These are the archived discussions. To participate in active "Talk Literature" discussions go to the
homepage of ReadLiterature
Back To "Talk Literature" Archives
The Intellectual and Literature
Posted by Daniel Macione on 24/1/2002, 8:13:02
"the words he used "intellectual" and "common" are begging for a discussion on the meaning of these words. Who is an intellectual? Does an intellectual want his status to be kept separate from "common"? "
Thus I ask below some questions I think might be interesting to consider in terms of "What is an Intellectual" and how does and Intellectual relate to literature(literature in the widest and narrowest sense)?
Is the Intellectual a consumer of Literature, or a creator of literature. The artist or the consumer?
Is the Intellectual the regurgiator of ideas or the producer of original and new ideas(if there is such a thing as an original idea?
Is an Intellectual one who is a scientist(math/physics/chemistry) or one who is more in the vein of Literature and the Humanities(philosophy/psychology/sociology/history)?
Is an Intellectual one who specializes in one field, or one topic in that field (per say devotes all their energy to analyzing one book over the span of their whole life time) or is an Intellectual one who is the "Renisance Man" type with generalized knowlege or tastes.
Can an Intellectual "be Human" also, and with shame or pride or hiding in a closet read "popular" literature.
Does one desire or claim to be an Intellectual, or is the Intellectual someone who is out of touch and there to be mocked.
In Dr. Zhivago's Russia, the communists sought to remove "Intellectuals," and place them into manual labor. Zhivago's poetry was not approved of. Yet I believe if "thinkers" shaped their thought to Communist ideology they were allowed to write and philosophise. And we know that the scientists were allowed to be "intellectual" as far as building bigger and better war machines than the Americans. How then does the Intellectual relate to the state? In colleges and institutes of Higher Learning, is the Intellectual the one in the driver seat in charge of the cirruiclum or standing on the outside looking in?
How does the below relate to the term "Intellectual"
There is the book reader who reads literatuur (non-popular)
There is the book reader who reads lectuur (popular)
There is the person who reads the newspaper
There is the person who reads the comics
There is the person who looks at the comics
There is the person who cant read : illiterate
There is the person who can read but chooses not to (ought)
There was a special on today about a boy who had literally 1/2 his neocortex(top of the brain) removed due to a bullet wound; the doctor commented after the boy some years later graduated from college "He does more with 1/2 a brain than most people do with a whole brain"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Lale on 24/1/2002, 14:50:01, in reply to "The Intellectual and Literature"
7) Do you have to be past a certain age to be an intellectual? Young people, since they haven't had the time to read, think and experience as much as older people, are rarely considered to be intellectuals. What about students? Most reviews in amazon are written by students. They go in there to get help for their current book assignment. And when they are done with the book, they go back in to put in their two cents worth. Are they the potential intellectuals? Or are they the ones that mostly fill the "comoner review" category?
Before the discussion starts, I would like to request a re-wording of these two lines:
There is the person who reads the comics
There is the person who looks at the comics
The way it is written, it implies that comics are less sophisticated than prose. But at least half of them in my newspaper are very intelligent and deep. Some of them are downright "highbrow". Some of them are brilliantly complicated. "Calvin and Hobbes", named after two philosophers, is always very thought provoking. And let us not forget Art Spiegelman's Maus (A Survivor's Tale : My Father Bleeds History & Here My Troubles Began), a novel in cartoons tackling a difficult and disturbing subject such as holocaust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by malcolm on 24/1/2002, 22:17:36, in reply to "The Intellectual and Literature"
An intellectual is one who believes that IDEAS and intellect are a preferred (but not necessairly only) way to solve problems and to create. I would restrict the label on whether they are a consumer or producer (a "mere" reader" may produce ideas), the source (good line on comics, Lale), the age, or the person's idiosyncratic nature or lack thereof. The intellectual can be popular or a loner.
The State can label anyone as an "intellectual" for political reasons. But why the negative connotation--are intellectuals seen as creators of ideas that are irrelevant to the proletariot? I think so.
The intellectual is found in many forms, and I suggest that those who would restrict its use unneccesarily are confusing intellectualism (their own or others') with snobbery.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by malcolm on 24/1/2002, 22:20:39, in reply to "Re: The Intellectual and Literature"
CORRECTION: my previous post should read i would NOT restrict the [definition of an intellectual]. Thank you!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Lale on 25/1/2002, 14:36:08, in reply to "Re: The Intellectual and Literature"
>are intellectuals seen as creators of ideas that are
>irrelevant to the proletariot? I think so.
