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.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.
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?
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
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.
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.
Last edited by luhsun; 01-20-2014 at 12:52 AM.
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.
Last edited by miyako73; 01-20-2014 at 01:07 AM.
"You laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you're all the same."
--Jonathan Davis
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?
Last edited by miyako73; 01-20-2014 at 01:31 AM.
"You laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you're all the same."
--Jonathan Davis
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.
Last edited by miyako73; 01-20-2014 at 03:23 AM.
"You laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you're all the same."
--Jonathan Davis
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote