Most intellectual writers

[dfw]

most intellectual writers

[Desolation]

I hate to respond to every "Who is the most _ writer" topic with the same people, but I guess that's just the way it goes... Thomas Pynchon, DF Wallace, Shakespeare, Nabokov, and JJ.

[stlukesguild]

Milton
Dante
Petrarch
Borges

[islandclimber]

Like the above, James Joyce, David Foster Wallace, Thomas Pynchon, Vladimir Nabokov... and I would add JL Borges, Georges Perec, John Barth, William Gass, TS Eliot, Joseph Mcelroy, Rikki Ducornet, Peter Esterhazy, Lyudmila Ulitskaya.

[Pierre Menard]

I third Borges. His literary intellect leaves me in awe at times.

[Ser Nevarc]

I'll add Thomas Mann, John Stuart Mill, and my wild card, Tennyson.

[E.A Rumfield]

Bunch of pansies,

“For a hundred years or more the world, our world, has been dying. And not one man, in these last hundred years or so, has been crazy enough to put a bomb up the ******* of creation and set it off. The world is rotting away, dying piecemeal. But it needs the coup de grace, it needs to be blown to smithereens. Not one of us is intact, and yet we have in us all the continents and the seas between the continents and the birds of the air. We are going to put it down ― the evolution of this world which has died but which has not been buried.”

“This is not a book in the ordinary sense of the word. No, this is a prolonged insult, a gob of spit in the face of art, a kick in the pants to God, Man, Destiny, Time, Love, Beauty... what you will. ”

You all think you're so original and unique but you fall over each other like stark mad Black Friday shoppers to mention the same 3 or 5 dead men.

“The city grows like a cancer; I must grow like a sun. The city eats deeper and deeper into the red; it is an insatiable white louse which must die eventually of inanition. I am going to starve the white louse which is eating me up. I am going to die as a city in order to become again a man. Therefore I close my ears, my eyes, my mouth.”

[islandclimber]

And it seems to me that you shamelessly put your own utter irrelevance on parade by quoting Henry Miller in a conversation on intellectual writers. Bravo.

As a side note, it appears almost everyone listed different authors, including several living ones. Yet for some reason I doubt you have read the majority of the names listed above.

[E.A Rumfield]

And it seems to me that you shamelessly put your own utter irrelevance on parade by quoting Henry Miller in a conversation on intellectual writers. Bravo.

As a side note, it appears almost everyone listed different authors, including several living ones. Yet for some reason I doubt you have read the majority of the names listed above.

Quite true, very few writers speak truly to life and of ****.

[cacian]

How do you mean by 'intellectual'? It is a vast word.

[Emil Miller]

Bunch of pansies,

Who are you calling a pansy? Ducky. If I were a mod you would get a slap on the wrist.

[cacian]

Who are you calling a pansy? Ducky. If I were a mod you would get a slap on the wrist.

LOL I had roast duck for dinner last night. It was not bad at all :p

[Emil Miller]

How do you mean by 'intellectual'? It is a vast word.

With only 12 letters I wouldn't say that intellectual is a vast word but in German it's a different story:

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhaupt-betriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft

[cacian]

With only 12 letters I wouldn't say that intellectual is a vast word but in German it's a different story:

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhaupt-betriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft

:eek2:You cannot be serious LOL

[ladderandbucket]

According to his former tutor, David Foster Wallace could have made it as a professional philosopher. I've seen one of his papers and it looked extremely technical. He also wrote a book on infinity which looks similarly impenetrable. As for his fiction and essays, while I'm not a big fan of his style, he was certainly a talented and insightful writer. All in all he seems to have had an extraordinary mind.

[PeterL]

Most of the authors mentioned were not especially intellectual; they stayed within the repetitive mold. It is my opinion that Jonathan Swift, G.C. Edmondosn, Umberto Eco, and maybe James Joyce were the most intellectual ones that I can think of.

[Scheherazade]

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your comments.

Off-topic/inflammatory posts have been and will be removed without further notice.

~

[PeterL]

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your comments.

Off-topic/inflammatory posts have been and will be removed without further notice.

~

I thank you.

[kelby_lake]

Nabokov? Unless we're going to go for things like Sartre and Camus.

[Seasider]

Plato. Someone, I forget who said that most European philosophy is merely a footnote to Plato. I think Iris Murdoch should be on the list.

[McGrain]

I think Murdoch is a fine mention as far as my understanding of the question is concerned.

You're thinking of Alfred Whitehead.

[kev67]

Apparently Jeeves from the P.G. Wodehouse books enjoyed reading Spinoza.

[WICKES]

Aldous Huxley was a dazzling polymath who knew his science as thoroughly as his literature (unusual for great writers). He got a first from Oxford in Literature and yet could have been a scientist (like his brother and grandfather, both very distinguished biologists- his grandfather was Darwin's chief defender and friend).

C S Lewis could read Greek, Latin, French, Italian, Old Norse and Anglo-Saxon by his mid 20s and was even able to read works written in Provencal!!

Ian McEwan can be quite impressive as well.

[hannah_arendt]

Aldous Huxley was a dazzling polymath who knew his science as thoroughly as his literature (unusual for great writers). He got a first from Oxford in Literature and yet could have been a scientist (like his brother and grandfather, both very distinguished biologists- his grandfather was Darwin's chief defender and friend).

C S Lewis could read Greek, Latin, French, Italian, Old Norse and Anglo-Saxon by his mid 20s and was even able to read works written in Provencal!!

Ian McEwan can be quite impressive as well.


Despite C. S. Lewis, I would add Tolkien too.

[cafolini]

Any animal has an intellect.

[Phocion]

Despite C. S. Lewis, I would add Tolkien too.
Why on earth would you want to do that?

[PeterL]

Why on earth would you want to do that?

Tolkien was an intellectual.

[mande2013]

Most of the early twentieth-century modernists were intellectuals with the exception of Faulkner, Kafka, and Proust, and yeah, maybe Henry Miller, as well, although I don't know if that last one can be cleanly pigeon-holed within the category of literary modernism. I don't think Nabokov was an intellectual. He was more of an aesthete, although the two can perhaps overlap at times.

[SilvanDitties]

I'm not sure how you can name the likes of Proust or Faulkner as not intellectual. Certainly they're not the epitome, but I could think of several others (Kerouac, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, etc.) before I'd list them.

[ZTay]

Plato

[bookowskee]

I'm not sure what the TS meant by "intellectual" here but I shall equate as something that is enigmatic. Since that is the case now, Kafka towers above the rest. Why? I'm sure I will be re-reading his works more than any other author.

[Rei Abe]

I would like to add Leo Tolstoy to this mix, primarily because of his moral thinking.
I think I read somewhere that his works influenced both Gandhi and MLK Jr.

[Eiseabhal]

A lot of writers are / were thinkers and some could actually think in whole sentences and even paragraphs! Some writers are merely sensualists who write as Picasso painted - with their p&@£)s. A writer like Borges ( politically very right-wing) was clearly a thinker. Rand thought she was a thinker too (hearty laugh). But if a writer is only a thinker then for the reader it becomes as difficult as ploughing through Calvin's Institutes - dense thought but little of the light of joy in language that gives a writer zip.

[hypatia_]

how the hell do you define an "intellectual" writer? it seems to me if you guys deem someone intellectual if you agree with them. ha!

[Clopin]

Why are some people insisting on acting confused about what constitutes an intellectual? The word has a pretty clear and sensible meaning.

Anyways I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Aristotle, by all accounts (even Plato's) he was the most learned man of his era.

[mal4mac]

According to his former tutor, David Foster Wallace could have made it as a professional philosopher. I've seen one of his papers and it looked extremely technical. He also wrote a book on infinity which looks similarly impenetrable. As for his fiction and essays, while I'm not a big fan of his style, he was certainly a talented and insightful writer. All in all he seems to have had an extraordinary mind.

"You know, I don’t want to be offensive. But ‘Infinite Jest’ [regarded by many as Wallace’s masterpiece] is just awful. It seems ridiculous to have to say it. He can’t think, he can’t write. There’s no discernible talent.” - Harold Bloom

[mal4mac]

Aldous Huxley was a dazzling polymath who knew his science as thoroughly as his literature (unusual for great writers). He got a first from Oxford in Literature and yet could have been a scientist (like his brother and grandfather, both very distinguished biologists- his grandfather was Darwin's chief defender and friend).

"A fully fledged, fuzzy-brained California mystic." - John Carey on Aldous Huxley. I'd rate critics Harold Bloom and John Carey as "leading intellectuals"; they know how to demolish pretenders to that title!



C S Lewis could read Greek, Latin, French, Italian, Old Norse and Anglo-Saxon by his mid 20s and was even able to read works written in Provencal!!

But he was a fuzzy brained Anglican fundamentalist. Just because you can read lots of different languages doesn't mean you have a great intellect.


Ian McEwan can be quite impressive as well.

I thought he was quite impressive in "Saturday" and "Solar", but having just read "Amsterdam", I'm not so sure. The plot is so implausible & silly that it has me wondering about his intellectual ability - certainly it shows that we should never take the Booker judges too seriously; they, for certain, are seldom intellectuals, and often crass celebrities and politicians (Douglas Hurd and Nigella Lawson were on the panel that chose Amsterdam, probably McEwan's worst novel.)

[mal4mac]

how the hell do you define an "intellectual" writer? it seems to me if you guys deem someone intellectual if you agree with them. ha!

