Baker Street Irregulars discussion
General
>
Intellectuals.. what are they?
date
newest »
newest »
The second is more my idea of an intellectual. But anyone who believes they are one probably isn't. Particularly those who, instead of conversing, pontificate. Unfortunately, that type seems to be in more abundance. But intellectualism is by no means limited to social issues/content of life issues. In my experience, such as it is having spent my life in a University atmosphere, the intellectuals I preferred to be around were historians, chemists, economists, financiers among others. They seem more in touch with life as it really is, rather than life as it "should be".
Just my opinion.
MissJessie wrote: "The second is more my idea of an intellectual. But anyone who believes they are one probably isn't. Particularly those who, instead of conversing, pontificate. Unfortunately, that type seems to be ..."I am terribly sorry, I should have made it clear that what I wrote were merely examples.
Interesting you should specify academics to seem more in touch with life. Truthfully, there are some but I would say the opposite.
I feel a lot, the majority rather of creative people really know a lot about life. They write about things and contemplate about things in their beautiful brains.
On this subject, I will just share this observation. When I was growing up in the satellite area of New York City, I truly thought that anyone not part of the New York culture (museums, films, newspapers, the ballet) must be painfully deprived of what mattered in life.Fast forward 5 or 10 years and I went to college in New England (okay, still East Coast, but different) and I met, to my profound humiliation, people from all over the map who were perfectly intelligent, interesting, and certainly not deprived. I concluded that I had grown up in a self-absorbed bubble.
The horror that my fellow girls-school aesthetes dreaded--growing up to be housewives in a non-urban environment--turned out to be not so horrible either.
For an inspiring look at an "intellectual" who embraces all of it without snobbery or self-pity, I recommend this interview with Patti Smith (for those who do not know her, she was a famous punk rocker/poet/performance artist in the 70s--New York, of course-- and went on to marry, have children, and live way out of the NYC orbit. She won the National Book Award for her memoir of her fellow artist, Robert Mapplethorpe, and remains a significant voice in today's creative world.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cHL-...
What is my point? I suppose it is that intelligence itself is what matters, not any label or persona. And "political correctness" is not really relevant to intelligence. The people who can cut through worrying about how they will be perceived are the ones that make the most sense to me. Although these people generally do not have an easy time of it, but they are the true "avatars"--beings who walk among us to smooth out the path for whomever comes next.
I think "intellect" has more to do with the acquisition of knowledge, and being well-informed; intelligence is more about the ability to apply that knowledge. When Watson lists all of Holmes areas of knowledge, as well as those where Holmes falls short, Holmes replies with his "brain attic" analogy - that you acquire the knowledge that is applicable to a task, not simply to collect information. However, there is an aspect to intellectual that enables one to appreciate endeavor, particularly creative endeavor - Holmes appreciated music, art, books. When he first moved to London, he settled near the British Museum. Another analogy would be the scene in Pride and Prejudice where Caroline is tallying up all of the skills that make up a woman of "accomplishment" (learning modern languages, drawing, dancing, having a certain air, etc) and Darcy adds the one thing she omits, the improvement of one's mind by extensive reading. Both have to do with the acquisition of knowledge, but reading is more likely to give you applicable knowledge.
Knowledgable people should and are more sensitive to human condition and pain. As J.P. Sartre said,"an intellectual is one who cares about things that don't concern him personally". I appreciate Elementary's portrayal of Sherlock, because his character and personality evolves and in his struggle with his genius and his addiction, he becomes more and more poignant, vulnerable and ultimately, more compassionate. It's precisely the bond between him and Watson that allowes this evolution and gives, somewhat an Aristotelian meaning to their friendship. I'm usually not much interested in TV shows as such, but often one can find quite distinct philosophical questions in the most banal films or TV shows. I highly recommend episode 19 season 3 of the CBS Elementary "one Holmes, one Watson" with regards to the idea of friendship. Today, I lost my companion of 19 years and I know that it's only my knowledge of all the things that I have read, from Byron to Chekov or Raymond Carver that can sooth that feeling of loss. Why? Because those words speak to my senses and keep me from feeling numb and insensitive to human suffering. Knowledge of the Other brings us all that much closer to the full knowledge of ourselves and that is what matters in the end. Does it not?
I forgot to mention that it might be interesting for some readers to refer to a very interesting article in the Guardian, " I watch,therefore I am"14th April,2015.
