Are we at CFC Intellectuals?

[Gogf]

Of course it matters. When it is has acclaimed regional-status, it means it is common enough to be an actual definition, which is actually the very argument you are using to try to show why dictionaries don't matter!

No, it doesn't matter. "Intellectual" could mean one thing to the community at large and something else entirely to the community at CFC. From the posts I have seen in this thread, I think that's a reasonable conclusion.

Most people around here do use the definition in question, the #7 one. Most people down here at college, including the professors, use it as well.

I have no idea what the "#7 one" is. Considering that five definitions have apparently been posted, I would suspect that there are actually five #7s. Could you please be more specific about this?

How do you even know "most" people mean something other than the #7 definition when they say intellectual?

Well, I don't, because I don't know what the mysterious #7 definition is. If it's "someone who places high value on intellect" (#7 on dictionary.com) then I would suspect that almost every human being is an intellectual. Since people clearly talk about "intellectuals" as something of a selective group, they obviously cannot mean this.

Could this be due to a lack of understanding of the word and misuse of the word?

You're missing the point. In France, there is something called the Academie Francaise. This national institution determines what is valid French and what is not. Nothing serves that function for English, including dictionaries. The meaning of words in English is entirely based on common use.

If you actually read the definition, you would see it is not nearly as inclusive nor as broad as you make it out to be.

Then can you please present me with the definition you intend to you, rather than vaguely referencing numbers?

 

[CCA]

The fact that this argument has been going on for 23 PAGES proves we are all intellectuals, only intellectuals could be this anal.

THAT IS ALL

 

[Gogf]

Yes do you know how new words are formed and old definitions change in a dictionary? By concensus, now I would hardly call you shower a concencus now, would you?

Could you please rephrase the second sentence so that it is easier to understand?

 

[Fifty]

Most people around here do use the definition in question, the #7 one. Most people down here at college, including the professors, use it as well. How do you even know "most" people mean something other than the #7 definition when they say intellectual? Could this be due to a lack of understanding of the word and misuse of the word?

The problem is that #7 is a bunch of crap. By that definition, a ****** that works at McDonald's his whole life and who has never read a book or thought about anything but what cartoon to watch on TV could still be an intellectual, provided he recognized and placed value on intellectual things (e.g. he "wished he wuz one of dem smart folk what who can read good")

Of course, actually EXAMINING the validity of definitions seems to be too much (too intellectual?) for you people.

 

[Perfection]

The fact that this argument has been going on for 23 PAGES proves we are all intellectuals, only intellectuals could be this anal.

THAT IS ALL

I'm not being anal, I'm just procrastinating my stupid problem set for my stupid class of stupidity.

 

[Sidhe]

I have no idea what the "#7 one" is. Considering that five definitions have apparently been posted, I would suspect that there are actually five #7s. Could you please be more specific about this?

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.


This is the only part of the definition that specifies a person, the rest are characteristics attributed to people or the pursuit of intelectualism.

 

[CCA]

I'm not being anal, I'm just procrastinating my stupid problem set for my stupid class of stupidity.

Do you actually think the masses can argue for 14 pages long without gettting bored...

 

[Gogf]

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.

Let's be absolutely clear before we proceed. Do you consider everyone who "places a high value on intellect" to be an intellectual?

 

[FredLC]

Guys, come'on now.

I can see how resorting to the dictionary is tempting for those who wants a more conglobing definition of term "intellectual". I disagree, and I honestly think that most of you would hardly use that word to describe someone else except it was someone of remarkable mental achievements, and known for that. Honestly, in that respect the definition you are defending is not sensible at all.

But let's say I give up, and buy the definition you are selling. In that case, wouldn't the term loose it's meaning entirely? I mean, if to be an intellectual all you need is to use your intellect, not needing prevalence, excelence or highlight in any manner or fashion, can you counter-exemplify and show me a single human being which would not be an intellectual?

Sidhe:

As for the "get a room" bit, was it truly necessary? I don't know why you and Fifty are having a go at each other, but as you must have seen, from our previous conversations, I'm not willing to join pissing contests, and I'll opt out of debates which turn into one. I'd appreciate if you left me out of yours.

Honestly.

Regards .

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Maybe this was missed in the posting frenzy, or perhaps people prefer arguing theory to examining attempted practice. Either way, I'll bump this post once.
Is this intellectual?

Enough train wreck for a while.

Post in thread: Is Asperger's Syndrome a gift or a curse?

I wrote that just now, partially with this thread in mind. I've tried to act intellectual there. I've tried to be specific as to:
-What meanings I'm using
-How I view something
-What affects my opinion
-Why I feel this way
-What effects this has had

I also tried for clarity, both rephrasing myself with multiple interpretations of words, and checking my spelling and grammar, so that people could pay attention to what I wrote and now be distracted by how I wrote it.


So. Does anyone else think that said post was to some degree intellectual? Are the things I listed above associated with intellectualism? How should I fix any flaws in such a post? What could be added to the post?

Does being self-obsessed enough to ask this question disqualify me from being an intellectual?

 

[Sidhe]

Guys, come'on now.