The distinctive quality of the "intellectual" is not simple intelligence, which all great writers have, but the focus on writing about abstract, philosophical and esoteric matters. Given that all great writers usually bring in some philosophical considerations then all writers are intellectuals to some extent. But I don't think it would be wrong to say, "Aristotle is a more intellectual writer than Dickens." But "intellectual" doesn't mean "best"! I don't think you can say, "Aristotle was a better writer than Dickens", or, "You should read Aristotle rather than Dickens because he is better." In fact, I'll choose Dickens before Aristotle any day. Aristotle provides, to paraphrase Elseabahl, "dense thought but little of the light of joy in language that gives a writer zip."

[PeterL]

:eek2:You cannot be serious LOL

You are right. It is "intellektuelle" in German according to Google Translate.

[Michael T]

J. S. Mill ? - Has to be up there in my opinion. Umberto Eco would have to be a contender for holding the literary crown at the moment. Any thoughts on Slavoj Zizek as today's representative of the Zeitgeist?

[mal4mac]

Here a list:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/world-thinkers-2013/#.Ute319V9TWw

Good to see Dawkins and Pinker at 1 and 3. Both are clear thinking, clear writing, scientists. Both are far more deserving of the title "leading intellectuals" than jokers like Zizek.

[PeterL]

Here a list:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?73686-Most-intellectual-writers&p=1250945#post1250945

Good to see Dawkins and Pinker at 1 and 3. Both are clear thinking, clear writing, scientists. Both are far more deserving of the title "leading intellectuals" than jokers like Zizek.

The link points to this thread.

[Barnackian]

A. Huxley. Read his essays. Find out for yourself.

[luhsun]

Isaac asimov?

[JBI]

how the hell do you define an "intellectual" writer? it seems to me if you guys deem someone intellectual if you agree with them. ha!

Well, first you define intellectual, and then look for authors writing for those kinds of peoples.

As for the definition of intellectual, it shifted over the past couple hundred of years.

[JBI]

Most of the authors mentioned were not especially intellectual; they stayed within the repetitive mold. It is my opinion that Jonathan Swift, G.C. Edmondosn, Umberto Eco, and maybe James Joyce were the most intellectual ones that I can think of.

This is a pretty good answer. Though Eco is not mainly trying to be intellectual, as he is post-modern in the sense of also crossing in bits of popular culture, as well as trying to appeal to popular audiences as well. Some times he succeeds, and sometimes he falls flat.

[Lykren]

Can we pin the meaning of 'an intellectual' down to any one attribute? Some people will understand it to mean a certain complex obscurity. Others will think it refers to those who willfully reject cultural artifacts which are or were very popular in their own time. Between those two groups there is overlap, but it occurs to me that a more precise definition of intellectualism is this: a tendency to gravitate towards abstraction in one's chosen field.

I don't mean abstraction in the sense of 'non-representationalism', which would, for most of history, be an anachronism. I mean it in the sense of esotericism, that which places great emphasis on the hidden world of the mind, on our internal landscapes.

I wonder whether such an emphasis need act antagonistically against the external world. My first thought would be 'yes, it does', but then I think of Ulysses, and the ways in which its esotericism, its intellectualism, seems to be an attempt to bridge the two spheres.

The poetry of John Ashbery may be another example of this phenomenon. Though the overall effect of his poetry is, at least on a first encounter, disorientating and devilishly complicated, his register shifts, which employ colloquialisms side by side with a sophisticated vocabulary, implies that he, too, is connecting, or attempting to connect, the esoteric and the exoteric. The same may be said of his predecessor, T. S. Eliot.

Is this a modern phenomenon, spurred on by the increasing interconnectedness of the world? Perhaps, as cultures interact with greater and greater frequency, as literacy rates continue to rise, and as the culture of the past becomes more accessible to the multitudes, the distinction between the intellectuals and the general populace will become blurred. Or perhaps not. What do you think?

If Morpheus sees this, I'd like to know what he'd say about postmodernism being a philosophical position that (contrary to my earlier assertion) refuses to impose a cohesion on the universe. My opinion is that art represents, if not an attempt to connect with, then at least an awareness of the existence of other people, and thus recognizes a sort of organization already existing in the universe, that of self and other.

It's late and I'm rambling by now, so I'll end here, hoping someone will read this and be able to make sense of it.

[hypatia_]

Well, first you define intellectual, and then look for authors writing for those kinds of peoples.

As for the definition of intellectual, it shifted over the past couple hundred of years.

That's what I'm saying! The definition of intellectual is totally subjective. The fact that it "shifts" at all is proof it doesn't have a general definition. And I bet with the advent of the internet, it's now shifts even more frequently.

Your definition of intellectual depends on what you've read, what you agree with.

The only real concrete definition I can think of is a mind that can understand what is cliche and what is original theory.

[luhsun]

An intellectual is anyone who does not care much about the mundane issues of food, shelter, money, companionship or acceptance by society at large.

[stlukesguild]

An intellectual is anyone who does not care much about the mundane issues of food, shelter, money, companionship or acceptance by society at large.

What do any of those things have to do with whether the person is an intellectual or not?

[luhsun]

One can afford to be an intellectual if one is rich and comfortable. Or when one is a stoic like diogenes and cares not for material possessions or social acceptance. Whether the claimant has any grey matter in between his ears, or the ability to change the world for the better or worse, or talk non-stop about the ingredients of the best curry noodle in singapore is immaterial.

[JBI]

An intellectual is anyone who does not care much about the mundane issues of food, shelter, money, companionship or acceptance by society at large.

What do any of those things have to do with whether the person is an intellectual or not?

Because applying the brain to the pursuits of the former does not allow time for the latter. Reading books and philosophical stuff will not help any of the real issues in the world. It's a truth that there is a disconnection between intellectual pursuits and societal issues. So that when my professor writes about intellectual development in Song Dynasty China in regard to social mobility, he is not actually adding anything to the intellectual development and social mobility of the people around him. Such pursuits are, quite simply, selfish, and therefore rejected. If people wanted to help people, they would more likely do something constructive.

[JCamilo]

Well, Voltaire cared for all above. He wrote letters about his diet and of course, always minded much where he would be sheltered, loved money and was rich, had a lot of companions and certainly wanted a lot to be accepted by society.

[luhsun]

It is because voltaire had the money and the privilege to choose his meals or friends etc that he could afford to be an intellectual. When one is rich enough, or has enough friends, and life is no longer a struggle (or the converse, when the stoic embraces the life of a hermit) then one's backside get itchy and voila... an intellectual.
Which brings us back to the original question.. almost writers are/were intellectuals.. because otherwise, as jdi mentioned, they would be out in the real world trying to change the world.

[miyako73]

Luhsun, I think your statement holds true in a particular period and culture. The early Buddhist scholars and writers of Korea belonged to that kind of intellectual mold. They gave up everything-including good food, even sex, and comfortable home-just so they could focus on writing and developing their minds. I think this thread is about Western intellectuals/writers.

[luhsun]

There were plenty of ascetics among the greeks, jews, christians, muslim etc. The eastern people could be just as practical or hedonistic as american hollywood. Shi huangdi burnt the books and buried the pesky intellectuals. I am not that steeped in history..anyone can help and confirm whether he was the first or there were earlier anti-intellectuals?

[miyako73]

If Asians are included in the definition of that "intellectual writer", who can rival Jose Rizal- doctor of medicine, ethnologist, linguist, biologist, ecologist, economist, agriculturist, architect, engineer, novelist, poet, short story writer, playwright, diarist, propagandist, columnist, translator, philosopher, revolutionary, atheist, painter, sculptor, illustrator, spoke more than twenty languages fluently, educated in Germany, Spain, France in the late 1800's, and was executed because of literature--his anti-religion and anti-Spain novels?

[luhsun]

Just googled..jeremiah's scroll got burnt a few hundred yrs prior to shi shuangdi's.

[JBI]

I will not respond to the above poster on Korean Buddhism, only to note that the Buddhist institutional structure, like that of Korean Society as a whole, was very class-divided. The same is true of both Japan and China, the first major Buddhist movement to move against this, Pure Land Buddhism, is actually notorious for doing away with specific things, namely much of the Monastic code, and more radically, the no sex code.

As for the specifics of Korea, I would recommend consulting work on Buddhist patronage and sponsorship of monasteries. The social strata of Korea (which has traditionally been feudal in cultural mentality, and divided over noble lines) is reflected as such within the Buddhist hierarchies. The original models, which then passed onward to Japan, such as Tiantai (Tendai) and Chan(Zen) were largely aristocratic religions.

Unless you mean hermeticism, which is quite different from intellectualism, as the intellectual is very much of this world and engaged in its discourse, at least by Western and East Asian understanding, and to an unlearned scholar, south Asian thought as well (hence why every Sutra begins with people gathering to listen to the words of the Buddha).

[miyako73]

To the one who doesn't want to be named: please read the history of Silhak scholars of the late Joseon period (that ended in late 1800's). They came from different backgrounds. There was no profound elitism. Heck, they even worked with farmers and artisans who were ranked low in the old korean social stratification. Some were for utopian reforms. Others focused on pragmatic social changes. There were even scholars who were open to Catholicism.

Don't oppose me on that. I collect Korean manuscripts. I'm a reader of anything related to Yi-Sun Shin.

[luhsun]

Miyako, are you japanese or korean?
Admiral yi's story was interesting, and i note it was before the time of zheng he. Any linkage you know of?

[miyako73]

Zheng He of Ming Dynasty? If that's what you meant, he predated admiral Yi by 1 1/2 centuries.

[luhsun]

Zheng died 1433.. sorry, my mistake. Admiral Yi died in 1598.

