stuntpickle
05-28-2012, 05:10 PM
I'll agree with that.
I cannot adequately explain how much it means to see you write this. Look, I know you think I "have it in" for you, but what I don't think you understand is that my biggest disagreements on this forum have been with J and StLukes, not you. Agreeing with them isn't a convenient way for me to get at you.
My only complaint is that you at times seem more concerned about "winning" an argument rather than honestly engaging in one.
And it's perfectly fine to ignore those connotations and historical contexts as long as one is clarifying that they're doing so and using a definition that is perfectly applicable (and I will admit it's my fault for not doing so from the get-go, but you should credit me for doing so once the misunderstanding arose).
I don't think this is always the case. Listen, it seemed to be that you were trying to say that an intellectual approach to literature was necessary and that you were trying to bolster this point by discussing Keats in terms of intellectualism. It honestly seemed that you were trying to prove one statement about intellectualism with another one about a very different variety of intellectualism.
It was an idea that struck "at once" after a lot of other very intellectual pursuits, all of which had to happen for the epiphany to have occurred. I seem to remember reading that General Relativity struck Einstein similarly, but it probably helped that he had thought about the subject beforehand.
No, and I'm glad you FINALLY mentioned this. This is the distinction I tried to make with JCamilo back when we started. Here's precisely what I said: "I did state that "intellectual" needs to be distinguished from just 'everyday learning" (I'd add thinking) and "academic" and that I think it resides somewhere in the middle. Again, most "everyday learners(/thinkers)" do not come up with something like "Negative Capability," which is the product of much reading and reflection. But because it was done outside of the academy, it couldn't be said to be "academic" either, so "intellectual," to me, seems the right way to describe it."
So, no, I do not think everyone that "thinks and ponders" is an intellectual. Rather, I tried to argue that my usage was for those that think and ponder a great deal on certain abstract subjects, aesthetic theories being one of them. Keats did this. He clearly thought more--longer, deeper, broader--on the subject of poetry than do most, and it lead him to come up with several theories that still resonate today. To me, that's THE mark of an intellectual: think a lot on a subject, come up with concepts that continue to resonate... or at least show some thoughtful engagement with the various intellectual theories and ideas at the time.
Yes, the problem I have with this, and the problem I assume J has with it, is that Negative Capability, itself, is a sort of injunction against a variety of intellectualism. Is the idea ingenious? Yes. Is it clever? Yes. Is it something only Keats could have come up with? Yes. Was it "intellectual?" I have to say no. If I say yes, I have to confront the following incoherence:
1. Keats has utilized intellectual means to reach the idea of negative capability.
2. Negative capability suggests we should not rely on intellectual means.
To call Keats an intellectual seems to me, in some way, to argue with Keats in an unhelpful manner. To call him an intellectual seems to diminish what he, himself, was saying. If you mean something else by "intellectual," then let's just use some other term.
I cannot adequately explain how much it means to see you write this. Look, I know you think I "have it in" for you, but what I don't think you understand is that my biggest disagreements on this forum have been with J and StLukes, not you. Agreeing with them isn't a convenient way for me to get at you.
My only complaint is that you at times seem more concerned about "winning" an argument rather than honestly engaging in one.
And it's perfectly fine to ignore those connotations and historical contexts as long as one is clarifying that they're doing so and using a definition that is perfectly applicable (and I will admit it's my fault for not doing so from the get-go, but you should credit me for doing so once the misunderstanding arose).
I don't think this is always the case. Listen, it seemed to be that you were trying to say that an intellectual approach to literature was necessary and that you were trying to bolster this point by discussing Keats in terms of intellectualism. It honestly seemed that you were trying to prove one statement about intellectualism with another one about a very different variety of intellectualism.
It was an idea that struck "at once" after a lot of other very intellectual pursuits, all of which had to happen for the epiphany to have occurred. I seem to remember reading that General Relativity struck Einstein similarly, but it probably helped that he had thought about the subject beforehand.
No, and I'm glad you FINALLY mentioned this. This is the distinction I tried to make with JCamilo back when we started. Here's precisely what I said: "I did state that "intellectual" needs to be distinguished from just 'everyday learning" (I'd add thinking) and "academic" and that I think it resides somewhere in the middle. Again, most "everyday learners(/thinkers)" do not come up with something like "Negative Capability," which is the product of much reading and reflection. But because it was done outside of the academy, it couldn't be said to be "academic" either, so "intellectual," to me, seems the right way to describe it."
So, no, I do not think everyone that "thinks and ponders" is an intellectual. Rather, I tried to argue that my usage was for those that think and ponder a great deal on certain abstract subjects, aesthetic theories being one of them. Keats did this. He clearly thought more--longer, deeper, broader--on the subject of poetry than do most, and it lead him to come up with several theories that still resonate today. To me, that's THE mark of an intellectual: think a lot on a subject, come up with concepts that continue to resonate... or at least show some thoughtful engagement with the various intellectual theories and ideas at the time.
Yes, the problem I have with this, and the problem I assume J has with it, is that Negative Capability, itself, is a sort of injunction against a variety of intellectualism. Is the idea ingenious? Yes. Is it clever? Yes. Is it something only Keats could have come up with? Yes. Was it "intellectual?" I have to say no. If I say yes, I have to confront the following incoherence:
1. Keats has utilized intellectual means to reach the idea of negative capability.
2. Negative capability suggests we should not rely on intellectual means.
To call Keats an intellectual seems to me, in some way, to argue with Keats in an unhelpful manner. To call him an intellectual seems to diminish what he, himself, was saying. If you mean something else by "intellectual," then let's just use some other term.