Are we at CFC Intellectuals?

[MobBoss]

This debate has really gone downhill...

1. Just because you say Sidhe is not an intellectual does not mean he isn't one.
2. Just because you perceive him to not be an intellectual does not mean he isn't one.

You also forgot to add:

3. Just because someone claims to be an intellectual, doesnt mean they are one.

 

[azzaman333]

In order to determine if we (CFC) as a whole are intellectuals we must first determine if there are individual intellectuals that compose this whole.

Which is against the forum rules due to it being user specific.

 

[Mise]

Actually no, if you fit most of the dictionary criteria then you are an intelectual regardless of what people think?

I don't take the dictionary to be some definitive source for all knowledge. I, like everyone else, makes up their own interpretation of words, and often defines things in different ways. Something that may seem "clear" to brennan may not seem so "clear" to MobBoss, despite meeting one or more of the requirements i the dictionary definition. If you're to live your life by the book (by which I mean dictionary), you will probably end up rather boring and unimaginative, not to mention somewhat detached from the rest of the world.

I personally hate it when people quote lines from the dictionary in support of their opinion. I mean, that's why it's called an "opinion", rather than a "definition".

It doesn't say anything about subjectivity, you either are an intelectual or you aren't, if everyone thought Einstein was a dumb ass would you agree he was a dumb ass? No he was an intellectual and the belief in him or not is nothing to do with it.

I would, as always, have my own opinion on whether Einstein was an intellectual or not. You seem to be prematurely characterising my views on this. So far, I have not seen a satisfactory definition of "intellectual". Sanabas's definition seems rather circular -- it is essentially stating, "you're an intellectual if people perceive you to be an intellectual", since the definition that most people use of what an intellectual is "intelligent". I'm quite content with not defining everything and just calling it when I see it.

Personally, I think the word "intellectual" connotes a sense that the individual has made a career out of thinking or philosophising. Writers immediately spring to mind, as well as philosophers. I see certain scientists as intellectuals, but in general I don't think that there are many scientists I would class as "intellectuals".

It's all very pretentious.

 

[brennan]

If you are going to use a definition of intellectual under which a vast majority would qualify...then whats the point? How are you anymore intellectual than anyone else? Or are you just average?

The point is that 'intellectual' is just a label applied to people who act in a certain way, comparable to being 'artistic' or 'sporty'. This supposition that you cannot be an intellectual unless you are a member of some kind of elite seems unjustified.

 

[MobBoss]

Iand now apparently MobBoss has decided to jump in with a new load of false accusations, ie he just made four false conclusions in a row,

By all means point out my false conclusions. Please, for once, be specific so I can comment on your allegations.

 

[Mise]

I disagree, you have clearly made a false premise.

Can we have a halt to this fallacy nonsense please?

It's not necessarily false

 

[Atlas14]

You also forgot to add:

3. Just because someone claims to be an intellectual, doesnt mean they are one.

True, but nobody is arbitrarily claiming to be an intellectual.

 

[Sidhe]

True, but nobody is arbitrarily claiming to be an intellectual.

I said I was an intellectual ages ago taking the commonly held definition into account, and I stand by that, my peers appear to agree, untill I came here I never had a second thought about it, but since it's been integral to the debate about logical fallacy I suggest it's about time we stop discussing whether I am or am not, because It's irrelevant anyway.

 

[brennan]

I personally hate it when people quote lines from the dictionary in support of their opinion. I mean, that's why it's called an "opinion", rather than a "definition".

It makes no sense to discuss whether someone is an 'xxxx' if you cannot agree on what 'xxxx' means. If you wish to make up your own definition then I cannot have a sensible discussion with you.

Sidhe, Atlas and myself are addressing the question 'are we at CFC intellectuals', however Mobboss, Fifty et al appear to be addressing the question 'are we at CFC <members of an internationally respected group of wise men, philosophers and demagogues>'. This appears to be an odd thing to do since we clearly are not (I assume none of us is anyway) and this is not the only possible definition of the word in question.

