[dmaul1114]

Alright, I'll apologize for blowing up last night. I'd had a migraine all day and had a long day at work so my patience was pretty much gone. So I apologize for being a ruder than usual!

Originally Posted by Sonist

Hm, a little hypocritical, for someone who just one post earlier insulted the fictional toilet-scrubbing woman.

That example was not meant to be an insult, nor looking down on a profession

You seem to be making some--IMO silly--assertion that ones education and even moreso, ones career, have nothing to do with being an intellectual. And that it comes down to what one reads, whether one appreciates art etc.

I was making the counter point that both things matter in developing one's intellect. Someone scrubbing toilets can be fairly strong intellectually if they're self learning in their own time, and reading a lot of challenging fiction and non-fiction in their spare time. But someone that has any type of completely non-intellectual job AND doesn't challenge their intellect on their own is probably not very high in intellectual prowess. That's all I was saying, not bashing, or making broad generalizations.

Vs. someone that has a lot of education and works in a very intellectual job. If you work at a research university you're going to spend hours every day challenging your intellect--doing a ton of reading, doing data analysis and solving problems, teaching and preparing to teach, writing up research and thinking critically about how your research moves a field forward. And there's not better exercise (or purpose) for an intellectual than the creation of new knowledge

If a person is a lawyer they're reading cases, putting things together, figuring out how to tell the story and win the case, solving problems in the case. And on down the line with any type of intellectual job you can think of.

Such people can certainly be intellectuals even if they're not big consumers of quality literature, indie films, fine art etc. ALL THE TIME in their spare time. So I thought you're comparison about an art curator not going home and admiring the drapes was silly.

Art is their profession, they're going to be snobby about it. Just like a successful professor isn't going to waste their time reading the worst journals that publish shoddy research etc. That's not a matter of intellect, is a matter of being picky about quality in their field of work.

That art curator probably reads some low quality fiction, watches more than just artsy indie films etc. Maybe they only read/watch low quality stuff as books/movies aren't their main hobby and they don't take them very seriously. That doesn't make them less of an intellectual. People need to relax, veg out and just sit back and be entertained. Not much of anyone wants to spend every waking minute challenging their intellect. And again I wouldn't want to be around such a person as they simply wouldn't be a fun person to hang out with!

So I find your definition of an intellectual far to narrow. Anyone that's intelligent and challenges their intellect on a regular basis is an intellectual--regardless of whether they're challenging their intellect through academic work, legal work, accounting work, science, or any other type of intellectual profession, or through literature, or through both. I don't see the need to be so judgmental and pretentious in giving out the label as you seem set on.

And such superior attitude is based on what? Because, as you keep repeating, you have a PHD?!

I don't have a superior attitude--you seem to have it more on that front with wanting to be the absolute source on who is or isn't an intellectual, what is or isn't worth reading etc.

And I've said this several times already--I've never said having a Ph D is an indication of anything. I've said that having one and working in academia--at least at a decent research university--requires being an intellectual. You'll get eaten alive otherwise as you won't be able to handle the students, nor able to generate new ideals and do high quality research and publish in top journals, land research grants etc. that are required to get tenure and promotion.

Frankly, anyone with enough perseverance, enough free time and available government loans, and maybe an IQ above 70, can get a PHD from a third-rate school. And then make blanket statements about those who clean his toilets.

For what it's worth, my Ph D is from the number 1 ranked doctoral department in my field. Another example of your snobbishness by assuming it's from some third rate school. Your posts here would go over much better if you weren't trying to label and judge everything and everyone--and then accusing others of being superior!

And again, I wasn't being demeaning to maids and I've never had anyone clean my toilets and never would even if I could afford the luxury--which isn't likely on an academic salary! One has to be pretty full of themselves to pay someone to do their cleaning.

And of course, just as you claim that literature does not play a role in building one's intellect (this presumably includes all those non-intellectual lit profs), others assert that social sciences are there, just so that the lazier and the not-so-bright can get in a few better grades....

I didn't claim that. I simply said I don't think it's a huge factor relative to non-fiction reading, reading philosophy, working in science or academia doing research (again the best use and challenge of an intellect is creating new knowledge), mathematics, etc.

I said earlier that I agree that reading can improve the vocabulary etc. I just disagree with your insistence that someone that doesn't read challenging fiction is automatically not an intellectual. They may well be challenging their intellect much more in their career than someone who has a non-intellectual job and reads a ton of challenging fiction. Or they may be reading a ton of non-fiction and philosophy which I think will do more for the intellect than fiction personally.

And I'm not one to frown on the social sciences, since I'm a social scientist myself! Lit professors--I wouldn't call them non-intellectuals by any means. I'd just say it's a bit of a waste of an intellect IMO to, for example, study and offer new interpretations on Hamlet or the Canterbury Tales etc. vs. doing research in an area that moves human knowledge forward in areas that can improve society, since lit studies are exercises in interpretation and opinion rather than doing research that tests theory, policy etc. and generates new knowledge.

Of course, my experience with lit profs is in research universities and not liberal arts colleges. I have a lot more admiration for lit profs who are authors themselves, publishing fiction, poetry etc., than those publishing interpretational articles in literary journals, which is the bulk of lit profs I've had contact with. Again, I just have more admiration for people generating new knowledge, new art etc. than people who are just critiquing existing work etc.

A sharp intellect is a gift, and I have more respect for those who put it to use in some way that benefits society, be it finding ways to prevent crime, fight poverty, cure diseases, improve energy technology, create inventions that make life easier or more enjoyable etc. Anyone can read literature and offer interpretations, lit professors don't offer much more there than any big consumer of literature can offer in a book club etc.

With such attitude toward discourse and variety of opinion, I pity your students. I can only assume that you place some of the brighter ones on your "ignore" list as well.

Not at all, I love discourse, love opposing opinions. I just don't have much patience for snobbish opinions, and people who are judgmental in labeling others etc., like you've been doing with trying to say who is or isn't an intellectual and trying to judge people on what they read etc.

Cheers, hope it's a good 12-pack!

Nah, hardly any good beer comes in 12 packs. Mostly 4 packs, 6 packs and 22oz or 750ML singles.

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

It seems to me that a varied intake across a wide range is likely to create a more well-rounded intellect than a rigid diet of only "good" books (whatever that means).

Agreed, and it should be more than just fiction.

There is a counter claim that might be made, which is that reading is not required to develop a well-rounded intellect. I'm not so sure about that one - perhaps there might be rare counter-examples, but I'd suspect that reading is normally required.

Reading is required. I don't believe that reading classic literature and current challenging literature is required to be an intellectual.

I think one who reads fiction will have a better vocabulary, higher verbal IQ etc. than one who only reads romance novels, low quality fantasy etc. But they may just not be into fiction and may spend a ton of time reading non-fiction, or reading research articles all day at work and doing research and writing research articles on their own, or reading legal cases and writing their own materials etc.

The best case is someone that reads quality fiction, lesser fiction, non-fiction, philosophy etc. AND has an intellectually challenging career. And of course vocabulary, verbal IQ etc. is only one part of the intellect.

I think it's very silly to be judgmental and say one's not an intellectual if they're not mainly reading challenging fiction. They're are other (and IMO better ways) to challenge and build one's intellect.