They maybe "seen" (or perceived) as creators of ideas that are irrelevant to the proletariate, but that is not true for most intellectuals. Just as an example, think of Emile Zola's The Germinal... Balzac, Camus...
Intellectuals, throughout the history and in every culture, supported the working class, tried to change or at least analyse the social order. Their ideas were very relevant. They ran newspapers, organized meetings, they worked for the enlightenment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Michael Sympson on 26/1/2002, 6:50:52, in reply to "Re: The Intellectual and Literature"
Why unnecessary complicating the situation? Some people are more cerebral than others (aka geeky) - that's all. And this cerebral quality (or curse, as the case may be) has nothing to do with age nor should it be waved as the banner for superior insight or better morals. Dr. Goebbels was cerebral and intellectual, so was Lenin, and both indescribably vulgar in their tastes and outlooks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Lale on 27/1/2002, 14:44:57, in reply to "Re: The Intellectual and Literature"
Michael, surely there must be a difference between "intelligent person" and "intellectual person". These men might have been both very intelligent but Dr. MonsterFreakGoebbels was not an intellectual, Lenin was.
Posted by Michael Sympson on 27/1/2002, 15:33:56, in reply to "Re: The Intellectual and Literature"
I am afraid Lenin and Goebbels were not much different on the monster freak account. Lenin himself had committed every single atrocity in Stalin's book - only the numbers differed. He wrote books of which a few I have read. Goebbels wrote papers and novels which I have not read. Goebbels was not just a strutting peacock and philandering clubfoot. And to mention another intellectual - Mao Tse Tung - he seemed to have been a rather talented poet, - - among other things. In the number of victims he outdid Lenin, Hitler, and Stalin together.
But my point here is not the human interest - I propose a paradox: not every intellectual is intelligent. Rousseau is an example for an intellectual teetering on the verge to idiocy. Since most of these people work on the level of verbal communication as their learned trade, it is not so obvious. But when you look at the arts, especially musicians, you soon realize that one can be very good at what one does and be as dumb as - - Einstein. Einstein was brilliant, he had a huge IQ. But was he really intelligent or just a very specialized intellectual who outside of his field was barely able to wash his own socks?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Suat on 27/1/2002, 19:28:34, in reply to "Re: The Intellectual and Literature"
Before dragging Lenin, Mao and Stalin into the discussion, there needs to be an agreement on the definition of the word.
An intellectual is someone who uses his intellect to change the world for the better, where not only the physical needs of every human being are satisfied, but also human minds are given the equal opportunity to flourish and prosper. An intellectual must be intelligent and must have a mind full of theories and ideals. An intellectual must put his intellect into action and fight with this weapon to implement his ideals. An idle intellect which does not serve to a purpose, or worse, an intellect serving to the destruction of the humankind can not be categorized or labelled as an intellectual.
Lenin was not only an intellectual but also a great leader and a politician. As an intellectual he extended the theories of Marx and Engels and fought with the tzarist regime and other factions in the Russian politics on ideological grounds with his pen. As a politician he put forward strategies for revolution and showed the proletariat how to topple the system and form their own government. As a great leader, he attempted to form the first socialist state, inspired many others around the world to do the same, and became the hope of many suffering nations. Even the propaganda of the global capitalism can not take away Lenin's well-deserved high status amongst the world leaders in the history.
Goebbels does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Lenin, neither in this discussion of intellectuals nor any other topics of interest. Goebbels belongs to the trash can of history.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Michael Sympson on 28/1/2002, 2:08:15
I don't think Lale's page is the place for a political debate. But I do agree with Suat's definition of an intellectual: it is a person that depends more on intellect than instinct and experience - period. But that's where the agreement ends. Whether this intellectual works for the betterment of the world or to its detriment remains to be judged by the effect such person has on history. In regard to Lenin, as far as I am concerned, six million murdered Russians even before Stalin, settle this question in an undisputable way. "By their fruit ye shall know them." The man had put himself on the spot: "Before the verdict of history good intentions don't count, only actual deeds (Lenin)."