[JBI]

I don't oppose that there were scholars concerned with issues. We are talking about intellectual literature here, the which, of course, is more or less restricted to the Ru Lin under imperial sanction in Choson Korea, I do not need a manuscript to prove this. The Confucian Orthodoxy is very much the leading intellectual base of Choson Korea (hence why I mentioned earlier Buddhism which, at the time, was a rival orthodoxy). Such orthodox learning was so elitist, that the intellectual would still engage in Classical Chinese (as a method of communication) long after the Hangul System took over. In addition, the general political and philosophical base was necessarily tied with elitist scholars in the ruist tradition. This later led to the expulsion of other rival "intellectual" movements, such as the XinxuePai, who, though gaining prominence in Tokugawa Japan, were legally banned from Korea by official edict.

Now, as for manuscripts etc. This is a fragment of popular culture, or at least popular discourse. The same way Nietzsche is an intellectual writer, whereas Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto is not. The same way the particularly opaque prose of Homi Bhabha is, whereas the work of Ernest Hemingway, in many ways, is not.

This is not a value judgment, but when we discuss East Asian (or Confucian) if you will, literature, the intellectual class is marked clearly, even linguistically. So, for instance, if someone is writing in 文 in Chinese instead of 白。 or IF someone is writing in 雅 instead of 素 language, the distinction is quite clear. The same is said of Japanese literature, where an intellectual class would dominate cultural debates in a capital, regardless of the political unfolding of the military class in the Shogun's circle (this beginning in the Heian period and lasting quite until the Meiji Revolution). That Chinese writing in Korea was able to last so long amongst a specific class attests very much to the class-related, culture related, and blood-related construction of Korean culture, and the intellectual scene at the time. Similar, coincidentally, to both Japan and China, who marked an intellectual much based on their linguistic background (the original plot for the Imperial Exams in China, for instance, required nomination from a specific academy, hence the intellectual zone also was the determinant of a political zone).

This myth we have of the great eastern intellectual exchange, be it in the monastery, the academy, or in the capital is one primarily of aristocrats. The construction of secondary canons, namely Daoist and Buddhist canons and their subsequent writings, were done primarily under the Tang dynasty, in which the state sponsored much of the writing and translation (in fact, the state also rigidly controlled such discussions).

The existence of an Orthodox and Heterodox distinction in all these cultures markedly notes the rigidity of such social norms and customs. After all, a Buddhist credit (功德) in East Asian Buddhism can be bought quite like a Catholic Indulgence.

Now, social and religious discussion is quite different from intellectual discussion, in that it is engaged in something beyond itself, whereas intellectual discussion and the sort is namely contained within itself. So for instance, a discussion on Jane Austen's novels is removed quite heavily from the plight of women in today's society. Or a discussion on education is very much removed from the practical problems facing educational systems. The intellectual may be familiar with theoretical and diagram-like definitions and approaches, but the actual practical application is not an intellectual pursuit, it is a particular application.

[stlukesguild]

An intellectual is anyone who does not care much about the mundane issues of food, shelter, money, companionship or acceptance by society at large.

Because applying the brain to the pursuits of the former does not allow time for the latter.

Oh come on, JBI. You know that's nothing more than romanticized drivel. Intellectuals never concern themselves with money or food or relationships or the larger world or society around them? Perhaps that is true of some intellectuals... but certainly not all... or even the majority. Neither is the mere act of self-denial a guarantee that the individual is an intellectual.

[stlukesguild]

One can afford to be an intellectual if one is rich and comfortable. Or when one is a stoic like diogenes and cares not for material possessions or social acceptance. Whether the claimant has any grey matter in between his ears, or the ability to change the world for the better or worse, or talk non-stop about the ingredients of the best curry noodle in singapore is immaterial.

So by you definition of "intellectual", intelligence and/or knowledge is irrelevant? :shocked:

Perhaps you also re-define a hedonist as one who eschews pleasure?

[stlukesguild]

Now, social and religious discussion is quite different from intellectual discussion, in that it is engaged in something beyond itself, whereas intellectual discussion and the sort is namely contained within itself. So for instance, a discussion on Jane Austen's novels is removed quite heavily from the plight of women in today's society. Or a discussion on education is very much removed from the practical problems facing educational systems. The intellectual may be familiar with theoretical and diagram-like definitions and approaches, but the actual practical application is not an intellectual pursuit, it is a particular application.

JBI, you seem to be limiting the concept of the intellectual to one who lives solely within the mind engaged in contemplation and debate wholly lacking in any practical purpose or value.

[stlukesguild]

Within the visual arts, one immediately thinks of Leonardo da Vinci as an intellectual, but I would actually posit Sir Peter Paul Rubens. Rubens reportedly spoke 8 languages. He had an in-depth grasp of history and art history, for which he was frequently employed as a curator in appraising the value of art... both new and old. With his knowledge of art and antiquities and his eye for quality, he amassed a sizable personal art collection that included paintings, prints, sculpture, coins and other antiquities. He was a respected humanist scholar as well as a brilliant teacher, acting as a mentor for artists such as Anthony van Dyck, Pieter Breugel the Younger, and Velazquez. He had a great love and knowledge literature and history (which he used in choosing the narratives and iconography of his paintings). He reportedly employed assistants to read to him from various classics (often in Latin) or dictate letters (in various languages) while engaged in painting. His grasp of languages, his intelligence and diplomacy served him well in his role in international peace negotiations between the ruling powers of the Catholic Netherlands (later Belgium), France, Spain, and England... a service that twice earned him the rank of knighthood: from Philip IV of Spain and Charles I of England.

In spite of all these intellectual endeavors, which would surely keep the average individual more than busy... if not overwhelm them, Rubens was also one of the most prolific artists in European history and an unabashed voluptuary. His paintings revel in the sensuality of nature, the human form (especially the female form), fecundity and sexuality. Years after the death of his beloved first wife, he married a far younger woman, Helena Fourment, reputed to have been "the most beautiful woman in Antwerp". He had 5 children with Helena. His later years were spent living at his palatial estate as the Lord of Steen, bought with the profits from his artistic career.

Somehow locking oneself away and engaging in self-denial while contemplating one's navel just doesn't seem to compare.

[JCamilo]

It is because voltaire had the money and the privilege to choose his meals or friends etc that he could afford to be an intellectual. When one is rich enough, or has enough friends, and life is no longer a struggle (or the converse, when the stoic embraces the life of a hermit) then one's backside get itchy and voila... an intellectual.
Which brings us back to the original question.. almost writers are/were intellectuals.. because otherwise, as jdi mentioned, they would be out in the real world trying to change the world.

Voltaire was small burgouise, not rich or anything and used his fame as dramaticist to climb in the french court. He only became rich latter, after winning a lotery and accumulating money from different noble benefactors. His materialism is a mark of his intelectuality, just like Rousseau.

[miyako73]

"Now, social and religious discussion is quite different from intellectual discussion, in that it is engaged in something beyond itself, whereas intellectual discussion and the sort is namely contained within itself."

That's not right. There are writers all over the world who intellectualize social problems and galvanize societies with social commentaries in their novels, essays, or poems. They do not fall under any of your dichotomy.

Is this derailment or just cluelessness?

[MorpheusSandman]

The intellectual may be familiar with theoretical and diagram-like definitions and approaches, but the actual practical application is not an intellectual pursuit, it is a particular application.Engineers the world over are now working on a device that will torture you until you admit they're also (or can be) intellectuals.

[luhsun]

Wouldnt go so far as redefining a hedonist, stluke.
The problem is most tom, dick and harry would like to call themselves intellectuals, or take pride if others call them intellectuals. This is akin to a gaudy ornament worn on the head by the merely talented.
Knowledge or intelligence cannot be measured in a reliable or valid fashion. So, stluke, i put it to you that the label intellectual is just a fashion statement, an upmanship manouvre.. the actress carrying a birkin bag or wearing a patek at least is more honest and more successful in her analogical act of pretension.

[JBI]

Engineers the world over are now working on a device that will torture you until you admit they're also (or can be) intellectuals.

My experience with Engineers has mostly been of seeing Engineering students being both anti-social, self-proud and geeky. As for engagement with the "thought" of a time period, I hardly see that, but I appreciate your joke.

As for being worldly, and being intellectual, I take someone like Alexander Pope as being quite an intellectual poet, whereas someone like Robert Burns is more down to earth.

The idea that one can pursue knowledge as knowledge in the Faustian sense (Marlowe, not Goethe) is one deeply rooted in a sort of intellectual tradition, the same way memorizing a rhyme table is very much an intellectual pursuit in Chinese culture (one of which caused the famous Ouyang Xiu to fail his first imperial examination as he used a vernacular rhyme instead of an artificial rhyme). Chinese culture marks this rather strictly, given that the bulk of criticism leveled at imperial education over the past 150 years (despite the recess of propaganda recently) has been to decry the humanist "intellectualism" over the practical "social application" that these degree holders would use in their careers. So, as Lu Xun famously mocked, you can know all the variant ways to read and write one character in the classics, but that does not mean you can use these skills in any constructive way. The whole tradition is to exhaust the text and cut all the secret and potential meanings of it, yet such intellectual pursuits (such as historical linguistics telling you how to read such characters in the pronunciation of the classics) or the such do not add much to the discussion of the decline of an empire.

It's this idea that one can throw out quotes about philosophy all they want, but it will never put food on the table. The Oxford debates going on over the past thousand years on things like Theology, classical history, etc. rarely have any actual application to the real world. The same way that poetry, regardless of how good, is more of an intellectual pursuit than something with social value (except in Medieval China, when it actually was used for the determination of one's social value to the political system).

Now Rubens is a great renaissance man, in the sense of numerous accomplishments, particularly in painting, which he is, I would argue, one of the top 10 in the Western tradition, yet as for the intellectualism of his paintings themselves, they are not so much an intellectual ploy as something like Francis Bacon would seem to me, in that they are not particularly challenging the audience to think, rather are celebrating a sort of sensual fecundity which is very much down to earth. There is nothing to "get" I feel in a Rubens, the way one needs sort of an explanation to "get" much of modern art - which is very much a move toward the "intellectualization" of the medium, and has been written about constantly. That such artists had great learning does not mean that their audience requires such great learning to appreciate their work. The same way somebody does not need to "get" Puccini (who had the worst librettos I've ever seen) they really need to "get" Wagner (especially something like the Ring, which for the first time watching is a complete drag through the first opera).

