First of all, are you saying you don't consider me an intellectual?
"Intellectual" can be used to mean, broadly, one of three classifications of human beings:
First, an individual who is deeply involved in abstract erudite ideas and theories.
Second, an individual whose profession solely involves the dissemination and/or production of ideas, as opposed to producing products (e.g. a steel worker) or services (e.g. an electrician). For example, lawyers, professors, politicians, entertainers, and scientists.
(from
Intellectual - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Secondly, the post quoted doesn't pass any test for being anti-intellectual.
Thirdly, the world as a whole regards academic institutions as being more liberal in nature. It's a given.
But you were dismissive of those academic institutions because they are more liberal.
Also, your dislike of satire because it is an attack on beliefs is a notably anti-intellectual point of view. Anti-intellectuals tend to dislike any challenge of a person's beliefs. Since you made this argument, I marked you as an anti-intellectual, not as an insult, but as a categorization derived from your statements.
Going back to Inzeladun's quote, I am against any institution of higher learning, an intellectual edifice, letting it's politics skew it's purpose or even it's intellectual credibility. That does not make me anti-intellectual.
I don't think an institution of higher learning "lets" politics skew its purpose. I believe intellectuals tend to be liberal because they are more broad-minded due to their education. They generally don't let prejudices cloud their judgement to the same degree as those not as well educated. Therefore, according to "Jane Eyre" a non-religious institution of higher learning is almost going to be guaranteed to be more liberal. Therefore since you are against this...
I'm also inclined to ask what makes you two intellectuals while excluding me from your group?
We both teach at the college level. See definition 2 above (definition 1 is too esoteric and debatable; I certainly think it applies to Grimhelm). Regardless, we didn't claim to be intellectuals, just in favor of them and their thoughts (which in my case includes appreciating their tendency to lean liberal).
There are plenty of liberals and conservatives that a sane person would be hard pressed to categorize as intellectual.
This is true. Most people don't fit the definition. That isn't an insult, just like saying that there are plenty of liberals and conservatives that a sane person would be hard pressed to categorize as a plumber would not be an insult.
My own credentials as an intellectual are meager at best and I would not be insulted if I were not considered an intellectual. I certainly would argue that Grimhelm is, esp. based on his strength in philosophy, his cartooning, his writing (esp. on philosophy), and the way he speaks - unlike me, he hits the first (and strongest) definition square on the head.
Regardless, I would not consider it an insult if I were not seen as an intellectual (my profession
does solely involve the dissemination of ideas). However, whether I am one or not, I have a lot of respect for intellectuals.
Not being an intellectual has nothing to do with not being intelligent. Those are different issues.
To give an over-simplified example: some theorists (another word for intellectual) are quite intelligent, but cannot put their theories to practical use. Others cannot come up with the theories themselves, but are intelligent enough to figure out how to make the theories work by creating methods. Others are geniuses at taking those methods and actually applying them with due dilligence. Those latter geniuses may not be intellectuals, but no one denies their intelligence and the benefits they bring to mankind.
No matter how you argue it, you've intentionally insulted me, I believe with the intent to drive me from this forum.
Definitely not my intent. I enjoy talking to you. I also don't think being anti-intellectual is an insult. Some people would argue egalitarianism trumps intellectualism. It is not a wholly invalid argument, I think. I don't know why you are choosing to feel insulted for having been placed on the egalitarian side of the debate. I placed you here because you seem to be against academic elitism, which is a form of egalitarianism, which is a type of anti-intellectualism. If I am mistaken, then I do apologize, but that did seem to be the direction your discourse traveled.
Some people might argue that intellectuals are more interested in theory than reality. This may also be a source of anti-intellectualism. Others argue moral clarity trumps intellectualism. Others prefer nationalism to intellectualism (intellectuals tend to disdain nationalism). Probably the worst form of anti-intellectualism (and I hope you are not one of those who go for this) are those who maintain that the ordinary is better - that the common person is better than the uncommon person; this form of anti-intellectualist almost worships mediocrity.
I also know that there are very intellectual people that are not elite because my best friend is the most intellectual person I know and he's....my best friend! I'll have to ask him if he thinks I'm anti-intellectual. Forgive me for taking his answer as more accurate to reality. I'll let you know what he says.
Okay. If he fits the definition above, then he is an intellectual. I don't know that "most intellectual" means anything though, no more than saying someone is the "most plumber" person I know (if referring to a good plumber).
"Intellectual" does not necessarily mean "intelligent." There are plenty of intelligent anti-intellectuals (and I mentioned in the section above the quote, there are some rational, intelligent arguments in this direction). I certainly never meant to imply you were unintelligent or anti-intelligence, just anti-intellectual. You tend to be dismissive of anything coming from a "think-tank" or from academia, which lended to me seeing you that way. If you feel you fit the definition of an intellectual, then I do apologize, but I really don't think it was an insult, but a misunderstanding based on your words and the order you put them in.
