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?
Conversation
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
1
6
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
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
1
Replying to
Who are some examples you’re thinking of, of intellectuals who fall outside my definition?
1
1
Replying to
I think of them as "take only pictures, leave only footprints" people. Some of my friends who have an intellectual orientation towards, and relationship with life, but don't situate themselves in tradition as a first order of business. Only as a side-effect
2
1
3
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
1
3
Replying to
The problem with defining “intellectual” in some fashion other than socially or institutionally is that you end up slipping toward a definition like “a tendency toward abstraction/analysis” — which is pretty much the human cognitive condition, so broad that it delimits nothing.
1
1
1
Replying to
I don't think that's necessarily as broad as you say. Difficulty of measurement and discrimination does not mean there are no fundamental differences there. For example, people with long, integrative memories who are able to relate current events to events long ago.
1
1
1
Replying to
Agreed, but isn’t that example you give precisely an instance of “placing yourself within a tradition”?
A useful test might be to ask whether it’s possible to see preliterate cultures as having intellectuals. Obviously they have thinkers, storytellers, etc. But “intellectuals”?
1
Replying to
Not necessarily. Long memory as an integral part of life orientation can be true of Robinson Crusoe on an island.
"If an intellectual intellectualizes on an island, does he make an intellectual sound?" :D
Your institutional way of defining also is at risk of a different kind of second-order tautology. You're an intellectual if an intellectual tradition agrees you are one. To paraphrase Morty in Rick and Morty... that's just tautology with extra steps.
1
4
Maybe it would be helpful if I clarified what sort of distinction I'm interested in: intellectualism as opposed to a brute-force trial-and-error epistemology for example. The sense of 'intellectual' that Taleb likes to criticize. They are not found only in institutional settings.
2