Though, I don't particularly care for such quotations, take a look at the basic definition given by en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual . You will see it is much in keeping with the notion of a rather elitist sort of isolated person, despite crossover into the public - designating, of course, the term "Public Intellectual" which is very much constructed as an oxymoron. Often you will also note that some authors write "public" books, and "academic" books, (such as Harold Bloom, or even Stephen Hawking) further denoting the isolation of the intellectual community with which they belong from the wider audience they wish to reach.

Now, it might be a bit of a stretch to suggest that such intellectualization does not really contribute, but ultimately much of it really doesn't. Debates on theology have never contributed really to anything except religious conflicts. Debates on history will not alter events. Debates on philosophy will not really change people's world views.

In fact, I am willing to say there has not been a real intellectual movement that really shifted people's mentalities since the kick-off of Romanticism. For all the Foucault reading post-modernists, we are still trapped within the so called Romantic vision of the world, despite all the debates criticism etc.

[mal4mac]

My experience with Engineers has mostly been of seeing Engineering students being both anti-social, self-proud and geeky. As for engagement with the "thought" of a time period, I hardly see that,...

This is just arty snobbery. Dostoevsky and Wittgenstein started out as engineers. At a lower level, anyone who engages seriously with topics that inspire "undoubted" public intellectuals can, surely, be called an intellectual, or at least an aspiring intellectual. I've known many engineers like that. Of course there are many engineers who don't engage intellectually with the "thought of a time period", but the same is true of many artists and writers.

Two examples of "long term" engineers who deserve the title of intellectuals are Bill Gates and Time Berners-Lee, the former for his practical and theoretical engagement with philanthropy, and the latter for his engagement with the wider implications of the world wide web (e.g., he was quoted on the BBC news yesterday on matters relating to the CIA bugging Merkel - definitely a hot topic for public intllectuals!)

Indeed it can be argued that scientists, including engineers, are taking over the sphere of the public intellectual, check out http://www.edge.org/, which is surely a leading intellectual forum, and includes many engineers. Indeed John Brockman makes strong case for the increasing dominance of the "third culture" of "scientists and other thinkers in the empirical world who, through their work and expository writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual in rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are." http://www.edge.org/conversation/the-third-culture

Brockman makes some telling points, like:

"A 1950s education in Freud, Marx, and modernism is not a sufficient qualification for a thinking person in the 1990s."

"In Snow's third culture, the literary intellectuals would be on speaking terms with the scientists. Although I borrow Snow's phrase, it does not describe the third culture he predicted. Literary intellectuals are not communicating with scientists. Scientists are communicating directly with the general public... Today, third-culture thinkers tend to avoid the middleman and endeavor to express their deepest thoughts in a manner accessible to the intelligent reading public."

"In his 1987 book The Last Intellectuals, the cultural historian Russell Jacoby bemoaned the passing of a generation of public thinkers and their replacement by bloodless academicians. He was right, but also wrong. The third-culture thinkers are the new public intellectuals."

"Throughout history, intellectual life has been marked by the fact that only a small number of people have done the serious thinking for everybody else. What we are witnessing is a passing of the torch from one group of thinkers, the traditional literary intellectuals, to a new group, the intellectuals of the emerging third culture."

[JBI]

Perhaps, I don't dispute such things, it is merely the notion that my Physician brother knows nothing about literature, music, art, or even cinema, and his extent of thought and politics is limited to a flat understanding of newspapers and South Park-like Satirists. He is no doubt a brilliant person, yet ultimately he knows nothing about the "intellectual world".

Geek culture is often confused for intellectual culture, I will warrant, but they are not the same. I should know, as my background originated in Computer Science before I made my switch to Western literature, and then finally to Chinese literature. My first engagement with computer science and programming (which I am actually not bad at at all) was the feeling that ten hours a day in front of a screen is not as enjoyable as ten hours in front of a book - at least the book tries to talk to you.

Then again, drunk as I am after a pre-wedding party in rural Sichuan China, I feel the intellectual climate of the Academies in Shanghai and Beijing hardly represent Chinese culture in the sense that I just experienced, toasting around the table and pouring down the rice whiskey and nushing on spicy fish and chicken. The general world we know through our thought, be it engineering or intellectual pursuits is severely limited to a sphere of "thought" and discourse, and hardly gets the feeling of the real world.

[luhsun]

Jdi, your physician brother see patients. He will feel their pains, know their joys, allay their fears and offer them hopes. Over the next few decades, he will get rich and should be able to afford to be a patron of the intellectual painter, sculptor, writer, composer etc. As a doctor he is steeped in the sciences. With experience, he will know the real human being.. as a patient in suffering will drop most of their intellectual pretensions.
Isnt that what you are enjoying now.. albeit what you are experiencing is only the superficial camaraderie of the chinese plebians enjoying the prestige of entertaining a gwailo.

[MorpheusSandman]

Geek culture is often confused for intellectual culture, I will warrant, but they are not the same. I would contend that modern science and "geek culture" may very well be changing what we mean by or think of as "intellectual." There was a time when the highest pursuit one could direct their minds to was philosophy, but that's no longer true. A great many thoughts and questions that philosophers devoted their time to have either been answered by modern science, or have revealed flaws in the thoughts/questions themselves and the minds that thought them. Yes, science grew out of philosophy, but they've definitely grown into two distinct disciplines that can suffer to varying degrees without the other. However, I'd argue philosophy suffers far more by not taking into account modern science than the reverse. As this article argues, (http://lesswrong.com/lw/frp/train_philosophers_with_pearl_and_kahneman_not/) modern philosophy spends too much of its time batting around the obsolete concepts from demonstrably ignorant old dead guys. Sure, it's still an intellectual pursuit, but it's a diseased one. That a great many scientists and engineers don't know art and philosophy doesn't, I would argue, make their pursuits any less intellectual, unless one wants to define intellectualism to be associated exclusively with philosophy and art, and I don't think it should be.

[Michael T]

modern philosophy spends too much of its time batting around the obsolete concepts from demonstrably ignorant old dead guys. Sure, it's still an intellectual pursuit, but it's a diseased one.

The point with Modern Philosophy is that it's not just batting around obsolete concepts.

Rather, it trains and hones the mind - enabling the modern student of philosophy to see through the 97% of S*** that most people spout 100% of the time.

Believe me, it's very useful, and modern philosophy students are very well aware of cutting-edge science. Other than university lecturers, not many post graduate students are hung up on the old school philosophers. Studying philosophy is training the mind - A strong analytical mind conquers all before it! :coolgleamA:

[MorpheusSandman]

The point with Modern Philosophy is that it's not just batting around obsolete concepts.By "modern philosophy" I just meant "contemporary philosophy." I don't know if you're thinking of something different by "modern philosophy." Do you dispute the claims being made in the article I linked to? I don't know many people have read more philosophy than Lukeprog.


Studying philosophy is training the mind - A strong analytical mind conquers all before it! :coolgleamA:One should study the mind before studying how to train the mind. A "strong analytical mind" is still capable of falling prey to the biases and bad programming it doesn't even know it has.

[miyako73]

Sound arguments, Morpheus. That's all.

[Michael T]

I don't know many people have read more philosophy than Lukeprog.

Haven't you just been arguing that reading philosophy isn't much good? Now you are using the exact same arguement to try to strengthen your case!!


A "strong analytical mind" is still capable of falling prey to the biases and bad programming it doesn't even know it has.

But if that were the case it wouldn't be 'a strong analytical mind' would it? ...are you beginning to understand my point now? :smile5:

[miyako73]

The best way to define "intellectual" is to consider how it is used in the developing world. If you lead a social consciousness revolution or start a social policy think tank or use your mind for public good--whether you are an economist, engineer, philosopher, humanist, businessman, politician, artist, scientist, or writer--you will be treated as an intellectual.

[miyako73]

Studying philosophy confuses the mind. If it teaches stuff easy to understand, the discipline will lose its mystique, and no student will waste his time learning it. Have you studied logic--not the basic? Philosophers study fallacious arguments but cannot eradicate fallacies in language and communication. Let's be honest here; who take Philosophy as a career nowadays? Are they brilliant kids in high school?

Have you read Baudrillard--it's a reading in Philosophy of Mind, Moral Philosophy, Metaphysics, and Hermeneutics. He based his career on simulacra, simulation, and hyperreality--the creation of any truths and limitless realities. Read him and tell me if he makes sense. He even denied the wars that happened. His reason: because one can philosophically do so.

[miyako73]

Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates were considered intellectuals because they entertained philosophical ideas and tied them to public issues and Greek belief and morality. They studied theory of form, for example, which seems beyond the immediate needs of man, but it touched religion, democracy, and morality. Remember it is the people who consider anyone an intellectual. If they can go to you to ask about things that bother them, and you can offer them solutions after intellectualizing those issues, then you are an intellectual.

[MorpheusSandman]

Haven't you just been arguing that reading philosophy isn't much good? Now you are using the exact same arguement to try to strengthen your case!!Errr, no, I was arguing that philosophers reading and thinking about old dead guys isn't good if they're not taking into account the advances made by modern science, and I stated this in the context of science and engineering being intellectual pursuits that have contributed to philosophy (a contribution that's often ignored).


But if that were the case it wouldn't be 'a strong analytical mind' would it? I'm getting that you're being very vague about what "a strong analytical mind" is.

