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
-
-
Replying to @vgr @nils_gilman
Are you trying to describe a virtue/foible or a sociological category that takes the good with the bad?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I feel like any suitable definition will also comprehend the phenomenon of the “rock star intellectual”. For instance, Jordan Peterson is an intellectual. Of a funny American televangelist type. But I think he has to count. Otherwise you’ll just end up defining philosophy etc.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dmnshingreturns @vgr
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 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nils_gilman @dmnshingreturns
One aspect of what I'm getting at (though not a key one) is to turn that particular kind of insult around. To the extent there is wisdom in a crowd, the crowd's judgment of intellectualism is a valid variable to consider.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr @nils_gilman
I think any definition which does not explicitly contemplate the intellectual’s audience isn’t apt.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dmnshingreturns @nils_gilman
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 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr @dmnshingreturns
The problem with Corey’s definition is that either it displaces the debate to some hoity-toity definition of the “public”; or it means that any entertainer with an audience counts as an intellectual. Is the Honey Boo-Boo child an intellectual? Ron Jeremy?https://s-usih.org/2013/02/what-is-the-subject-of-intellectual-history/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nils_gilman @dmnshingreturns
I think you're missing a nuance...Any spectacle can attract a crowd. I think he gets at a real sort of transformation of the crowd into a useful distributed computer through an act akin to programming. Though I get where you're coming from re: Robin from our private convos :D
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @vgr @dmnshingreturns
Corey’s definition also suffers from presentism. Is someone who writes “for the drawer” (4ex, in a dictatorship) not an intellectual because she creates no public? If she goes unappreciated in her lifetime, is she not an intellectual—but then becomes one once she’s “discovered”?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
That weakness is shared by your institutional definition too :D Was Ramanujan a non-intellectual while he was an outsider mathematician disconnected from tradition and only became one when Hardy found him?
-
-
Replying to @vgr @dmnshingreturns
I actually don’t believe in institutional definitions (though it gets trickier with “scientists”) — my main definition, again, is that the intellectual writes within an explicitly identified intellectual tradition. And that is something Mr Crusoe can absolutely do.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nils_gilman @dmnshingreturns
Sure, so long as he arrives on the island with a brain primed with received knowledge etc and choose too. But if he arrives there with only basic literacy and no such membership, and becomes the island's only expert on breadfruitology from scratch... he still counts for me
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 6 more replies
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.