Quote:
Originally Posted by
MorpheusSandman
I think the distinction I've been trying to make is between intellectual and academic/critic, but another distinction would have to be drawn between intellectual and just "everyday thinker" or "every product of our minds" as well. I see an intellectual as being someone more in between those extremes. Someone who spends more time thinking on intellectual, theoretical subjects (even if they're aesthetics and poetry), but perhaps does not solely make their living at it in a formal setting. Wikipedia says of an intellectual that: I think one reason it's tempting to consider most of the great poets as intellectuals is that poetry, being the art of language and form, is an inherently intellectual pursuit. You can not utilize language without having learned language, and you can not utilize form without having learned form. But, what's more, one can't use either if they have no thoughts, nothing the least bit intellectual, to write about in the first place. I don't think it would be difficult to fit most of the great poets into one (or more) of the three categories listed above.
Well, like i said It is ok if you define intellectual as the use of intellect, but even wikipedia rules out keats (it is a person who is analytical, use reason, etc), so some poets would be like this and Keats, one that use primary emotion not. But we could avoid it and move on, as we agree on something enough to discuss, does not matter if we do not agree how we name it.
Quote:
As for "innate intellectual," perhaps a better term would've been "half-intellectual," which is stranger, but is perhaps open to more of a new definition. What I meant was that in reading and absorbing poetry, Keats was "innately," or perhaps "intuitively" would've been a better term, learning from it. One doesn't necessarily have to sit down with the conscious intent of "I'm going to learn," and then drill facts into their head through repetition. I think most great artists have that ability to transform even cursory reading into a kind of intuitive, instinctual knowledge, the kind of knowledge that they may not be completely aware or conscious of themselves, but is nonetheless in them simply from what they've absorbed. But that absorption still required them to read and to think on what they read to some extent, and Keats' theories are a reflection of his reading and his reflecting on that reading, which is an entirely intellectual pursuit.
Mostly fine. I would just say innate genius, could be easily understood. Then we have a guy like Keats, which poetic method is based on emotion. A different claim (I say claim because it may be possible they claim it different and pratice it alike) is the one of Poe, which method is based on reason. So, maybe they are actually talking about how to construct a poem (poe) and how to find poetic inspiration (Keats), and we may say a poet is born, but poetry is crafted. What probally make a great poet is not explaning the craft, maybe it is the famous: the rules and models are not jails, not rigid, but mallable, so it is when the innate traits (which we may extend to every writer) is able to deal with the materials he have. Even a critic is good when his insight is able to change what he studies and he have the capacity to explain it and make it "believable".
Quote:
Yes, but surely you can see that Negative Capability in itself is a very intellectual concept. It's a theory that a lack of conscious knowledge is better than complete conscious knowledge because, amongst other things, it allows artists to mimic the moments of life where we simply don't understand what's happening to us and we have more questions than answers. So even in its argument against not completely understanding everything poetic, Negative Capability is still a thoroughly intellectual concept.
If intellectual meant product of his tought, i would just say all concepts are, so I would not use the word. But yes, a great concept that shows someone with a sharp capacity to feel poetry.
Quote:
I meant "study for autodidacts is just something that happens everyday," meaning people that are self-tought. One does not NEED teachers and schools to learn. It is perfectly allowable to buy and read textbooks and teach one's self, especially on subjects that aren't too mind-bendingly technical (it's probably easier to teach one's self poetry than, say, algebra).
Yes, sure. Learning can be done everyday, in many ways.