However that an intellectual "must be intelligent" is not at all written in stone. Without losing myself in the details of "IQ" testing, we can generally define an intelligent person as a "problem solver." If this person solves problems in a new way then we have a little genius among us; if the person solves big problems in a new way it is a big genius. But this fact doesn't turn every problem solver into an intellectual. Nor testifies for the intelligence of intellectuals. Especially since intellectuals do not solve problems - they create them. (Which is not always a bad thing. Slavery had not been seen as a problem, before an intellectual came along and said it was.) Besides being "intelligent" is not an equal opportunity job: some are, many are not, and this statistic applies on intellectuals just as on everybody else. Mendel's laws tally badly with egalitarian democracy.
Which brings us to the intellectual's "mind full of theories and ideals." I agree that intellectuals depend more on education and academia than other people - but this again says nothing about the quality of their breeding nor the quality of their thoughts. Socrates was certainly an intellectual. Was he intelligent? Not intelligent enough to avoid the hemlock. Was he a great thinker? Not every thinker is an intellectual, but especially this intellectual never contributed a single constructive thought and in all of his biographers' records figures as the rabid assailant on democracy and freedom. Was he at least a reasonably good person? We better ask this question his poor wife who had to carry this loafer's domestic burdens.
To be intelligent is inherited; choosing to become an intellectual is a matter of upbringing and culture. Socrates is only an example. Then how can such phonies, like Rousseau, Nietzsche, Marx, Freud or Sartre (to name just a few) make the grades in the league of cultural icons? Because intellectuals from the same mould continue saying so. It doesn't make it any truer. And the common man has to foot the bill throughout history - with blood, with privation, with ignorance in the guise of education, with want of taste for the genuine in art and science.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Daniel Macione on 28/1/2002, 7:32:17, in reply to "Re: The Intellectual and Literature"
Here are some definitions(with a few synonyms) a la Webster's New Universal Dictionary and Microsoft Words Thesaurus:
L. intellectus, a perceiving, understanding
1)The ability to reason, perceive, or understand; ability to perceive relations, differences, etc.; distinguished from will, feeling.
2)Great mental ability; high intelligence
(a)a mind or intelligence, especially a superior one;
(c)minds or intelligent persons, collectively.
1)a person with intellectual interests or tastes
2)a person who does intellectual work
3)a member of the intelligentsia
collectively, the people regarded as, or regarding themselves as, the intellectual or learned class
1)that may be understood or comprehended; clear; comprehensible.
2)in philosophy, understandable by the intellect only; conceptual
in a manner to be understood; clearly; plainly;
the quality or state of being intelligible; capability of being understood
1)of, like, or having to do with intelligence or intellect
2)conveying intelligence or information.
2)in philosophy, the theory that all knowledge is derived from the intellect without aid from the senses
1)one who tends to overemphasize intellectual pursuits.
2)in philosophy, a believer in intellectualism
1)intellectual abillity or nature
2)the quality of being intellectual
L.intelligentia, perception, discernment
(a)the ability to learn or understand from experience; ability to acquire and retain knowledge; mental ability;
(b)the ability to respond quickly and successfully to a new situation; use of the faculty of reason in solving problems, directing conduct, etc. effectively;
(c)in psychology, measured success in using these abilities to perform certain tasks.
3)the gathering of secret information, as for military or police pruposes
1)Knowing; understanding; well informed; sensible; having intelligence; skilled
2)having or showing a high intelligence; quick to learn
3)having knowledge, understanding, or awareness (of somthing)
1)one who sends or conveys intelligence; one who gives notice of private or distant transactions; especially, a spy or secret agent
2)formerly, a newsletter or newspaper
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Michael Sympson on 28/1/2002, 8:28:21, in reply to "Re: The Intellectual and Literature"
You just illustrate my point. Read again the definitions:
1)a person with intellectual interests or tastes
2)a person who does intellectual work
3)a member of the intelligentsiaa"
collectively, the people regarded as, or regarding themselves as, the intellectual or learned class"
(whatever those people may think of themselves, it does not make them necessarily intelligent. But many of them nevertheless would like to think in terms of ...)
2)in philosophy, the theory that all knowledge is derived from the intellect without aid from the senses"
1)one who tends to overemphasize intellectual pursuits.
2)in philosophy, a believer in intellectualism"
(Notice that Webster's definition of intelligence apart from ...)
L.intelligentia, perception, discernment
(b)the ability to respond quickly and successfully to a new situation; use of the faculty of reason in solving problems, directing conduct, etc. effectively;
(c) in psychology, measured success in using these abilities to perform certain tasks."
(... is adding the part which is the most troublesome to incorporate when setting up IQ tests ...)
