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?
-
-
Curiosity cannot be enough to qualify as an intellectual. Even kittens are curious, despite the mortality risks.
-
Likewise, situation in tradition cannot be enough to qualify as an intellectual. Even hidebound priests are situated in tradition. And I'm actually inclined to admit possibility of say "chimpanzee intellectuals". I don't think there are tight necessary/sufficient conditions here
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Csizentmihayi, in "Creativity", offers both kinds of definition. On one hand he defines creativity in terms of nexus of a field (people/tradition), a domain (subject), and an individual, and otoh, he characterizes it in terms of "complexity of thought." Extensional/intensional
-
I agree that complexity (profundity? originality?) of thought is a qualifying condition. Compexity is also what justifies placing intellectuals within a hierarchy: the more complexity (hopefully but alas not always clearly expressed), the greater the intellectual achievement.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.