Conversation

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
Replying to
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
1
1
Replying to
Here’s a possible synthesis: placing yourself in a tradition means you *aim* to be an intellectual; the complexity and originality of your work within that tradition is what determines how *good* of an intellectual you are.
1
Replying to
Or you aim to be a particular sort of intellectual who seeks that kind of validation and comparative evaluation against others. I think it can simply be a way of living like mysticism. Just as mystics exist in both monastically embodied traditions and as wild solitary hermits.
1
That does capture part of what I'm getting at here. So for example, as a former institutional academic guy who is now a blogger, I'm still in a "tradition" in Nils' sense, but it is a weaker one, and to the extent I'm intellectual at all, I'm closer to a Crusoe-on-Island one
1
1
Replying to and
I agree that Peterson is an intellectual, albeit a crappy one: his current public persona mainly performs a popular image of intellectualism, “a non-intellectual’s idea of a intellectual” (to paraphrase the old saw about how 😡 is a poor person’s idea of a rich person)
2
This is Corey Robin's definition of an intellectual: as someone who creates a "public". I think it's a good one. The difference between a mob and a public is the presence of legitimated spokespersons who turn crowd sentiment into arguments suitable for institutional contention
1
Show replies
A "pop intellectual" might be viewed as one who expresses what a) the crowd knows but cannot express b) is in the blind spot of institutional intellectuals c) gets at interesting truth rather than merely pandering. A metis miner so to speak. Who makes the illegible legible.
1
1
To do a bothsidesism take here. Institutional intellectuals pander to each other's vanities just as cravenly as the worst populist intellectuals do to the crowd's vanities. Prima facie, no particular reason to favor one as fundamentally better.
2
Show replies