Printable View
Here a list:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ma.../#.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.
The link points to this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
A. Huxley. Read his essays. Find out for yourself.
Isaac asimov?
Well, first you define intellectual, and then look for authors writing for those kinds of peoples.Quote:
Originally Posted by hypatia_
As for the definition of intellectual, it shifted over the past couple hundred of years.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
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.
An intellectual is anyone who does not care much about the mundane issues of food, shelter, money, companionship or acceptance by society at large.
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?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Just googled..jeremiah's scroll got burnt a few hundred yrs prior to shi shuangdi's.
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).
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.
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?
Zheng He of Ming Dynasty? If that's what you meant, he predated admiral Yi by 1 1/2 centuries.
Zheng died 1433.. sorry, my mistake. Admiral Yi died in 1598.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by luhsun
"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?
Engineers the world over are now working on a device that will torture you until you admit they're also (or can be) intellectuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
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."
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.
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.
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, 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
The point with Modern Philosophy is that it's not just batting around obsolete concepts.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael T
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael T
Sound arguments, Morpheus. That's all.