"(a)the ability to learn or understand from experience; ability to acquire and retain knowledge;"
(because in real life intelligence is not the ability to regurgitate knowledge like an albatross regurgitates the half digested fish to his young. Intelligence exploits efficiently the memory, but good memory is not by itself a sign for high intelligence. The situation is simply this: we have intellectuals, intelligent people, and people with a gift. Being intelligent doesn't make you an intellectual, though it gives you an edge if you are. Having talent, can make you an excellent artist, mathematician, or scientist, without actually testifying to intelligence or intellectuality - I speak from personal experience. I have seen first class mathematicians with Ph.D.'s front and aft and as dumb as a donkey. I know painters and fiction writers who can barely tell the left from their right, but, BUT, do excellent work in their profession. Ancient China has demonstrated that, given the cultural climate, one can breed intellectuals as a class - but the result is not a leadership of higher intelligence, rather a bunch of very common people who, due to their training, use the perks and clout of their position to make themselves particularly useless.)
Posted by Lale on 28/1/2002, 9:14:46, in reply to "Re: The Intellectual and Literature"
That's a very nice compilation of terms, Daniel, thank you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Lale on 28/1/2002, 10:24:06, in reply to "Re: The Intellectual and Literature"
True. It is always fun to digress a little. Diversity is good. Literature is not (cannot be) isolated from many other matters. But eventually we do have to stay at least loosely in touch with literature. So, maybe it is time to slowly wrap up the political aspect of this discussion. There might be room for a couple more postings on the last digression, after that we should move towards fading it away.
However, trying to remain objective, I feel I should point it out that it was not Suat who brought Lenin up. When there is a posting on "X is bad", there will also be a posting on "X is good".
Which reminds me: Anyone willing to tackle this:
>Then how can such phonies, like Rousseau, Nietzsche,
>Marx, Freud or Sartre (to name just a few) make the
>grades in the league of cultural icons?
Wanted (first) are people who will speak in defense of one or more of the aforementioned names. Unfortunately I haven't read -other than Sartre- any of these people so I cannot defend them myself. On Sartre, I am inclined to agree with Michael on the "phonie" comment. From what I know of Rousseau and Marx, I severely reject the argument, alas due to lack of readings I am not able to argue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Lale on 28/1/2002, 10:29:09, in reply to "Re: The Intellectual and Literature"
Jean-Jacques Rousseau from Britannica:
b. June 28, 1712, Geneva, Switz.
d. July 2, 1778, Ermenonville, France
French philosopher, writer, and political theorist whose treatises and novels inspired the leaders of the French Revolution and the Romantic generation.
Rousseau was the least academic of modern philosophers and in many ways was the most influential. His thought marked the end of the Age of Reason. He propelled political an ethical thinking into new channels. His reforms revolutionized taste, first in music, then in the other arts. He had a profound impact on people's way of life; he taught parents to take a new interest in their children and to educate them differently; he furthered the expression of emotion rather than polite restraint in friendship and love. He introduced the cult of religious sentiment among people who had discarded religious dogma. He opened men's eyes to the beauties of nature, and he made liberty an object of almost universal aspiration.
Copyright © 1994-2000 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Lale on 28/1/2002, 10:51:04, in reply to "Re: The Intellectual and Literature"
Moving to lighter levels of our discussion:
This was sent to me by a friend. Unfortunately the source is only identified as "a book on Voltaire". This list is given as Voltaire's definition of an intellectual. Humble translation provided by moi.
Les critères d'être un intellectuelle - The requirements to be an intellectual:
. Ecrire (des romans, des éssais, des articles ... ) - Write (novels, essays, articles ... )
. Critiquer la politique du gouvernement - Critize the politics of the government
. Se monter souvent à la télé (les médias) - Appear often on television (in the media) (Lale's note: I wonder how the television shows were like in 1700s)
. Manger à la table de grands - Eat at the table of great people
. Prendre la défense des peuple en difficulte - Defend the peoples who are in difficulty (or defend the struglling peoples)
. Avoir un doctorat ou un poste à l'université n'est pas suffisante! - To have a Ph D or a post at the university is not sufficient!
I think this might be someone's interpretation of Voltaire's words on intellectuality, rather than exact quotes (appear on television?)
