Are we at CFC Intellectuals?

[downtown]

If you have to convince people you're an intellectual...you're not an intellectual. Its like trying to convice people that you're humble. I wouldn't put myself into either of those catagories. Perhaps someday.

I think there is a difference between one who is given to intellectual interests, and being an actual intellectual. Lots of us here read, write, know an awful lot about certain fields...but I wouldn't say there are a lot of intellectuals.

By and large, CFC has more super-egos than any group, online or not, I've ever been a part of. Thats saying a LOT, because I work in the music business.

 

[Sidhe]

If you have to convince people you're an intellectual...you're not an intellectual. Its like trying to convice people that you're humble.

Logical fallacy, hurah

So if Rene Descartes tried to convince someone he was an intelectual and they disagreed he would not be an intelectual.

You've won a prize, for todays best logical fallacy!

 

[GenMarshall]

I think he might be trying to create a self fulfilling prophecy that wont happen. Been there done that, actions speak louder than words.

 

[MobBoss]

Again where don't I fit any of the points? cmon let's see you back it up?

I think you fail misrably on this particular one:

8. an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings.

All the evidence I need to support it is in this very thread.

Do you think it's possible to debate without emotion

Yes, I do.

and your the one who's been flinging the most names around as has fifty, if you insult me am I allowed to be offended or is this against forum rules?

By all means what name have I called you once in this thread? Again, you allege wrongdoing with no fact to back it up. I havent called you any names at all. And from what I can see, you are the ONLY person to get offended by the very opinions you yourself solicited and asked for.

 

[downtown]

Logical fallacy, hurah

So if Rene Descartes tried to convince someone he was an intelectual and they disagreed he would not be an intelectual.

You've won a prize, for todays best logical fallacy!

Hurrah! You're still a dumbass!

Moderator Action: Flaming - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Yeah, if society as a whole decided that Descartes was full of crap, and NOBODY percieved him to be an intellectual, and NOBODY treated him as such...then he might as well not be. When society is going to elevate somebody to a posistion, perception is important.

I hope the prize involves cash. Please mail it to the Ohio State University, I'm in need of money.

 

[MobBoss]

Logical fallacy, hurah

So if Rene Descartes tried to convince someone he was an intelectual and they disagreed he would not be an intelectual.

You've won a prize, for todays best logical fallacy!

Actually...he didnt commit a logical fallacy....you just did.

 

[brennan]

Perhaps we should come to an agreement to end this mudslinging:

Sidhe, Atlas and myself can use the dictionary definition of 'intellectual' - along with anyone else who cares to; and the rest of you can write your own definition just so that you can look modest by excluding yourselves.

 

[Sidhe]

I think you fail misrably on this particular one:



All the evidence I need to support it is in this very thread.



Yes, I do.



By all means what name have I called you once in this thread? Again, you allege wrongdoing with no fact to back it up. I havent called you any names at all. And from what I can see, you are the ONLY person to get offended by the very opinions you yourself solicited and asked for.

So you think studying philosophy and physics and being interested in pursuing knowledge which rates highly for me makes me not an intelectual, watch as Mob Boss digs a bigger and bigger hole along with fifty, what I post here and my coherence have no bearing on the definition of intelectual? Are you going to make any sort of coherent argument that isn't based on logical fallacy or are you going to do what fifty is doing and just resort to name calling and his own definition? If you can come up with a reason why not let's hear it otherwise I suggest you remain silent, or you could do what you normally do when your talking nonsense, open your mouth again and agian and remove all doubt.

So which part exactly of point 7 do I not fit and in what way?

Which part of point three?

Let's clarify here?

Actually...he didnt commit a logical fallacy....you just did.

How Renes Descartes was considered by his peers one of the greatest intelectuals and philosophers of his day, so if someone said he wasn't would this mean that he wasn't?

Note I'm not saying they're wrong I'm just saying how does being able to convince anyone mean that you are wrong by default?

Jesus and his words have never been able to convince much of mankind to act anything like a Christian. Doesn't make his message false, or him not an intelectual for that matter.

Yeah, if society as a whole decided that Descartes was full of crap, and NOBODY percieved him to be an intellectual, and NOBODY treated him as such...then he might as well not be. When society is going to elevate somebody to a posistion, perception is important.

I hope the prize involves cash. Please mail it to the Ohio State University, I'm in need of money.

You missed the point this is explained above.

What you percieve or believe, does not alter the definition of a word just because you want it to.

