And when does it turn into a bunch of buzzwords and catchphrases. is simply being analytical enough? Give me your thoughts people.
What does "intellectual"mean to you?
- Thread starter VangelicSurgeon
- Start date
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
I think "intellectual" is most useful when you use it to differentiate from "intelligent", which is really hard to quantify. We all hear, growing up, that "there's different kinds of intelligence", and hear stories about day laborers who are brilliant with cars, or something, and therefore intelligent if not intellectual. Intellectual connotes an appreciation for art, an appreciation for intelligence, and moreover an appreciation for the internal act of THINKING.
Intellectual is closer to "cerebral" than to "intelligent". It's a little more material than cerebral because it includes an appreciation of other peoples' thoughts (in the form of literature, music, etc.) and not just your own.
I've heard people use "intellectual" as an insult a lot recently. That's total, bitter, bullshit, and it's confusing the concept of intellectualism with unrelated concepts like pretentiousness, pseudointellectualism, arrogance, etc.
Enough buzzwords for you?
Intellectual is closer to "cerebral" than to "intelligent". It's a little more material than cerebral because it includes an appreciation of other peoples' thoughts (in the form of literature, music, etc.) and not just your own.
I've heard people use "intellectual" as an insult a lot recently. That's total, bitter, bullshit, and it's confusing the concept of intellectualism with unrelated concepts like pretentiousness, pseudointellectualism, arrogance, etc.
Enough buzzwords for you?
LoboUivante
my tummy hurts
... just a way for people to tell you who's the boss. I bet that ifstarted quoting Einstein i would become "ntellectual" but would that make me intelligent?
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
Depends what's behind it, but if it was a casual manner intended just to make people think you're smart, I think that'd be "pseudointellectual"...
LoboUivante
my tummy hurts
"pseudointellectual"? 
. What's really dumb is when people that spend years in colleague having great grades but no fun (those that are commonly beaten by bullies) after graduation get great houses, great cars and overall greats lives. Meanwhile where are the big bad bullies? They are fat, stupider and listening to Pantera in a pitiable excuse to cover their own fragility. Guess that not everything is wrong in the world
now im thinking what I was trying to say
. What's really dumb is when people that spend years in colleague having great grades but no fun (those that are commonly beaten by bullies) after graduation get great houses, great cars and overall greats lives. Meanwhile where are the big bad bullies? They are fat, stupider and listening to Pantera in a pitiable excuse to cover their own fragility. Guess that not everything is wrong in the world
now im thinking what I was trying to say
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
Yeah, I think those people aren't intellectual at all, and generally not pseudointellectual either. They ARE intelligent in a way--that's why I hate the vagaries of "intelligent". For example, picture the fratty, Dave Matthews-listening, whitehat-wearing denizen of a high-priced American university. He gets good grades in most of his classes; he was in honors in high school; he can do physics and chemistry better than me. That sounds like the guy you just described. He's intelligent but not INTELLIGENT. He's not intellectual and doesn't make the effort to use fancy words or see Plato in his everyday life, so he's not even pseudointellectual. He's a fucking idiot. But on some scales, he's intelligent.
chupe666
You may enter up to 25 ch
To separate characters into categories that have seemingly come up here, I will utilize the following 4 crappy terms:
Intelligent Intellectuals:
Lisa seems to be considered an intellectual on the show, and I would believe somewhat intellectual in that her thirst for knowledge is more cerebral, whereas Martin Prince seems more driven to succeed for the sake of success. Lisa is obviously book smart, and 'intelligently intellectual'. However, Lisa is rather lacking in street smarts, so she seems less well rounded than she could be. Mr. Smithers and Principal Skinner would fall in this category as well, I believe.
Intelligent Non-Intellectuals:
Bart is considered a non-intellectual in that he does not apply himself in school, but I do not believe I would consider him unintelligent. His capers tend to lean on the more cerebral, albeit devious, side of things. Bart may be less book smart than Lisa, but not completely unintelligent as he possesses a certain street level of intelligence that is evidenced by his chicanery. Ned Flanders might fall in this category as well, since he is not necessarily seen as a great intellectual force, yet seems rather intelligent- although naive.
Unintelligent Intellectuals:
These I would consider to be the people who are seemingly intellectuals, but are actually morons in intelligent peoples' clothing. Mayor Quimby would to me represent the seemingly intelligent buzz-word-using guy who really does not know which way is up. Quite appropriately, he is in public office and considered a leader of the community. Kent Brockman would fall in this category for me as well.
Unintelligent Non-Intellectuals:
AKA Buffoons. These are the comedic relief people we all know and love. Obviously, this would include Homer. Ralph Wiggum puts the idiot in idiot-savant. His simplistic view of the world is refreshing, but an intellectual he is not. Face value is almost too much for him. His father is shortly behind him in buffoonery.
