Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> . An intellectual might be defined,
> practically, as someone who wouldn't think that reference to Rawls or Adorno
> wasn't obviously stupid, pretentious, or out of left field.
>
This post represents progress on a definition, but this part won't quite do. If "intellectual" names a social function, which I think is what you are after, the definition can't include a concealed (or open) evaluative factor. In fact, it must cover both stupid and intelligent (as well as mediocre) intellectuals -- that is, the connection with intelligence (which, I agree with Gould, doesn't exist anyhow) must be broken. Being an intellectual involves a certain kind of _use_ of the intellect but says nothing about the quality of the intellect involved. Doolittle, who if I remember correctly, more or less first worked out the use of air power for terrorist purposes, was I think operating as an intellectual, not a technician. He was placing the technical question in a broader (though offensive) context.
Carrol
Carrol