Conversation

If you exclude reading, writing, speaking, and listening (ie use of language, including math or code) as mere table stakes, how would you define “intellectual” in terms of essential non-language behaviors that non-intellectuals typically don’t exhibit?
60
66
Replying to
I see an intellectual as someone who explicitly places his or her writing and argumentation in dialog with a tradition (meaning: sequence) of other intellectuals who have written on the topics s/he is engaged with — references, in short
1
6
Replying to and
Of course, that’s not sufficient. When people think it is, that’s when you get the phenomenon of the poseur or the pseudo-intellectual, who goes through the motions of name-dropping for prestige purposes, but who has little original to add to the tradition.
1
2
Replying to
Hmm, that’s a coherent definition of one kind of intellectualism (traditional/scholastic/straussian). I have a feeling there’s at least a couple of other distinct types.
1
1
Replying to
Not necessarily. I'm characterizing the orientation in intensional terms via definitional behavioral constituents such as curiosity which others have pointed out. "Intellectuals are curious" like "water is wet". They try things. They forgo immediate reward. etc etc.
2
1
Show replies
Replying to and
It frankly bothers me to ground the definition of "intellectual" primarily in relationships with other people rather than with the universe at large. In my book, it should be possible for Robinson Crusoe on an island to live intellectually (even if it means he doesn't live long)
1
3
Show replies