 

[Atlas14]

Dictionaries explain what words mean to those who do not understand. There is no "English/American Academy" that determines what is valid English and what is not. Everything is convention, and usage generally determines meaning.

That doesn't mean that I can just decide what everything means myself, but what is commonly accepted as the meaning of a word, not what the publisher of a certain book decides, is what matters.

But your definition borders the definition for being a genius, are the two words and definitions interchangeable? I would say no.

 

[Atlas14]

Which one do you think he fits?

I would say the one he chose:

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.

 

[Gogf]

But your definition borders the definition for being a genius, are the two words and definitions interchangeable? I would say no.

I haven't presented a definition. I have said that having the mental capacity to communicate effectively is a prerequisite for being an intellectual. I don't think that everyone who is able to communicate effectively is a genius.

 

[MobBoss]

The most important one number 7 the definition of a person who is an intellectual and thankyou Atlas at least someones making sense, this is just patently bullying here.

I asked Atlas...not you.

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.

Sorry, but I dont see you exercising this at all. Didnt you just say that Mensa didnt matter all that much? Thats not placing a very high value on something regarding intellect and knowledge now is it?

3. a person having an extraordinarily high intelligence rating on a psychological test, as an IQ above 140.

Again, I humbly submit that we have no way to prove 3, nor do you. But as proof I suppose we could consider what you have posted here at CFC. In my humble opinion, how you post does not equal someone with a 140 IQ. But thats simply my opinion.

 

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: OK - this has potential to be a reasonable thread, if not for the spelling nazis, flamers & trolls. Cease that, and the thread remains open.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Atlas14]

Who's dictionary are we using?

Does it matter? I might ask all of you the same question? What makes your dictionary better than mine or his or anyone else's?

 

[.Shane.]

Does it matter? I might ask all of you the same question? What makes your dictionary better than mine or his or anyone else's?

That's the point. I have no doubt between the various dictionaries in print we can each find one that allows us to argue that we're each an intellectual.

And, tbh, it doesn't matter, because by the defacto application of the word, it doesn't apply here.

But, whatever, I really don't mind either way, its the internet after all. So, you can claim to be an intellectual and I'll respond, "good for you! BTW, I'm an astronaut."

 

[Sidhe]

Does it matter? I might ask all of you the same question? What makes your dictionary better than mine or his or anyone else's?

Precisely, if you(not you Atlas) Can find a dictionary that defines it as Fiftys definition, then I'd be glad to see it or anyone elses for that matter, as it is since this is an English dictionary and it agrees with all the English dictionaries I know about can we proceed with the correct definition or shall we redefine it for the sake of sophistry.

That's the point. I have no doubt between the various dictionaries in print we can each find one that allows us to argue that we're each an intellectual.

And, tbh, it doesn't matter, because by the defacto application of the word, it doesn't apply here.

But, whatever, I really don't mind either way, its the internet after all. So, you can claim to be an intellectual and I'll respond, "good for you! BTW, I'm an astronaut."

Do so then.

Find me a definition that disagrees with this one and not a wiki article which is talking about historical figures, not a per se dictionary definition and so has no bearing.

Bearing in mind wiki, anyone with my criteria would of been considered an intelectual as well.

 

[Gogf]

Precisely, if you(not you Atlas) Can find a dictionary that defines it as fifties definition, then I'd be glad to see it or anyone elses for that matter, as it is since this is an English dictionary and it agrees with all the English dictionaries I know about can we proceed with the correct definition or shall we redefine it for the sake of sophistry.

Again, it doesn't really matter what a dictionary defines the word as; it matters what most people mean when they say it.

 

[MobBoss]

How Renes Descartes was considered by his peers one of the greatest intelectuals and philosophers of his day, so if someone said he wasn't would this mean that he wasn't?

I dont recall Descartes having to run around to his peers to make the case that he was an intellectual. Perhaps thats the difference between you and he?

 

[brennan]

Well, it appears that a lot of people mean 'genius' and should think themselves lucky we have dictionaries on hand to correct them

 

[Atlas14]

Again, it doesn't really matter what a dictionary defines the word as; it matters what most people mean when they say it.

So when I hear easily 50 people per week at my school misuse the term genetic engineering as some fanciful, fantasy-like tool scientists can use to create all sorts of crazy things, that makes it right? You wouldn't believe how many times I've seen it in off-topic as well, with that thread about what you would change about yourself. Perhaps all those definitions for one term, just because they are commonly used and are what people mean to say, are inherently acceptable definitions?