Ah, poop. I'm bored at work. This seemed like a good idea when I thought of it... but now it just looks unintelligent & non-intellectual.
Intelligent Intellectuals:
Lisa seems to be considered an intellectual on the show, and I would believe somewhat intellectual in that her thirst for knowledge is more cerebral, whereas Martin Prince seems more driven to succeed for the sake of success. Lisa is obviously book smart, and 'intelligently intellectual'. However, Lisa is rather lacking in street smarts, so she seems less well rounded than she could be. Mr. Smithers and Principal Skinner would fall in this category as well, I believe.
Intelligent Non-Intellectuals:
Bart is considered a non-intellectual in that he does not apply himself in school, but I do not believe I would consider him unintelligent. His capers tend to lean on the more cerebral, albeit devious, side of things. Bart may be less book smart than Lisa, but not completely unintelligent as he possesses a certain street level of intelligence that is evidenced by his chicanery. Ned Flanders might fall in this category as well, since he is not necessarily seen as a great intellectual force, yet seems rather intelligent- although naive.
Unintelligent Intellectuals:
These I would consider to be the people who are seemingly intellectuals, but are actually morons in intelligent peoples' clothing. Mayor Quimby would to me represent the seemingly intelligent buzz-word-using guy who really does not know which way is up. Quite appropriately, he is in public office and considered a leader of the community. Kent Brockman would fall in this category for me as well.
Unintelligent Non-Intellectuals:
AKA Buffoons. These are the comedic relief people we all know and love. Obviously, this would include Homer. Ralph Wiggum puts the idiot in idiot-savant. His simplistic view of the world is refreshing, but an intellectual he is not. Face value is almost too much for him. His father is shortly behind him in buffoonery.
Ah, poop. I'm bored at work. This seemed like a good idea when I thought of it... but now it just looks unintelligent & non-intellectual.
chupe666
You may enter up to 25 ch
No eric that's good. I'd say a lot of people that write (textbooks, non-fiction, what have you) are Unintelligent Intellectuals. They put all of this knowlege on paper, but with no real or coherent purpose in mind. The information isn't even presented in a logical fashion. Of course this is just my experience of reading textbooks and reccommended reading in college, becasue since then I haven't read much non-fiction.
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
Hah, nice work I think you could further stratify (as you did by referring to Lisa as a cerebral intellectual), infinitely, which is why it's so hard to use the word "intelligent" intelligently.
My high-school friends and I used to talk about the difference between "book smarts" and "street smarts". Back then, I thought the two terms were pretty clear-cut, but now I'm more aware of the layers. For example, that uneducated day laborer might disdainfully spit "book smarts" at me because I don't know how to take apart an engine and I do know how to take apart a text. But me and my college friends spat "book smarts" at those School of Management/Business kids who got perfect grades by parroting what was in the book back at the professor rather than coming up with something interesting, original, and intelligent. We differentiated "intelligent" from "book intelligent" in that way. ("Is that kid John from your Honors History class smart?" "Ah, he's dumber than a box of rocks, but he's book smart...") And there are more and subtler nuances as well.
I think you could further stratify (as you did by referring to Lisa as a cerebral intellectual), infinitely, which is why it's so hard to use the word "intelligent" intelligently.My high-school friends and I used to talk about the difference between "book smarts" and "street smarts". Back then, I thought the two terms were pretty clear-cut, but now I'm more aware of the layers. For example, that uneducated day laborer might disdainfully spit "book smarts" at me because I don't know how to take apart an engine and I do know how to take apart a text. But me and my college friends spat "book smarts" at those School of Management/Business kids who got perfect grades by parroting what was in the book back at the professor rather than coming up with something interesting, original, and intelligent. We differentiated "intelligent" from "book intelligent" in that way. ("Is that kid John from your Honors History class smart?" "Ah, he's dumber than a box of rocks, but he's book smart...") And there are more and subtler nuances as well.
chupe666
You may enter up to 25 ch
Some of the professors I had in college would select a book for the course (like my Differential Equations prof) and then teach entirely differently from the book. If you tried to follow the book to see the prof's methodology, you were screwed. He basically only used it for homework problems. He'd be an intelligent intellectual, I guess? Another guy decided he didn't like the books available, and wrote his own. I guess he'd also be an intelligent intellectual.
Then there were profs that regurgitated what was in the textbooks their department heads told them they should be using. Those would be the unintelligent intellectuals; they tell you what the book says, but don't get into why it says what it says.
Of course, I remember the profs that were like the first examples much better because I got more out of them. My Cosmology prof (the study of how the universe began, not the study of make-up) was a really interesting guy, and really fun to listen to. Although the poor guy had to entertain questions from those frat people in the white hats about how this all related to Star Trek.