[miyako73]

Lastly, one should read history first before using it in his argument. Silhak scholars of late Joseon did engineering, economics, sociology, geography, arts, literature, etc. Confucian scholars even in the earlier periods painted or wrote poetry. Remember the civil service exam (gwageo) in the ancient Korea (from Goreo to Joseun dynasties) included literature. Applicants interpreted Confucian texts using poetry. So, you cannot exclude those scholars in intellectualizing the topic of this thread using your questionable claim that they were not writers.

By the way, what we are doing here is making our minds sharp. We are intellectualizing issues. We argue and interpret texts. Those Silhak scholars did the same process of exchanging ideas. Social policy thinkers of out times do the same thing. Are we, then, intellectuals like them? Nope, we do not intellectualize for the public good. That should end the argument.

[MorpheusSandman]

Studying philosophy confuses the mind. If it teaches stuff easy to understand, the discipline will lose its mystique, and no student will waste his time learning it. I would only amend this to "studying the vast majority of philosophy confuses the mind." One reason I promote and link to the blog Lesswrong so much is because it tackles philosophical issues in a way that eliminates the confusion altogether and goes even further to explain why the confusion exists to begin with; and Lesswrong can be seen as a popularizing version of Quinean Naturalism (http://lesswrong.com/lw/4vr/less_wrong_rationality_and_mainstream_philosophy/), a definite philosophical movement.

The problem with most philosophy is that it can't really focus its confusion, it can't imagine a way to definitively answer the questions it proposes, often inventing words to describe non-existent things, or things that exist only in our mind, or failing to understand that words are umbrella labels that imperfectly describe complex things/systems. One thing a perceptive mind learns from reading philosophy is that human minds are phenomenal at deceiving themselves and inventing questions that it can't answer (or have no answers), but which it thinks it can answer. What philosophy has ignored for so long, or, at best, has been utterly incapable of addressing, is the brain that's asking and thinking about the questions in the first place.

What you say about losing its mystique is also true as well. A lot of people value mysteries without realizing what they're really valuing is their own ignorance, since a mystery only exists in our ignorant minds, not in reality. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/iu/mysterious_answers_to_mysterious_questions/) Take away that ignorance and seemingly magical things like rainbows enter the "dull category of common things" to use Keats' wrongheaded phrase.

[miyako73]

I would argue that you cannot compartmentalize Philosophy. It is a discipline that studies a whole. What you learn--an apple is a fruit (recognizing the truth)--in philo 101 is a preparation for the advance strange philosophies--an apple is a chair (denying the truth).

[luhsun]

Philosophy is religion minus the compulsive parts(as in obsession=repetitive nonsensical ruminative thoughts, and compulsion= ditto as obsesion, but actions instead of thoughts)
Now, all religion teach us to be good, but not when carried to fanaticism. Ditto with philosophy..a good handmaiden but lousy master, arrogant to boots.

[MorpheusSandman]

I would argue that you cannot compartmentalize Philosophy. I'm... not sure what to make of that, since Philosophy has been compartmentalized for about as long as philosophy has been around. Epistemology doesn't have much in common with ethics, eg.

[Michael T]

I would argue that you cannot compartmentalize Philosophy. It is a discipline that studies a whole. What you learn--an apple is a fruit (recognizing the truth)--in philo 101 is a preparation for the advance strange philosophies--an apple is a chair (denying the truth).

And where, prey tell - in any philosophy book, ever, does anyone say 'an apple is a chair' or anything remotely resembling such a comment? If you know nothing about philosophy then why try to speak of it? :smile5: Why not reference these "advance strange philosophies" you are attempting to convince people exist? Just the titles, authors and dates will do...

[miyako73]

Read Baudrillard, Michael. He said the operation dessert storm or gulf war did not happen or take place using his philosophy. Then he said its certainty was questionable, using the staple in philosophy, the practice of interpretation.

I used an exaggerated example to drive my point. After all, this is a literature forum. Am I not allowed to use metaphors? you can disregard them if you want. Focus on those in the parentheses.

Morph, isn't Epistemology a study of knowledge? If it is, isn't philosophy, as a whole, knowledge?

[miyako73]

Also, do you know that only in Philosophy, where postmodernism is a trend, where one can shamelessly denies the realities and truths of holocausts--armenian, jewish, etc.? that is so because postmodernist philosophers are into the overhauling of meta-narratives or meta-truths. Well, the Jewish holocaust is a meta-narrative/meta-truth of the Jews. If you criticize those philosophers, their excuses are "independent thinking," "academic autonomy," and "freedom of speech."

[Michael T]

Read Baudrillard, Michael. He said the operation dessert storm or gulf war did not happen or take place using his philosophy.

You are completely mis-representing him...

His argument described the first Gulf War as the inverse of the Clausewitzian formula: it was not 'the continuation of politics by other means', but 'the continuation of the absence of politics by other means'. Accordingly, Saddam Hussein was not fighting the Allied Forces, but using the lives of his soldiers as a form of sacrifice to preserve his power (p. 72, 2004 edition). The Allied Forces fighting the Iraqi military forces were merely dropping 10,000 tonnes of bombs daily, as if proving to themselves that there was an enemy to fight (p. 61). So, too, were the Western media complicit, presenting the war in real time, by recycling images of war to propagate the notion that the US coalition and the Iraqi government were actually fighting, but, such was not the case. Saddam Hussein did not use his military capacity (the Iraqi Air Force). His politico-military power was not weakened, since he suppressed internal uprisings after the war. Overall, little had changed politically in Iraq, Saddam remained undefeated, and the 'victors' were not victorious. Therefore, there was no war; the Gulf War did not occur.

All he is actually saying is that it would be wrong in his view to call the actions that did take place a 'war' in the conventional sense.

Seriously - you seem to know very little about Philosophy - stop before the hole is too deep. :smile5:

[miyako73]

Please read the criticisms of his works and his flip-flopping. Read also Latour's condemnation of baudrillard's philosophy/critical analysis. Don;t rely on Wikipedia.

[miyako73]

Read Baudrillard's "the spirit of terrorism" and "requiem for the twin towers."


This is what Bruno Latour wrote in "Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern"


"What has critique become when a French general, no, a marshal of critique, namely, Jean Baudrillard, claims in a published book that the Twin Towers destroyed themselves under their own weight, so to speak, undermined by the utter nihilism inherent in capitalism itself—as if the terrorist planes were pulled to suicide by the powerful attraction of this black hole of nothingness?5 What has become of critique when a book that claims that no plane ever crashed into the Pentagon can be a bestseller? I am ashamed to say that the author was French too."

[miyako73]

Let me count your ad-hominems:


"If you know nothing about philosophy then why try to speak of it?"

"you seem to know very little about Philosophy - stop before the hole is too deep."


Seriously. Your wikipedia knowledge is not enough to silence me.

[miyako73]

Okay, here's Baudrillard's flip-flopping. Check if it is a sound philosophy or thinking:

"As you know, I had announced that "the Gulf War did not take place." Contrary to traditional prophets who always predict that something will happen, I had announced that something would not happen. I am the opposite type of prophet. In any case, prophecies are always wrong. What the prophets announce never takes place. So, when I say that something will not take place, it will then take place. The Gulf War did take place. And the Year 2000 will in all likelihood take place too. But a prophecy does not talk about reality, just as a promise is never intended to be kept. The prophecy calls for the end; it talks about what is beyond the end. It incants the advent of the end at the very moment that things take place (dans le deroulement meme des choses)]."

"In the Shadow of the Millennium"


LOL... that's advance Philosophy for you.

[PeterL]

The best way to define "intellectual" is to consider how it is used in the developing world. If you lead a social consciousness revolution or start a social policy think tank or use your mind for public good--whether you are an economist, engineer, philosopher, humanist, businessman, politician, artist, scientist, or writer--you will be treated as an intellectual.

I think that you are making a mistake to restrict intellectual to applications that may lead to the public good (whatever that may be).


intellectual
adjective
1. appealing to or engaging the intellect: intellectual pursuits.
2. of or pertaining to the intellect or its use: intellectual powers.
3. possessing or showing intellect or mental capacity, especially to a high degree: an intellectual person.
4. guided or developed by or relying on the intellect rather than upon emotions or feelings; rational.
5. characterized by or suggesting a predominance of intellect: an intellectual way of speaking.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intellectual?s=t

If you want to play Humpty-Dumpty, then you should expect that people will not be using the same set of definitions as you are. ("When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.") http://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/humpty.html

[Michael T]

Let me count your ad-hominems:


"If you know nothing about philosophy then why try to speak of it?"

"you seem to know very little about Philosophy - stop before the hole is too deep."


Seriously. Your wikipedia knowledge is not enough to silence me.

Of course I had to look up Baudrillard on wikipedia - what person of any sense would waste their time reading him. Oh, wait... :smilewinkgrin:

There are plenty of of poor quality philosophers writing out there, and I'm sure there are just as many poor quality doctors and scientists writing too. Does that mean that all medicine and science is discredited? Does a few examples of poor literature discredit all literature?
You certainly seem to be an avid reader of the philosophers you have mentioned - perhaps you should be a little more picky?

Isn't deliberately choosing what you believe to be poor examples of philosophy - in order to try to discredit Philosophy in general - just a form of trolling?

[miyako73]

PeterL:

Oh I know a lot of people here who possess the qualities found in those definitions. Are they intellectuals now? my nephew, who engages with me from time to time, possesses those qualities too. Is he now an intellectual? We discuss about God's existence and talk about abstract concepts like love, justice, freedom, etc. With those definitions, every well-read, argumentative, opinionated, articulate, intelligent person is an intellectual.

Now do some reading about public intellectuals; you will see the difference.

[Hwo Thumb]

Definitely David Pilkey. Captain Underpants is art.

