What is an "intellectual"?

Great Debates
1

In a newspaper editorial on the life of Adlai Stevenson (arguing that Stevenson, despite his reputation, was not really much of an intellectual), I read what appeared to me the most succinct and satisfactory definition of the word “intellectual” that I have ever encountered: “someone who is passionately interested in knowledge and ideas for their own sake.” That’s all. It’s value-neutral. No political implications at all.

However, in his book Intellectuals (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060916575/002-0299749-9436806?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance), and in his columns to this day in The National Review British conservative scholar Paul Johnson assumes (as in, as a matter of common knowledge) that the word means someone who “values ideas more than people,” or who has faith in the power of reason to beneficially reshape human society. In that book, Johnson studies/excoriates intellectuals from Jean-Jacques Rousseau to Lillian Hellman as being exemplars of the type – self-proclaimed social prophets, who lay claim to the pre-Enlightenment mantle of priests and theologians to have an inside track on the Truth. For some reason, right-wing intellectuals such as Carlyle, Nietzsche and Ayn Rand, who fit the same description, are ignored; as are thinkers whose fame was made in fields not directly connected to politics or social issues, e.g., scientists, inventors, poets, pure philosophers.

It all seems very odd – yet I’ve often encountered the word “intellectuals” used in roughly Johnson’s sense, by both right-wing and left-wing commentators. Both sets seem to assume that an intellectual by definition must have political views, those views must be at the center of his/her life, thought and work, and those views must be in some sense leftist in content.

What is an “intellectual” anyway?

2

Paul Johnson is a hack and an ass, IMO. I wouldn’t trust him to define the word “cat,” let alone an amibiguous word like “intellectual.” The book is little more than a middle brow version of National Enquirer, and does not address the substance of any of its subject’s opinions

One part he does get right, again IMO, is that an intellectual is a person who loves ideas, and spends a great deal of time involved in abstract thought, both as an avocation as well as a vocation. I’d prefer the term Philosopher in it’s literal translation: A lover of wisdom. I’d oppose an intellectual to, say, a lawyer or engineer who has to work with abstract concepts to earn their bread, but has no interest in them outside their specialty. A lawyer who reads French history or an Engineer interested in the philosophy of science would count as intellectuals IMO.

Some intellectuals are fortunate enough to earn their keep from being intellectuals, through writing or teaching mostly. Others have to have day jobs. I’d consider most of the regular dopers to be intellectuals. I think it’s a calling of sorts. I don’t think it makes you better or worse than anyone else. I certainly don’t think it means you "love ideas more than people. What a stupid statement that is.

3

I have read several of Johnson’s books (no small task, I assure you!) and will attest that he is at the very least very, very well-read. Beyond that I won’t quarrel with your statement. But it appears Johnson did not invent the usage of the word “intellectual” to mean “left-wing political intellectual” – it was in currency years before. And I find myself wondering why.

4

Adlai Stevenson, perhaps?

5

Nah. First of all, he was (while plenty intelligent) no intellectual. Second, he was no leftist.

6

In the United States, an intellectual is any person who can drive to three different libraries without needing to consult a map.

7

I consider one attribute (maybe the most important attribute) of an intellectual is that he be well-read.

It’s easier to define what an intellectual isn’t than what it is: George Bush ain’t one.

8

I don’t think anyone would dispute that Socrates was an intellectual. Yet he famously disdained books.

9

The key to being an intellectual is to be unswayed by public opinion when there are actual facts available.
Public opinion may say something like “All Roman Catholics believe birth control is evil.” The facts, say a survey, may say only some believe this, mostly past child-bearing age.
This is where the political connection comes in. A politician will honor the opinion, or at least not try to correct it.

A good example was during the Simpson trial. When it came out that Furman had used the “N-word”, the prosecution went on and on how it was the most horrible of insults, but that he was not the person on trial. The black people watching wondered where she got her information, as the word can be heard daily in the black community.
So this was not an intellectual argument, but a polical one.

10

I’ve read Modern Times, Intellectuals, and A History of the Jews. Modern Times was an attempt to lay the blame for every bad thing in the 20th century, including, somehow, the rise of Imperial Japan, on the doctrine of moral relativism. (I exagerate, but only slightly.)

Intellectuals was a gossipy screed which detailed the personal moral failings of a collection of various supposedly left wing intellectuals. He rarely engages their ideas at all. The lesson we can draw is that smart people can be difficult to live with. This is something we already knew, and it certainly doesn’t only apply to those on the left. Newton was a vindictive antisocial creep, and James Joyce was a drunk and a sponge. These facts do not make me value Ulysses and the Principia any less. The entire book is an attempt to discredit certain thinkers through vicious ad hominem attacks. I enjoyed reading it, but felt ashamed afterwords; ashamed in a way honest pornography never makes me feel.

A History of the Jews was relatively unobjectionable, but contained undertones I found a bit disturbing. Philosemitism is as silly as antisemitism, though much less objectionable. I don’t like it when people make a fetish out of an ethnic group. Also Johnson seems to admire the Jews only when they stick to their religion, and feels–along with T.S. Eliot–that Jews are socially dangerous when they abandon their faith. As the son of a secular Jew, and a secular half-Jew (if you will) myself, I find this enraging.