Then there were profs that regurgitated what was in the textbooks their department heads told them they should be using. Those would be the unintelligent intellectuals; they tell you what the book says, but don't get into why it says what it says.
Of course, I remember the profs that were like the first examples much better because I got more out of them. My Cosmology prof (the study of how the universe began, not the study of make-up) was a really interesting guy, and really fun to listen to. Although the poor guy had to entertain questions from those frat people in the white hats about how this all related to Star Trek.
chupe666
You may enter up to 25 ch
Yeah- as I was thinking through the list of characters, I realized more and more that there are infinite divisions. I guess that'd only support the fact that (even in cartoons) we're all individuals. I hated to put it in categories like that, but it seemed the easiest way to get my lameass point across. Not that there was one.
mindspell
vvv Jake's ass vvv
This BB is certainly the most interesting and dynamic I have seen yet. I like it!
As for the intellectual question I think it all comes down to the willingness to learn and to think. Non-intellectual will not want to think, as soon as it becomes intellectually challenging, wether or not it is in a subject that you like or not, it becomes a chore. The intellectual, on the other hand, will keep an open-mind and will will try to think through the problem/situation/whatever. The intellectual is interested in everything because he doesn't know everything.
The minute the intellectual dismisses a subject of study he becomes an Unintelligent intellectual, as stated earlier. If the intellectual discards a subject after a careful investigation and fianlly decides that it is not for him to go into it, fine, he is an intellectual after all.
The intellectuals are few and far between Simply because the ones that society calls intellectuals are stuck up assholes that often dismiss the very being of other members of society simply because they are not like them. These sorts of unintelligent intellectuals will dismiss professional sports as brutes fighting with each other for a rubber ball. They will call childish teh ones that actually can have fun having a beer with friends and doing stupid stunts.
You see where I am gong with this.
As for the intellectual question I think it all comes down to the willingness to learn and to think. Non-intellectual will not want to think, as soon as it becomes intellectually challenging, wether or not it is in a subject that you like or not, it becomes a chore. The intellectual, on the other hand, will keep an open-mind and will will try to think through the problem/situation/whatever. The intellectual is interested in everything because he doesn't know everything.
The minute the intellectual dismisses a subject of study he becomes an Unintelligent intellectual, as stated earlier. If the intellectual discards a subject after a careful investigation and fianlly decides that it is not for him to go into it, fine, he is an intellectual after all.
The intellectuals are few and far between Simply because the ones that society calls intellectuals are stuck up assholes that often dismiss the very being of other members of society simply because they are not like them. These sorts of unintelligent intellectuals will dismiss professional sports as brutes fighting with each other for a rubber ball. They will call childish teh ones that actually can have fun having a beer with friends and doing stupid stunts.
You see where I am gong with this.
D Mullholand
[project closed]
then, how "philosophical" would be different from "intellectual"? (philo-sophy, appreciation-for-THINKING)
Demonspell
cheating the polygraph
I agree with Xfer's definition. It refers to someone who uses his the full capacities of his mind as an instrument, and learns through means other than absorbing other people's conceptions of the nature of things.
Obyeybyeogone
New Metal Member
That has always bothered me when people think those who get straight a's are "smart".
Like in a class where I have an A (Definitely not all of them
) Someone who doesn't even know me will say "You're smart", and it's like, based on what? Having an a? That just shows you can put in effort, and/or regurgitate what the book says for a test, it's not a measure of how you think.
Intelligence is a combination of how you understand things, how you interpret information, how you gather information, how you make decisions, and a whole lot of other factors, how hard you work is just a small part of it, and usually people who aren't terribly bright need to make up for it by working extra hard (nothing wrong with that really though)
Like in a class where I have an A (Definitely not all of them
) Someone who doesn't even know me will say "You're smart", and it's like, based on what? Having an a? That just shows you can put in effort, and/or regurgitate what the book says for a test, it's not a measure of how you think.Intelligence is a combination of how you understand things, how you interpret information, how you gather information, how you make decisions, and a whole lot of other factors, how hard you work is just a small part of it, and usually people who aren't terribly bright need to make up for it by working extra hard (nothing wrong with that really though)
LoboUivante
my tummy hurts
Obyeybyeogone
New Metal Member
LoboUivante
my tummy hurts
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
Good point. I would say the difference is that 'intellectual' connotes appreciation of external ideas and their internal, uh, ramifications (ie art, music, literature) while philosophical connotes a mode oriented a lot more inward. I think of an intellectual as someone who can talk about Dostoevsky and Gogol and throw in their own observations, but a philosopher as someone who puzzles out how you can have morality in a world without God (hmmm...I just described Dostoevsky. Hee hee, I'm intellectual!) Or something.
Similar threads