[miyako73]

Definitely David Pilkey. Captain Underpants is art.

with that, this thread is over.

[JBI]

Of course I had to look up Baudrillard on wikipedia - what person of any sense would waste their time reading him. Oh, wait... :smilewinkgrin:

There are plenty of of poor quality philosophers writing out there, and I'm sure there are just as many poor quality doctors and scientists writing too. Does that mean that all medicine and science is discredited? Does a few examples of poor literature discredit all literature?
You certainly seem to be an avid reader of the philosophers you have mentioned - perhaps you should be a little more picky?

Isn't deliberately choosing what you believe to be poor examples of philosophy - in order to try to discredit Philosophy in general - just a form of trolling?

Much of the Frenchman's words have been taken out of context here, and been twisted by an inferior mind. Granted, I don't like his work, but his main point was that the event of the Gulf War, and the actual representation of it were two different things - so you have the events and conflicts, and then you have the narrative of the "war" itself being broadcast, and the two exist in contradiction to each other. The same way I could write a book about a war based on a real war, and convince you, by writing so in depth with pictures etc. that the event actually took place. With that in the record then, who would question what really happened, given there is no outside evidence.

The same was applied to a famous battle in Chinese history that is now said to perhaps not have taken place (when 100,000 or so demolished a marching line of a million). After some debate, the consensus was that a fight may have taken place, but the numbers are pure fiction. Then a further debate took place, to suggest there are no grounds to prove or dispute the battle, as we only have the historical record to go by.

Now, I do not wish to engage the poster who keeps putting up notions like "look how the third world intellectuals... etc." simply because, hate to break it to you, I am very much a third world intellectual. I live in your so called developing world, engage in the developing world's discussions, and am published in the developing world's periodicals. Your so called romantic notions of your "developing" world are hardly truthful, and show a minimal grasp of what actually goes on here. To be honest, the main focus of the academy here comes from the top down system out of Beijing, where what professors write, say, teach, and discuss is completely filtered. When you ask your intellectual professor here why he wrote his book, he will answer because Beijing commissioned it.

You have this weird romantic notion of the intellectual fixing the world through some sort of weird think-tank, but the developing world does not look like that. My Vietnamese friends maintain that the same can be said of their country, where every academy is controlled by members of the communist party, who established the system in the first place, and then mitigate downward.

The actual study of the world also does not really reflect the practice of the world. The same way I can study recent changes in Vietnamese markets, but that perhaps will not change markets in Vietnam, any more than writing a book about Shakespeare will change Shakespeare - only perhaps the view of Shakespeare held by those who read the book. This is true of both your third-world and the "developed" world.

As for Philosophy, it exists within itself for the most part - a distinction from the old continent and the British Isles in Western thought. The British tradition is far more applicable, whereas continental philosophy has been more thought-contained. That being said, the actual study of philosophy exists for its own sake, and is not supposed to be applied toward practical things. Does it have value? Well, you can debate that all you want, I personally do not understand Western philosophy enough to pass judgment.

[miyako73]

I guess Bruno Latour has an inferior mind. Enough said. Obviously you haven't read Baudrillard's other works where he did not flip-flop. He flip-flopped in the gulf war essays because he was publicly shamed.

Again here's his change of tone. Is this a sound philosophy? To this inferior mind here, it's not. By the way, in case you don't know why baudrillard matters, he is one of the intellectual gods of the conspiracy theorists. Readdddddddddddd!


Okay, here's Baudrillard's flip-flopping. Check if it is a sound philosophy or thinking:

"As you know, I had announced that "the Gulf War did not take place." Contrary to traditional prophets who always predict that something will happen, I had announced that something would not happen. I am the opposite type of prophet. In any case, prophecies are always wrong. What the prophets announce never takes place. So, when I say that something will not take place, it will then take place. The Gulf War did take place. And the Year 2000 will in all likelihood take place too. But a prophecy does not talk about reality, just as a promise is never intended to be kept. The prophecy calls for the end; it talks about what is beyond the end. It incants the advent of the end at the very moment that things take place (dans le deroulement meme des choses)]."

"In the Shadow of the Millennium"


Talk about China. Asia is not China. Good for you, you are an intellectual in China. Are you also a general in the People's Liberation Army?

Intellectuals in my country are social thinkers, analysts, galvanizers, provocateurs, revolutionaries, movers, developers, planners, etc. Where is the lie in that? Do we come from the same country? We just don't call anybody an intellectual.

In case you want a sample of a rabid intellectual in my country, click that link. Doctor of Law, studied and trained in all big schools in the US and Europe, judge in the International Criminal Court, consultant to United Nations, law professor, lawyer, trial judge, senator, journalist, writer, essayist, and annotator of legal books. She always hysterically advises the nation and my countrymen about the constitution and the law without fear and restraint. In that video she basically delivered in the senate a lecture on Catholic theology, Vatican II, scathology, constitutional law, family law, international law, sociology, economics, politics-- all for reproductive rights. To us, that is an intellectual. Even in the US senate, you cannot find a mind like that. Now you compare our democracy to China, where politicians and even the intellectuals only know how to raise approving hands?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFWzaTFeKwg

Intellectuals in my country are recognized minds in their fields. When they speak, people listen.

[mona amon]

I would contend that modern science and "geek culture" may very well be changing what we mean by or think of as "intellectual." There was a time when the highest pursuit one could direct their minds to was philosophy, but that's no longer true. A great many thoughts and questions that philosophers devoted their time to have either been answered by modern science, or have revealed flaws in the thoughts/questions themselves and the minds that thought them. Yes, science grew out of philosophy, but they've definitely grown into two distinct disciplines that can suffer to varying degrees without the other. However, I'd argue philosophy suffers far more by not taking into account modern science than the reverse. As this article argues, (http://lesswrong.com/lw/frp/train_philosophers_with_pearl_and_kahneman_not/) modern philosophy spends too much of its time batting around the obsolete concepts from demonstrably ignorant old dead guys. Sure, it's still an intellectual pursuit, but it's a diseased one. That a great many scientists and engineers don't know art and philosophy doesn't, I would argue, make their pursuits any less intellectual, unless one wants to define intellectualism to be associated exclusively with philosophy and art, and I don't think it should be.

I think there's definitely a distinction between 'The Intellectual' and the 'Scientific Enquirer' (Geek or whatever it is called), and it's really the same distinction between the exact sciences and the humanities. The only branch of philosophy where the exact sciences have had an enormous impact is Metaphysics. For all other branches (Ethics, Politics, Aesthetics etc) we still depend more on intellectual wisdom rather than fail-safe scientific methods. Of course we have things like Statistics, Psychology etc to help us now, but these also can hardly be called exact sciences.

[MorpheusSandman]

Morph, isn't Epistemology a study of knowledge? If it is, isn't philosophy, as a whole, knowledge?Yeah, epistemology is the study of knowledge, or of how we know. Philosophy, as a whole, most certainly isn't knowledge; most of it is fanwanking on ideas where the wankers don't know how to get from their wanking to a genuine state of knowledge, so the wanking turns into an infinite circle jerk, until people like Quine, Yudkowsky, Wittgenstein, Peirce, et al. come along and point out what the problem is.


The only branch of philosophy where the exact sciences have had an enormous impact is Metaphysics. For all other branches (Ethics, Politics, Aesthetics etc) we still depend more on intellectual wisdom rather than fail-safe scientific methods.The key phrases in these two sentences are "enormous impact" and "WE still depend;" what I would argue is that science has had AN impact on every branch of philosophy, but some (perhaps most) philosophers tend to ignore that impact and continue to focus on "intellectual (I'd say intuitive) wisdom" rather than "hard sciences." But if you check out that link I provided with Lukeprog recommending alternative philosophical studies, most of his examples are modern philosophical disciplines based on scientific advances. To quote him:
more Bayesian rationality, heuristics and biases, & debiasing, less informal "critical thinking skills";
more mathematical logic & theory of computation, less term logic;
more probability theory & Bayesian scientific method, less pre-1980 philosophy of science;
more psychology of concepts & machine learning, less conceptual analysis;
more formal epistemology & computational epistemology, less pre-1980 epistemology;
more physics & cosmology, less pre-1980 metaphysics;
more psychology of choice, less philosophy of free will;
more moral psychology, decision theory, and game theory, less intuitionist moral philosophy;
more cognitive psychology & cognitive neuroscience, less pre-1980 philosophy of mind;
more linguistics & psycholinguistics, less pre-1980 philosophy of language;
more neuroaesthetics, less aesthetics;
more causal models & psychology of causal perception, less pre-1980 theories of causation.On the left/more side you have the modern philosophical branches that have grown out of scientific advances and can/should be replacing the right/less side of antiquated philosophical studies they're related to.

[JCamilo]

As for Philosophy, it exists within itself for the most part - a distinction from the old continent and the British Isles in Western thought. The British tradition is far more applicable, whereas continental philosophy has been more thought-contained. That being said, the actual study of philosophy exists for its own sake, and is not supposed to be applied toward practical things. Does it have value? Well, you can debate that all you want, I personally do not understand Western philosophy enough to pass judgment.

Those attacks on the vallue of philosophy are mind bowling. Be Art, science, religion, there is philosophy behind giving the the support for the production of knowledge and understanding of paradigms. Heck, Law, which is probally the most powerful discipline in the world, is a continual application of philosophy. Undermine it and you have all kind of corrupt legal systems. Undermine it and Academy is just busines and... done. And People wonder why there is a world crisis on education, literacy, art, etc...

[miyako73]

"Yeah, epistemology is the study of knowledge, or of how we know. Philosophy, as a whole, most certainly isn't knowledge; most of it is fanwanking on ideas where the wankers don't know how to get from their wanking to a genuine state of knowledge, so the wanking turns into an infinite circle jerk, until people like Quine, Yudkowsky, Wittgenstein, Peirce, et al. come along and point out what the problem is."

