Do you think someone should be considered an intellectual even

File: 1493396848973.jpg (86KB, 560x845px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 560x845px

For me, an intellectual is someone who argues well and is able to think critically. It has nothing do with the fields which the person holds knowledge in.

Anyone can read books and memorize other people's thoughts. Reading all of Plato's works doesn't make you Plato, unfortunately.

Besides, if someone says "an intellectual should know the basics of physics/math", some other person could say "an intellectual should know the basics of sociology/gender studies". It's very arbitrary.

>>8982650
Gender studies and sociology (as currently taught) are total bunkum, tho. Physics and math describe the fundamental nature of reality, and aren't so easily disputed.

>>8982623
A lowly farmer in the plains of Anatolia tending his crops can be an intellectual of he alone questions the traditional farming techniques of his village and instead tries to plant seeds in a more efficient manner, or water them differently when he observes it working despite tradition

Even if he knows no math, philosophy, or anything.

>>8982670
This is only true for up to like 6,000 years ago though

>>8982623
Yeah, that would make you an expert. Are you trolling?

>>8982691
There are still people like this with little contact with the modern work. If they have learned to fix any motorcycle that stops by their gas station just by intuition alone and careful thought about each model and their similarities and differences, they are an intellectual

File: 1458035734307.jpg (422KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 1000x1500px

>>8982662
You don't understand my point.

>Physics and math (as currently taught) are total bunkum, tho. Sociology and gender studies describe the fundamental nature of our societies and aren't so easily disputed.

>>8982708
That's factually incorrect, though, so you don't have a point.

File: 354deaa3770912621bb816da070346ab.jpg (12KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 258x245px

>>8982708
>Physics and math (as currently taught) are total bunkum, tho. Sociology and gender studies describe the fundamental nature of our societies and aren't so easily disputed.

funniest post on /sci/ i've ever read, thanks

>>8982707
Being an intellectual requires knowledge of the sciences and humanities (as classically understood) that are possessed by the most educated people of your time. Being talented in a particular trade is not enough.

File: 1493371444084.jpg (39KB, 1000x500px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1000x500px

>>8982710
My point was;
>Besides, if someone says "an intellectual should know the basics of physics/math", some other person could say "an intellectual should know the basics of sociology/gender studies".

I proved this.

File: 3-2-1 yay.gif (483KB, 247x140px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 247x140px

>>8982623
I think an intellectual must have a good foundations in formal logic, and no I don't mean memorizing a list of logical fallacies (people who cite those are typically brainlets who barely understand the nuances of the arguments they're making and fighting).

>>8982650
>For me, an intellectual is someone who argues well and is able to think critically. It has nothing do with the fields which the person holds knowledge in.

I would argue that having a solid foundation in formal logic is a pre-requisite to that.

Ideally one should develop some basic intuition on this from university level physics/math but you are correct in asserting that it isn't necessarily the case. That said, while it's sufficient to point out that OP is incorrectly assuming this (false) ideal, I don't think it's very constructive. I offer the claim that what OP really requires in his argument is that 'intellectuals have a solid foundation in formal logic' (which may or may not follow from other areas of study).

Perhaps one could argue that merely an intuition in informal logic is sufficient but I would (at this time) personally disagree with that as a reasonable standard.

>>8982623
What a strange selection of scientific fields. What about, for example, a biologist specializing in, say, cognitive science, or an economist working on micro theory? In my opinion, such scholars are no less deserving of being called intellectuals.
Also, wtf is with those Asian girl pics?

File: 1497827346319.gif (2MB, 460x259px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 460x259px

>>8982623
For me, an intellectual is someone who worries about trying to arbitrarily define what an intellectual is and then posts about it on an anime imageboard.

>>8982623
Gee, OP, I wonder if you've taken those courses.

File: deusvult.jpg (48KB, 395x600px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 395x600px

>>8982710
>>8982725
>trying to debate what makes an intellectual while demonstrating a completely inability to understand logic
The only reason physics and math don't seem like total "bunkum" to you is that you accept their axioms on faith. A sociologist can do the same and he will feel just as secure in his position as you do in yours.

>>8983583
>accept their axioms on faith
What next, comparing Rudin's Analysis to Bible?

To be intellectual you have to create. If you only consume knowledge, natural sciences or postmodern philosophy, you are not an intellectual.

File: rudin_ch1_intro.jpg (36KB, 578x161px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 578x161px

>>8983590
>working all the way through Rudin's without realizing what you're actually doing
shiggy