In any case, things to consider.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Michael Sympson on 28/1/2002, 14:48:26, in reply to "Re: The Intellectual and Literature"
"I have received your new book against the human race, and thank you for it. Never was such cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid. One longs, in reading your book, to walk on all fours. But as I have lost that habit for more than sixty years, I feel unhappily the impossibility of resuming it. Nor can I embark in search of the savages of Canada, because the maladies to which I am condemned render a European surgeon necessary to me; because war is going on in those regions; and because the example of our actions has made the savages nearly as bad as ourselves." Voltaire (1755)
(Don't I love a good cock fight. And of course Voltaire was right. He looked right through this phony. Rousseau, this great "humanist," had a certain turn of phrase, but little else. He deposited his children (five) one after the other anonymously at the door to public orphanages, but had the nerve to write a book on child education, which (should I say "of course?") became a best-seller. His doctrine to substitute reason by a constipation of the heart is simply despicable, but (should I again say "of course?") it became the most influential doctrine of modern times: it is the bedrock of romanticism. Rousseau's confessions make good reading on the loo - enough wipe for many sessions.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Michael Sympson on 29/1/2002, 19:29:26, in reply to "Re: The Intellectual and Literature"
"From what I know of Rousseau and Marx, I severely reject the argument, alas due to lack of readings I am not able to argue."
That's exactly the reason why phonies like Rousseau and Marx still figure as icons. I would probably respond exactly the same way as you, Lale, if I had, like most of us, never found the time, actually to look into the texts themselves. Shows that even the Britannica has its limitations. It's just this time thing. Even avid readers have a life, and there are so many better books to turn to, that it simply takes too much effort to also dig through the dusty tomes of the aforementioned gentlemen. By the way Lale: you missed nothing, so don't waste time for no other reason than soothing your conscience. :-)
Food for thought: "a good critic teaches the reader to think for himself!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Gerrit on 31/1/2002, 4:01:09, in reply to "Re: The Intellectual and Literature"
It would seem that all of us engage in intellectual activity from time to time. To be called an intellectual however implies that you perform that feat as a sort of profession, just as a scientist is someone who tries to be scientific about things for a living. And just like a scientist doesn't always succeed in producing quality science, someone who establishes his- or herself as an intellectual doesn't always produce sensible material and Michael was kind enough to produce some prime examples of this problem.
When we write to this forum we are performing an intellectual activity since we do not modify the world directly but only through some (hopefully) shared representations of it. If we were too hungry or had too little energy we would be setting our priorities otherwise, this wouldn't make us less intelligent but it would make us less intellectual and more a commoner.
So does this forum of our kind host Lale draw the intellectual to it, more than Amazon does? It seems to be so, because in my limited experience it has become clear that some of the regulars spend a lot of time engaged in intellectual activity; just keeping up with everything being written takes up a lot of time, let alone drawing up a response. Many people looking at these pages will feel that they can't sustain this high level of intellectual interaction and turn to more popular and less demanding pages instead and I must say that I can't guarantee that I myself will be able to hang on either (this late again?).
People looking for just this level of intellectual activity will be interested in this forum no doubt about it.
I'm sorry that I didn't have time to make this shorter. :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Tim Stuart-Buttle on 8/2/2002, 18:47:51, in reply to "Re: The Intellectual and Literature"
I think it's futile to suggest that "intellectuals"- broadly defined as those with the will to learn and strive for knowledge- might not produce any thoughts and ideas relevant to "lower" social classes. Incidentally to differentiate between classes on this topic is also perhaps naive and unnecessary as to be an intellectual does not automatically mean you are of increased means. It is this assumption that makes intellectualism so frowned upon, when in fact it should be seen in a positive light. Certainly some ideas produced by thinkers are of little material consequence or use- debate between historians or philosophers in some cases serve as an example- but intellectuals should always have a role in society to encourage others to think, and increasingly to decipher and translate the spin-fuelled actions and language of politics etc to others, along with their thoughts about them. When this does not happen and the thinkers fail to stand up and be counted- Nazi Germany, USSR, after the "Thought Reform" in Pol Pot's Cambodia- the innocent masses pay the price. For this reason intellectualism should be encouraged, but notions of class and the like have to be dismissed in order for this to be possible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Lale on 10/2/2002, 14:32:26, in reply to "Re: The Intellectual and Literature"
According to some reports, under Kamer Rouge, anyone wearing glasses was persecuted.
Tim, I did, sort of, combine a reply to your posting with our "The War of The End of The World" discussion. You will find a reference to your posting in my last reply under "The War" topic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~