"Intellectual"

[Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema]

I knew a man, who died recently, who probably finished only the sixth
grade, but who thought all the time, and let his mind form developed
impressions of everything he experienced. He was an extremely talented
mechanic, also, but could give you a reason for all his opinions, and they
were many. To be sure, he lived in a small town in Minnesota and one of
his prime sources was the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS. He did believe in speaking
truth to power, and did it indiscriminately and often rudely. Certainly he
did believe in educating himself.  I would say it was strongly arguable
that he was an intellectual, in a way that many of us would find perverse,
but still, an intellectual.
Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema

David Hearne wrote:


> This point may have already been brought up, but shouldn't we
> differentiate between the "professonial" definition of "intellectual"
> (i.e., the college profressor, the scientist) versus "intellectual" as
> a certain personality type? The latter seems a lot harder to describe.
> As my brother said, "What does being 'anti-intellectual' mean? That
> you're pro-stupid?"
>
> Gordon Fitch's shot at Richard Hofstadter was well-aimed, but you have
> to really wonder about how much currency deep thought has in the USA.
> My father once complimented me for my willingness to educate myself
> after college. "Well, everybody educates themselves," I said. No, they
> do not, he replied in a firm voice.
>
> Was my father being snobbish or observant? Or both? Despite what I
> said, I was obviously pleased. Hey, how many people can cite John
> Stuart Mill, a sociological book about the juvenile deliquency scare
> in the fifties, a six-hundred-page biography on Pope John Paul II and
> "I, Claudius" among the last ten books they've read? On the other
> hand, what does that really mean? Does this make my intellect any
> sharper than the next person's?
>
>     -- David