 

[MobBoss]

True, but nobody is arbitrarily claiming to be an intellectual.

Actually, Sidhe is. He directly compared himself to Rene Descartes earlier in the thread.

Like here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5085365&postcount=169

 

[brennan]

It's not necessarily false

It does not have to be, if it is merely possibly false, you cannot use it as the basis for a statement of fact

Actually, Sidhe is. He directly compared himself to Rene Descartes earlier in the thread.

Funny, it looked like he was just making an analogy to me.

 

[azzaman333]

Actually, Sidhe is. He directly compared himself to Rene Descartes earlier in the thread.

I assumed that was a joke comparison, and would be surprised if it wasnt. IIRC, he said he was like him, not the same.

 

[Atlas14]

Actually, Sidhe is. He directly compared himself to Rene Descartes earlier in the thread.

With the support of a dictionary's definition, which shows some approved book of language agrees Sidhe meets the criteria for intellectual. He was comparing himself to Rene Descartes, which probably many of us here could do effectively, but he was not saying that he was Rene Descartes per say.

 

[Mise]

It makes no sense to discuss whether someone is an 'xxxx' if you cannot agree on what 'xxxx' means. If you wish to make up your own definition then I cannot have a sensible discussion with you.

Yeah, that's why I gave my opinion on what "intellectual" means. Most CFC discussions degenerate into arguments over definitions, but very few have gotten this personal, nor this absurd...

EDIT:

It does not have to be, if it is merely possibly false, you cannot use it as the basis for a statement of fact

Can I add "IMO" to make it logically consistent? Logic is fun...

 

[brennan]

Yeah, that's why I gave my opinion on what "intellectual" means. Most CFC discussions degenerate into arguments over definitions, but very few have gotten this personal, nor this absurd...

Agreed.

 

[Sidhe]

Actually, Sidhe is. He directly compared himself to Rene Descartes earlier in the thread.

No MobBoss that was a joke thus the smilee. I said hell I'm a regular Rene Descartes in point of fact to point out he liked to hang around in bars talking about philosophy, or should I say cafes but there pretty much the same thing in France and it was a joke, I'm afraid you din't get it, and now you throw it back in my face, it's not true that I compared myself with Renes Descartes intellectuality, just because you know nothing about his life don't make an assumption about a joke that you don't get anyway.

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

 

[MobBoss]

No MobBoss that was a joke thus the smilee. I said hell I'm a regular Rene Descartes in point of fact to point out he liked to hang around in bars talking about philosophy, or should I say cafes but there pretty much the same thing in France and it was a joke, I'm afraid you din't get it, and now you throw it back in my face, it's not true that I compared myself with Renes Descartes intellectuality, just because you know nothing about his life don't make an assumption about a joke that you don't get anyway.

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

Remember, the question was:

Originally Posted by Atlas14
True, but nobody is arbitrarily claiming to be an intellectual.

Sidhe, the point was that you have been claiming to be an intellectual throughout this entire thread and rigorously defending that position. Thats just the simple truth.

Do you deny that?

 

[brennan]

Sidhe, the point was that you have been claiming to be an intellectual throughout this entire thread and rigorously defending that position. Thats just the simple truth.

I think he was more using himself as an example of how the criteria could be met, regardless of the opinions of others.

 

[Atlas14]

Remember, the question was:



Sidhe, the point was that you have been claiming to be an intellectual throughout this entire thread and rigorously defending that position. Thats just the simple truth.

But he has had dictionary support, which validates his claim. Arbitrarily saying one is an intellectual would require one to not have dictionary support nor a list of criteria to meet.

 

[MobBoss]

But he has had dictionary support, which validates his claim. Arbitrarily saying one is an intellectual would require one to not have dictionary support nor a list of criteria to meet.

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.