A few philosophy professors discuss some significant philosophical questions underligned in some banal TV shows and films.
Mitra wrote: "Knowledgable people should and are more sensitive to human condition and pain. As J.P. Sartre said,"an intellectual is one who cares about things that don't concern him personally". I appreciate E..."I am very sorry for your loss. And I agree with your analysis. Very well said. I know you will come through this loss and continue with your life.
MissJessie wrote: "Mitra wrote: "Knowledgable people should and are more sensitive to human condition and pain. As J.P. Sartre said,"an intellectual is one who cares about things that don't concern him personally". ..."Thank you very much for your kind comment. If I mentioned anything personal here, it was only to point out how important it is to nourish our minds with knowledge. Indeed, that is what helps us through difficult emotional traumas. Thank you again for your message.
Great question...being intelligent and being intellectual are quite different in my mind. The former implies EQ; the latter suggests IQ.anna
That's an interesting take on it. Would you mind elaborating?
Hi Courtenay, by EQ I mean emotional intelligence; someone who can read a situation, is aware of the many threads playing out in conversations and all the hidden agendas that humans have developed over time/ by IQ I mean someone who is academically aware of issues, history, facts. Both traits are positive and to have both is like winning the lottery called Life.anna
Hello Anna, Bearing in mind, I am replying to this on my iPad which doesn't like to show the full message.
My question is, could those qualities not exist alongside each other. I consider myself an Empath and so if I was to be seen as 'academically intelligent' or rather knowledgeable of a wide variety of topics, do I have two different types of intelligence?
That last part didn't translate how I would have liked but I think you get the idea. I guess I am aware that not everybody is as switched on to people's emotions as some.
Hi, Courtenay, yeah, I totally agree those qualities can and do coexist. Most of us have both to varying degrees. I was just making a distinction that when someone is described as 'intellectual' and another person is described as 'intelligent' I perceive them differently. And yes, I think they are two distinct types of intelligence. After 100 years of training I would still not be able to paint like Titian or become an Olympic gymnast or work for NASA. I don't have THAT type of intelligence. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.anna
Okay I see. So, I think I have failed to actually ask the main question I was pondering after your reply. How do you perceive the difference? If somebody is intelligent, what is that in your mind?
If somebody is an intellectual, what is that in your mind? :)
Wow, Courtenay! You are challenging/stretching my entrenched understanding. I fall back on my first post - intelligent = EQ; intellectual = IQ. Here's another assumption of mine: I believe every human being is on the Autism Spectrum Disorder somewhere; therein lies the varying degrees of our EQ/IQ. Those we label Autistic have more of the latter (think Sherlock), but conmen/swindlers (think Col Moran) have more of the former. Dr Watson has a bit of both in moderation.anna
I believe somebody has put forward that case to me before. It is certainly interesting. I find it intriguing how everybody has different interpretations of intelligence!
I also think Dr Watson does fall on the side more of emotional intelligence if we go by your theory. He is definitely the emotional side to Sherlock but he also has a significant part of the other intelligence as he is able to piece things together but not quite like Sherlock because Sherlock lacks emotional intelligence, therefore a clearer brain than Dr.Watson.
I have just looked up the definitions for Intelligence and Intellectual. This is what I found in the exact words I found them in.
Intelligence- 'Intelligence has been defined in many different ways such as in terms of ones capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity, and problem solving. It can also be more generally described as the ability to perceive information and retain it as knowledge for applying to itself or other instances of knowledge or information, thereby creating referable understanding models of any size, density, or complexity, due to any conscious or subconscious imposed will or instruction to do so.'
Intellectual- 'An intellectual is a person who engages in critical study, thought and reflection about the reality of society, and proposes solutions for the normative problems of society, and by such discourse in the public sphere gains authority from the public opinion.'
Hi, Courtenay, food for thought. They are certainly comprehensive definitions. I will cede to those.anna
They are the definitions but in my opinion, in this particular case, there are lots of opinions to change those or at the very least affect it. :)
Hi Courtenay, you have really helped me to clarify my thoughts on the subtle differences between intelligent and intellectual.anna
What type of person do you consider an intellectual?
Is your idea of an intellectual somebody who reads and goes on long walks contemplating the ins and outs of political correctness?
Or..
Is your idea of an intellectual somebody who can have an intelligent conversation debating/discussing all aspects of social issues and other contents of life?