[MD] irony and socrates

[John Carl]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 3:47 PM, <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Actually it would be good if we could all agree on who qualifies as an
> intellectual. Even more challenging would be the question of how to tell
> a superior intellectual from a lessor one.


My definition of intellectual is someone who is primarily oriented toward
intellect.   This orientation can rise through natural ability and
propensity or through training.  Intellectualism is the belief that
intellect is the highest value (Ayn Rand for instance)

Phaedrus was an intellectual who rejected Intellectualism.  When a person of
high intellectual ability turns from Intellectualism as a basis for value,
they will gravitate toward the more dynamic aspect of 4th level evolution,
the side that Phaedrus called "Romantic Quality".  The artist and composer.

A superior intellectual is easy to detect.  They have these things called IQ
tests.  "Intellectual Quotient tests"

Yeah, I know.  But what is the main difference between intelligence and
intellect?

Objectivism.  So, high intelligence + SOM = superior intellectual


> To make a judgment based on
> what college someone graduate from or the number of academic
> degrees attained would leave out a lot of smart people.


Mostly  a social phenomena.  I even had more than a few college professors
hammer this home, that when you go to a really good school, it's not to get
a really good education - it's to make really good social connections.



> Frankly, I don't
> know the answer except to look at someone's achievements in the
> marketplace of ideas, including those in business and the arts.
>


I'd say Platt, it's like any aspect of Quality - you know it when you see
it.   At this level, you have to have some intellectual excellence of your
own to be able to judge.  Thus the necessity for tenure commitees.