Now, I appreciate that. There's truth to it. In fairness, philosophical mathematics handled by mathematicians and logicians with strong backgrounds in mathematical foundations is not interpretive and wanking to me.

Being 'whole', philosophy is a discipline that links its branches. Philologists include logic in their study of language. Logicians study truths in their application of the subject to morality. Moral philosophy touches religion and hermeneutics. Hermeneutics includes Epistemology in its reading and interpretation. Epistemology deals with knowledge that includes many subjects related to being, existing, essence, reality, etc. that are metaphysical in nature. Then from Metaphysics to Political Philosophy when the topic is about the rights and freedoms of man. When Marxism and Capitalism arise, the subject becomes political economy/philosophy of economics that will evolve into Social Philosophy that touches family, culture, aesthetics, science, technology, medicine, etc until it reaches back again to the basics of Philosophy. There is a circular interchange of knowledge. Philosophy after all is a study of human wisdom-- not the definition I like. Now try it on yourself. Can you compartmentalize your wisdom/knowledge and make them uniquely separate from each other? I can't. My knowledge of justice is connected to everything in the society. My idea of love involves all pleasures including the painful ones. And my idea of a human being is whole- I cannot even separate human anatomy from human culture.

Now let me breathe.

[MorpheusSandman]

In fairness, philosophical mathematics handled by mathematicians and logicians with strong backgrounds in mathematical foundations is not interpretive and wanking to me. Yes, I would say that disciplines like mathematical logic are on the cutting edge of both science AND philosophy, which is where all science and philosophy should ideally be, but most aren't. As I said earlier, I think philosophy suffers far more by being out of touch with modern science than the reverse. Scientists didn't really NEED philosophy to model quantum physics, but they need philosophy to INTERPRET quantum physics (and a bad understanding of philosophy by scientists are why so many interpretations still exist when there is a clear favorite); but, as a whole, interpreting quantum physics is less useful than modeling it.


Being 'whole', philosophy is a discipline that links its branches.... There is a circular interchange of knowledge... Can you compartmentalize your wisdom/knowledge and make them uniquely separate from each other? I can't.I agree that, again, ideally, philosophy SHOULD try to link its branches; but I would say the same of science, medicine, even the arts. What one learns in one branch can certainly affect how they think about another one. So many of my inspirations for poetry come from music and film and painting rather than other poetry. However, there is the issue that as knowledge grows it becomes much more difficult to study every branch in-depth, so the issue of breadth VS depth crops up. If you generalize, you can gain a broad but superficial understanding; if you specialize, you can gain a deep but narrow understanding. Our modern world favors depth over breadth, probably because we have such a huge population we have enough room for specialists in every sub-branch of every field. This may be why we see less classic intellectuals today, in general, because most people are encouraged to specialize in order to fill certain positions. Of course, there's also the issue that, even if you do study broadly, it's not always clear HOW these branches should link together and affect each other, and we have to be careful not to create arbitrary links as well.

[JBI]

Perhaps by definition, but you must make a distinction - after all "science" is an outcrop of "natural philosophy" in the west. The East Asian cosmology and scientific inquiry into things (格致）is also linked to philosophy. Entwined of course is the notion that such inquiries themselves were carried out by mostly theologians and clerics for the majority of Western culture.

In East Asia the intellectual was primarily a philosopher, and all science stemmed from this tradition. The inquiry into technology was mostly an offshoot of the inquiry into the philosophical world as understood as a great pattern.

[JBI]

Those attacks on the vallue of philosophy are mind bowling. Be Art, science, religion, there is philosophy behind giving the the support for the production of knowledge and understanding of paradigms. Heck, Law, which is probally the most powerful discipline in the world, is a continual application of philosophy. Undermine it and you have all kind of corrupt legal systems. Undermine it and Academy is just busines and... done. And People wonder why there is a world crisis on education, literacy, art, etc...

I'm not attacking, but there are a few things I know I don't understand in this world, and Kant is one of them.

[mona amon]

The key phrases in these two sentences are "enormous impact" and "WE still depend;" what I would argue is that science has had AN impact on every branch of philosophy, but some (perhaps most) philosophers tend to ignore that impact and continue to focus on "intellectual (I'd say intuitive) wisdom" rather than "hard sciences." But if you check out that link I provided with Lukeprog recommending alternative philosophical studies, most of his examples are modern philosophical disciplines based on scientific advances. To quote him: On the left/more side you have the modern philosophical branches that have grown out of scientific advances and can/should be replacing the right/less side of antiquated philosophical studies they're related to.

I was scared off from the article you linked by terms like 'Bayesian scientific method' and 'psycholinguistics' :D but anyway, I certainly wasn't denying that philosophical thought keeps advancing and growing! If Philosophy is "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence" (dictionary definition), then of course it has to change with every new addition to our understanding of these concepts.


Be Art, science, religion, there is philosophy behind giving the the support for the production of knowledge and understanding of paradigms. Heck, Law, which is probally the most powerful discipline in the world, is a continual application of philosophy. Undermine it and you have all kind of corrupt legal systems. Undermine it and Academy is just busines and... done. And People wonder why there is a world crisis on education, literacy, art, etc...

:iagree:

[mal4mac]

Yes, I would say that disciplines like mathematical logic are on the cutting edge of both science AND philosophy, which is where all science and philosophy should ideally be, but most aren't. As I said earlier, I think philosophy suffers far more by being out of touch with modern science than the reverse. Scientists didn't really NEED philosophy to model quantum physics, but they need philosophy to INTERPRET quantum physics (and a bad understanding of philosophy by scientists are why so many interpretations still exist when there is a clear favorite); but, as a whole, interpreting quantum physics is less useful than modeling it.

Why do they need philosophy to interpret quantum physics? They need to know the difference in meaning between "one interpretation" and "one valid model". But, surely, this doesn't need philosophy, just an understanding of English.

I just borrowed Brian Greene's "The Hidden Reality" from the library and he says, "I don't expect theoretical or experimental consensus to come in my lifetime concerning which version of reality - a single universe, a multiverse, something else entirely - quantum mechanics embodies" (p.237)

Your continual backing of "many worlds", above all other interpretations, is an indication that you are "arguing from emotion", not an example of you being a better philosopher than those physicists who don't use the many worlds interpretation. You "like" the many worlds interpretation so you argue yourself into thinking it's the only possible solution. This combines misleading sentimentality with an overwrought desire for "one true answer, now!". Real physicists, who are also real intellectuals, like Brian Greene, are more subtle and come to better conclusions about the real state of play.



However, there is the issue that as knowledge grows it becomes much more difficult to study every branch in-depth, so the issue of breadth VS depth crops up. If you generalize, you can gain a broad but superficial understanding; if you specialize, you can gain a deep but narrow understanding. Our modern world favors depth over breadth, probably because we have such a huge population we have enough room for specialists in every sub-branch of every field. This may be why we see less classic intellectuals today, in general, because most people are encouraged to specialize in order to fill certain positions. Of course, there's also the issue that, even if you do study broadly, it's not always clear HOW these branches should link together and affect each other, and we have to be careful not to create arbitrary links as well.

The leading public intellectuals, today, seem to grow out of a specialised field that just happens to have implications of great importance to everyone in their everyday lives. So Dawkins, an expert on Darwinism, comes along just as the God debate assumes great importance (again!) and feels forced to defend his field by writing a book ("The God Delusion") that attacks a construct ("God") that is of great importance in current discourse (due to political & social developments like the Tea party, and Al Quida.)

The same could be said for Tim Berners Lee, who developed the technical basis for the Web, and now comments on its social implications. To be a public intellectual doesn't require a broad knowledge of everything, I doubt Dawkins knows much about the visual arts, or music, or web security, for instance. What it requires is specialised knowledge about one aspect of one area of current public discourse, and enough knowledge of other aspects important to the discourse so that one doesn't appear foolish (like Dawkins had enough knowledge, or quickly gained enough knowledge, of the invalidity of bad old philosophical arguments, so that tricksy theologians couldn't blind side him.)

[Frostball]

Mal4mac, I agree with almost everything you say, particularly the bit about many worlds, while being possible, shouldn't be accepted over other models because we simply don't know yet, and should therefore withhold judgement.

Just one thing that really grates on my nerves is how you say Dawkins is an expert on Darwinism.. There really is no such thing as darwinism anymore. I think you mean to say that Dawkins is an expert on evolution. Darwinism is an outdated term, and is really only used by creationists in the modern day, who want to equivocate things like social darwinism, "survival of the fittest", and the presumption that people hold darwin as some kind of great prophet to be put on a pedestal, all rolled up in one term "darwinism". The term darwinism is never used by scientists to refer to evolution, and indeed, the theory of evolution contains much more than Darwin ever knew or conjectured, even though he did have the original brilliant ideas of natural selection and common descent.

[mal4mac]

Just one thing that really grates on my nerves is how you say Dawkins is an expert on Darwinism.. There really is no such thing as Darwinism anymore.


That's just plain wrong, the term is still in common use, it's in my Concise OED. It doesn't grate on my nerves at all. I think Wikipedia has it right, at least about the British side of things: "In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a shorthand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection."

Dawkins himself uses the term often, for example:

"I suppose that by that time the main residual reason why I was religious was from being so impressed with the complexity of life and feeling that it had to have a designer, and I think it was when I realised that Darwinism was a far superior explanation that pulled the rug out from under the argument of design. And that left me with nothing... it was a very positive feeling - Darwinism is a very beautiful, very positive explanation and the world suddenly starts looking a lot more exciting."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/10/religion.scienceandnature

I think it's a useful rhetorical tactic to use the term Darwinism, rather than evolution. The personal approach affects people, that's why novels are so attractive, and why Christians harp on about Christ all the time.