I can see how resorting to the dictionary is tempting for those who wants a more comglobing definition of term "intellectual". I disagree, and I honestly think that most of you would hardly use that word to describe someone else except it was someone of remarkable mental achievements, and known for that. Honestly, in that respect the definition you are defending is not sensible at all.

But let's say I give up, and buy the definition you are selling. In that case, wouldn't the term loose it's meaning entirely? I mean, if to be an intellectual all you need is to use your intellect, not needing prevalence, excelence or highlight in any manner or fashion, can you counter-exemplify and show me a single human being which would not be an intellectual?

Sidhe:

As for the "get a room" bit, was it truly necessary? I don't know why you and fifty are having a go at each other, but you must have seen, from our previous conversations, that i'm not willing to join pissing contests, and I'll opt out of debates which turn into one. I'd appreciate if you left me out of yours.

Honestly.

Regards .

OK it was a joke, no offenc.

And look if your going to have a discussion you need to define what you mean by intellectual not just make up whatever springs into your mind, then you can say yes that's what it is, now what I think it should be is?

And Fred how do you define intellectual the meaning of the word?

 

[Perfection]

That was the intellectual thing to do, nice work Fred!

 

[Atlas14]

No, it doesn't matter. "Intellectual" could mean one thing to the community at large and something else entirely to the community at CFC. From the posts I have seen in this thread, I think that's a reasonable conclusion.

Well exactly, that does not mean one definition is necessarily wrong though. From the posts I have seen in this thread, there seems to be a laughable confusion between the words "intellectual" and "genius".

I have no idea what the "#7 one" is. Considering that five definitions have apparently been posted, I would suspect that there are actually five #7s. Could you please be more specific about this?

Of course I can

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.

Well, I don't, because I don't know what the mysterious #7 definition is.If it's "someone who places high value on intellect" (#7 on dictionary.com) then I would suspect that almost every human being is an intellectual. Since people clearly talk about "intellectuals" as something of a selective group, they obviously cannot mean this.

Did you actually read the whole entire definition?

Not all human beings pursue things of interest to the intellect on an abstract and general level. Plain and simple.

You're missing the point. In France, there is something called the Academie Francaise. This national institution determines what is valid French and what is not. Nothing serves that function for English, including dictionaries. The meaning of words in English is entirely based on common use.

And the definition I provided is in fact commonly used. Not only is it in the dictionary (which is an added bonus for my argument) but everyone in my area in Maryland and down here at my college in Virginia use that definition.

 

[Atlas14]

The problem is that #7 is a bunch of crap. By that definition, a ****** that works at McDonald's his whole life and who has never read a book or thought about anything but what cartoon to watch on TV could still be an intellectual, provided he recognized and placed value on intellectual things (e.g. he "wished he wuz one of dem smart folk what who can read good")

Your average McDonald's employee cannot pursue an area of intellect on an abstract and general level.

 

[Fifty]

: Not all human beings pursue things of interest to the intellect on an abstract and general level. Plain and simple.

Read the definition as many times as it takes for you to realize the distinction between pursual and value-placement.

 

[Gogf]

Well exactly, that does not mean one definition is necessarily wrong though. From the posts I have seen in this thread, there seems to be a laughable confusion between the words "intellectual" and "genius".

This was because Sidhe tried to use his supposed IQ of 140 to "prove" that he was an intellectual.

Did you actually read the whole entire definition?

Not all human beings pursue things of interest to the intellect on an abstract and general level. Plain and simple.

The definition did not say "interest to the intellect on an abstract and general level." It said "a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect ... esp. on an abstract and general level." As far as I know, "esp." means "especially."

And the definition I provided is in fact commonly used. Not only is it in the dictionary (which is an added bonus for my argument) but everyone in my area in Maryland and down here at my college in Virginia use that definition.

How do you know which definition everyone in your area in Maryland uses?

I would also think that NOBODY actually uses that definition. That definition suggests that every human being is an intellectual. I challenge you to find me one person who believes that every human being is an intellectual.

 

[Atlas14]

Read the definition as many times as it takes for you to realize the distinction between pursual and value-placement.

Ok, so I don't agree with the value-placement part of the definition.

 

[FredLC]

OK it was a joke, no offenc.

And look if your going to have a discussion you need to define what you mean by intellectual not just make up whatever springs into your mind, then you can say yes that's what it is, now what I think it should be is?

And Fred how do you define intellectual the meaning of the word?

No harm no foul.

As for my definition of intellectual, well, i guess it would be:

"Anyone whose mental capacities in regards of intellect, there is, the habilities to understand, extrapolate and organize knowledge, as well as explain, teach or communicate it (or any combination of the six) are excercized with a performance considerably superior to average people..".

Regards .

 

[Gogf]

Your average McDonald's employee cannot pursue an area of intellect on an abstract and general level.

You just made a huge generalization. You also forgot about the marketing, management, corporate, and legal staff. That said, I will assume that you meant the average fry cook or counter-worker. I would think that the average fry cook or counter-worker places a high value on intellect.

 

[Atlas14]

How do you know which definition everyone in your area in Maryland uses?

I would also think that NOBODY actually uses that definition. That definition suggests that every human being is an intellectual. I challenge you to find me one person who believes that every human being is an intellectual.

I actually hear a plethora of people define the word intellectual, as crazy as it may sound- both teachers, students, and sometimes parents.