an expert on philosophy and happens to be well read and interested in abstract pursuits I'd say he qualifies, and his language isn't as fluent as it might be but he gets his point across, but of course according to fifty that would mean he fails on both points despite passing on the dictionary definition.

So guys you tell me what an intelectual is exactly?

I think not.



This is a very narrow definition. Maybe it's like liberal, the word means one thing in the US and a completely different thing in France.
But a French intellectual is basically someone close to a philosopher. It's someone who prefers thinking and reflexion over action, and who has a lot of culture. Intellectuals are very good at debating and discussing issues.

Technical expertise in a field is irrelevant.

It's slightly different over here although studying philosophy would make you an intelectual studying any course at degree level would probably make you an intelectual, so it's a bit broader. Also if you enjoy debate on anything and expanding your knowledge into fields aesthetic or otherwise, that would also fit the criteria

 

[brennan]

I'm sticking to what it says in a dictionary.

 

[JohnRM]

I think that everyone is an intellectual to a certain extent. Some moreso than others.

 

[Gogf]

I think being able to express yourself logically and clearly in your native tongue is a good criteria for being an intellectual. You certainly can't be an intellectual if nobody can understand you.

 

[brennan]

I think being able to express yourself logically and clearly in your native tongue is a good criteria for being an intellectual. You certainly can't be an intellectual if nobody can understand you.

To which I give you Stephen Hawking ... without his chair.

 

[MobBoss]

How about we cease trolling. And I do not fail under any of those points, it's just you and Fifty both happen to detest me so I think that may be the real reason your judgement is only based on biased, so to you I'm average and thick and an idiot and not an intelectual.

Two points. One. You publicly asked for an opinion and you got one with no detestable language in it at all. Two. I have not called you an idiot or thick or any other such name in this thread, so please dont malign me by saying I did. Again, if you dont wish to hear the opinion of others on why we might not think you an intellectual, then why ask?

Well I was skipped ahead a year at school twice so no I'm not thick, and dyslexia means I don't spell to well, or sometimes I misunderstand things but that's hardly a reason to start flinging around BS like this is it consider yourself reported, I unlike you will not tolerate discrimination or trolling because you happen to have a personal grudge against me.

How is it discrimination? Please explain.

Actually I'm annoyed far more at fifty for claiming that most people here aren't iintellectual, most are here because they are that's what p's me off, I can't stand arrogance particularly when the person in question doesn't even know the meaning of the word intelectual.

I dont think most people here are intellectual at all, and have in fact laid no claim to such a label. Respectfully, I think a lot of people here are ignorant of certain topics they try to appear intellectual on, but they are hardly idiots.

So guys you tell me what an intelectual is exactly?

Are you asking for my definition or the text book definition?

 

[Gogf]

To which I give you Stephen Hawking ... without his chair.

Why without his chair? He clearly has the mental capability to express himself, he just needs some physical assistance with it.

 

[Sidhe]

I think being able to express yourself logically and clearly in your native tongue is a good criteria for being an intellectual. You certainly can't be an intellectual if nobody can understand you.

You can say that but under your definition stephen Hawking without his speech machine wouldn't be an intellectual and so frankly would most people. If you want to rewrite the definition fine? Whatever just don't expect it to be acknowledged by me.

xpost.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And Sidhe, why are you comlaining that someone called you "average"?

 

[Gogf]

Well I was skipped ahead a year at school twice so no I'm not thick, and dyslexia means I don't spell to well, or sometimes I misunderstand things but that's hardly a reason to start flinging around BS like this is it consider yourself reported, I unlike you will not tolerate discrimination or trolling because you happen to have a personal grudge against me.

You don't think certain mental conditions can preclude you from being an intellectual?

 

[Swedishguy]

I think that once I get a bit older, I can become a bit more ''intellectual'', but right now... I can't make it.

But I know for a rule that when there is a religious thread, the intellectuals will flock!