Johnson is a good writer, I’ll give him that. Hey, I’ve read three of his books, two of which were very long. There are more worthy historians I’ve read much less of. Of course part of his readability is due to his subject matter. Moralizing and gossip are much more fun to read than serious historical analysis. I don’t think he’s all that well read either. Compared to the average person maybe, but not compared to the average historian. I recall a review of The birth of the Modern in which the reviewer did nothing but list the mistakes and outright fabrications Johnson made in the book.

As for the stereotype of the left-wing intellectual you mention, like many stereotypes there’s a kernel of truth in their somewhere. The image of the bearded besweatered pipe-smoking probably Jewish older man sitting in a small apartment in New York lined with the writings of Marx and Engels and other left wing thinkers is pretty stock, and is a clownish exaggeration of certain people who probably did exist. Some of the writers for the Partisan Review may have been close to living examples of that stereotype. I’ve known a few people who resemble the stereotype more or less. (Hell, now that I think about it, I’m bearded, often wear sweaters, am half-Jewish, and live in a small apartment lined with books, though very few of them are Marxist.) But it’s a pretty narrow definition of intellectual. I prefer the one I made above in my first post.

11

They used to say that an intellectual was someone who could hear the *William Tell * overture and not think of the Lone Ranger

12

To this I would add that he ought to be well read, have a degree of literacy well above average, and to have some degree of both competence and integrity in dealing with ideas. That is, he should have some respect for language, logic and facts. (No one is completely unbiased and unprejudiced, of course.) Would we really want to include as an intellectual a semi-literate high school dropout who was passionately interested in New Age quackery and nothing else?

Well, one of the things that scares me about both the PC left and the religious right is that they both seem to care more about ideological purity than practical results.

13

Now that I reconsider, you may have a point. From the linked article:

Which links to a page on the term “egghead” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egghead:

Now, this probably was not a fair characterization of Stevenson and certainly is not a fair characterization of most intellectuals, left, right, or apolitical. But apparently, conservatives held to the idea and image, at some point, consciously or unconsciously, substituting the word “intellectual” for “egghead.”

14

How could anyone who grew up in the U.S., in the 40’s or 50’s, NOT think of the
Lone Ranger when hearing the William Tell Overture?
I don’t think of myself as an intellectual, but I do prefer thinking and talking about
ideas over talking about people or things.

15

Certainly wasn’t entirely fair, but what in politics is? I’m sure Quayl(e) isn’t as stupid as reported, either. The thing is, before WWII, politics was generally a… uhm. Well, I won’t say ‘elite’ thing, “Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa? Gone to the White House…” but it was less open to general, rather than specific slander. It was only with the popularity of radio and later, television, that the general sort of slander really became popular, as I see it, not to mention the upswing in populism itself. Stevenson struck me as the first major personage I could think of who was cast down for being too much a thinker, as if thinking alone were bad.

16

Well, it’s possible to do something and suck at it. But, yeah, you’d have to have some reasonable reading skills to qualify as an intellectual, and be able to put forth a clear, coherent, and credible argument too. Clear means the terms you’re using are either well understood or you explain them yourself. Coherent means you are not making logical contradictions of fallacies. Credible means the argument does not contradict well established facts about the world, or, if it does, it tries to give compelling reasons to why said facts are not. (The above list is from Anthony O’Hear’s book What Philosophy is.)

Interestingly, It seems possible to be able to build up quite an expertise in one area and be exasperatingly ill-informed in another. A friend of mine is my main source for information on Irish literature, and has an encyclopedic knowledge of folk, blues and jazz music but also doesn’t believe in Evolution, does believe in Kennedy assassination conspiracies, and also believes that UFO’s are abducting people.

I’d say commitment to intellectual purity is the hallmark of the anti-intellectual or the pseudo-intellectual. A true intellectual always maintains the critical attitude best described by Karl Popper in his various books, and taken from Socrates. “This is what I believe right now,and these are the reasons I have for believing it. However, it is entirely possible that I am wrong and I invite you to show me where my mistakes are.”

17

The two best definitions I’ve heard are:

An intellectual is someone who is educated beyond his intelligence, and
An intellectual is someone who is more committed to a point of view than to reality.

As much as I hate to admit it, I’ve probably been guilty of both at times.

18

[quote]
Larry Borgia: A friend of mine is my main source for information on Irish literature, and has an encyclopedic knowledge of folk, blues and jazz music but also doesn’t believe in Evolution, does believe in Kennedy assassination conspiracies, and also believes that UFO’s are abducting people.

[quote]

A few decades ago, it was common among intellectuals to question the findings of the Warren Report and to be open-minded about various conspiracy theories. I speculate that more recent generations may have confused Oliver Stone’s movie with legitimate questions and points of view. (Other programs may also have contributed to a backlash.) Certainly, remaining open to a conspiracy involving Kennedy’s death is not the intellectual equivalent of rejecting the theory of evolution or believing in UFO abductions. I no longer hold a firm opinion one way or the other.

When I grow up, I want to be like that. Excellent!

Brain Glutton, good thread. I like the essay’s definition of intellectual, but I’m wondering what the basis was for disqualifying Stevenson from that category. Also, I agree that he wasn’t a Leftist, but in my opinion, he was a Liberal. Are you using those terms to mean the same thing?

19

I would say that the value neutral definition of an intellectual is someone who is defined by their interest in academics or the persuit of knowledge. Much in the same way an athlete is different from someone who merely goes to the gym a few times a week.

20

Which is why being well-read is only one attribute.