Don't let the slurs of creationists damage the use of the term "Darwinism"! If they use it in a negative way to imply "Social Darwinism", or some other nasty thing, pull them up about it, and remind them of the actual meaning of the term.

Darwin is one of the greatest scientists of all time, why not put him on a pedestal? We also use the terms Newtonian physics, and Maxwell's equations. Science is such an abstract field that I think it's a useful reminder that someone actually developed these principles and laws.

[JBI]

It's strange though, it only highlights the "theoretical" nature which gives too much room for religious skeptics. Generally if they used Evolution, the same way we use "The Laws of Gravity" etc. we wouldn't run into the "it's just a theory" camp. Granted, the term is trying to give credit to the originator, but we do not call the theory of relativity "Einsteinism" which says something. Of course, different fields - we still use Newton's name a lot, but we quite easily could just forgo such names.

[mona amon]

It's strange though, it only highlights the "theoretical" nature which gives too much room for religious skeptics. Generally if they used Evolution, the same way we use "The Laws of Gravity" etc. we wouldn't run into the "it's just a theory" camp.

That is a really interesting observation. We were taught about Evolution in our convent school, and accepted it as a truth just like the concept of Gravity, so it always seems so strange to me that there are people who do not believe in evolution. :) As for the Bible, well, there are many things there that even believers take with a grain of salt.

[Frostball]

Woah! You think that's "Completely wrong"? I find it funny that you quote wikipedia and say that you think it has it right--at least about the british side of things. I'm pretty sure it's right on both sides of it, that is, in the US it really IS a loaded term that carries baggage. You have a point that this isn't the case in the UK, but I really don't see why you need me to be "completely wrong" such that you'll accept the part of the wikipedia quote that agrees with you and not the part that agrees with me.

I don't need you to be "completely wrong", I see your point, and I think it's a valid one. I live in the US, so I hear darwinism being used virtually exclusively in a disparaging way. Not only that, the term evolution is simply more accurate, and much more widely used. One would never say "we evolved from a prehistoric shrew-like mammal through a process called Darwinism". You would call that process evolution. The theory of common descent by natural selection is called Evolution, not Darwinism.

I almost even agree with the fact that you might call it "Darwinian Evolution" in a similar manner as "Newtonian Physics". I think it's quite unnecessary as there simply isn't another game in town as far as evolution goes. While there are disagreements on specifics such as the one between punctuated equilibrium versus gradualism, this is all subsumed under the heading of evolution, so there is no need to specify the fact that it's Darwinian. But this is a pretty minor quibble, I admit that just because there is no need to do so, doesn't mean that you can't, so you may have a point.

Edit: Just want to point out that I noticed your wording was actually "just plain wrong" and not "completely wrong". I'm silly for such a mistake, and I feel I should admit it.

[JCamilo]

I'm not attacking, but there are a few things I know I don't understand in this world, and Kant is one of them.

Not you, as you haven't attacked at all.

Anyways, you seem to not have engaged enough on those debates. Evolution is just a theory is a quite commun reply. Darwinist usually go to Darwin was proved wrong line or argument. I think, in the end, if the name used was anything, "Masturbation" even, the arguments, Masturbation is just a theory would exist. You may consider those debates a textual style with their own tradition.

[MorpheusSandman]

I was scared off from the article you linked by terms like 'Bayesian scientific method' and 'psycholinguistics' :D but anyway, I certainly wasn't denying that philosophical thought keeps advancing and growing! If Philosophy is "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence" (dictionary definition), then of course it has to change with every new addition to our understanding of these concepts.You shouldn't be scared off by those terms! Bayes' Theorem is a formal, mathematical expression of how evidence SHOULD work. It elegantly expresses how new observations should affect our beliefs using probabilities. One thing it also teaches you is that human intuition doesn't work (at all) like Bayes theory. People undervalue their priors and really don't get how much an observation should affect the probability of one theory compared to another; but if you just think of Bayes as "a mathematical answer to the question 'what is evidence'" then it's not all that scary. Psycholinguistics is just the study of how brains process words, which is even simpler. Anyway, the issue I was bringing up is that a lot of philosophical thought DOESN'T advance and grow, and probably the majority of philosophy/philosophers are still batting around the thoughts of old dead guys that were demonstrably ignorant about how the world works. Yes, many of them were geniuses, but they all had to make due with the limited knowledge they had.


Why do they need philosophy to interpret quantum physics? ...Your continual backing of "many worlds", above all other interpretations, is an indication that you are "arguing from emotion", not an example of you being a better philosopher than those physicists who don't use the many worlds interpretation. You "like" the many worlds interpretation so you argue yourself into thinking it's the only possible solution. Firstly, they need philosophy to interpret QM because science has zero ability (right now, and likely well into the future) to experimentally test which interpretation is correct. All the interpretations lead us to expect exactly what we see when observing/modeling QM, and it's not clear how it's even possible to set up a test that says "if X interpretation is right you'll observe Y instead of Z." This is where philosophy comes in, because it can tell us which interpretation should be favored a priori.

Secondly, the accusation that my promotion of MW is "arguing from emotion" is flat-out offensive. Please, quote a single post of mine where I've argued for MW and explain how I'm "arguing from emotion" rather than "arguing from the available evidence and a priori philosophy" and I'll PayPal you $100.

Thirdly, I don't LIKE MW. I have no emotional attachment to it whatsoever; it means nothing to me. If tomorrow there was experimental data that definitively proved Copenhagen was correct I'd shrug and say "cool" and drop MW like a hot potato. I also don't think (and have never said) that MW is the "only possible solution." You're just pulling that one out of your backside.

Here's my non-emotional, philosophical argument for MW in a nutshell: the mathematical models of QM points to MW IF we assume they're modeling real things. The only only only ONLY reason to get around MW is to violate Occam's Razor, or assume the models are modeling something unreal. Now, considering we have not a single reason to do either EXCEPT our historically fallible intuitions, why don't you explain to me philosophically why we should trust our intuitions over our mathematical models. I'll also be waiting for you to explain why anything I've said is an argument from emotion.


Mal4mac, I agree with almost everything you say, particularly the bit about many worlds, while being possible, shouldn't be accepted over other models because we simply don't know yet, and should therefore withhold judgement. 1. MW and all other QM interpretations aren't "models," they're "interpretations." QM is already fully and completely modeled and has been since the 20s. Schrodinger's Wave Equation models how particles behave, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principles models our ability to measure how they behave. The debate is over what those models MEAN. The math alone combined with the assumption that the things the math is modeling are real point to MW. The math combined with the assumption of an observer-dependent collapse into a single world combined with the assumption that the things the math is modeling are unreal point to Copenhagen, which leads to it contradicting everything else we know about physics.

2. I've nowhere spoken about any interpretation being "accepted," I always say "favored." One shouldn't be accepted until experiments can definitively distinguish one from another empirically. However, even with the state of evidence we currently have, we should still favor certain interpretations over other. All things being equal (as they are in the case), favor the simpler interpretation that is supported historically and by our current knowledge of physics; not the more complicated interpretation that flouts history and our current knowledge of physics merely to maintain our faulty intuitions.

[Hwo Thumb]

Bayesian probability is also the fun little trick with the two goats and the car.

[tonywalt]

JM Coetzee

[mona amon]

Bayesian probability is also the fun little trick with the two goats and the car.

Ooh the Monty Hall puzzle! I came across it in The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime (Great book, by the way), and have been fascinated by it ever since. The explanation is not difficult to grasp once it has been explained, but what is really interesting is why most of us have such an overwhelming intuitional feeling that the odds are 50/50 even when it's been proved mathematically to be 2/3 in favour of changing your decision. I think it is because the initial odds - 1/3 chance of choosing a car - are not so unlikely, so you think there's a very good chance that you've chosen the car, and reformulate the probabilities from there. The guy who gets the goat after listening to the Probability theorists and changing his decision will probably agree with me. :D

[MorpheusSandman]

I must be strange as I actually got the Monty Hall problem before it was even explained. 2/3 of the time I've picked the wrong door, and those 2/3 of the time I've picked the wrong door, by changing it I'll have picked the right one. That's really all you need to think about. For some reason, people DON'T tend to think like that. It may have something to do with the general principle that people undervalue their priors in the Bayesian sense as well.

[youngsquire]

I agree with a majority of you, David Foster Wallace has a very very intellectual style of writing (Note: his use of footnotes, vocabulary, and academic concepts)

During college he studied highly advanced math -- which, I believe, is very evident in his writing. His work is exceedingly thought out and punctilious, he chooses his words and ideas in an almost calculative way and formats his prose like an academic essay or dissertation.

[ennison]

Dipping into this old thread was fairly interesting but as Cacian pointed out, the term "intellectual" is rather wide. A writer can be very successful without an enormous intellectual content and fail to find readers with intellectual content alone. If intellectual just means thinking deeply and fairly widely about topics and issues and being able to communicate these thoughts then a lot of writers are intellectuals.

[ennison]

"Two goats and car" . Sounds Masonic. Oops. Hate speech. Hate crime. Here come the cops sirens aflashing to stamp out a joke while ignoring rogues and robbers.

[PeterL]

I think I should be well up the list.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=peter+lewicke+Harry%27s+time+tours&rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Apeter+lewicke+Harry%27s+tim e+tours

[PeterL]

I think I should be well up the list.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=peter+lewicke+Harry%27s+time+tours&rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Apeter+lewicke+Harry%27s+tim e+tours

[ennison]

Would you be recommending these to me then Peter?

[PeterL]

Yes, you and everyone else should buy and read them. They aren't for everyone, but people who like philosophical science fiction with good characters should love them.