Rough definition of an "intellectual." (Quasi-traditional intellectual in Gramsci's sense.)
How about, a person with a humanities background or knowledge equivalent to the amount, kind, and degree of competences one would acquire at a decent liberal arts school in at least two subject matters regarded as important and valuable by respected professional scholars who actually voluntarily continues to read and discuss, perhaps write and research, ongoing work in those and related areas, and to apply her knowledge to subject matters not necessarily directly related to those subjerct matters.
(an objective standard)
Or even:
someone who identifies herself as an intellectual and can persuade nine other people who so identify themselves that she is one of them.
(a mixed objective-subjective standard).
Someone who talks too much about things that they can't affect in words that make it sound big and important.
(An annoyed standard)
--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 16, 2007, at 5:54 PM, joanna wrote:
>
> > I doubt there's any kind of consensus; how about
> >
> > "someone who cares about the truth even though
> it's not their job
> > and does not involve any kind of reward."
>
> Hmm, that would exclude academics, as well as
> publishers, editors,
> curators, writers, and artists who get paid for
> their work. Not to
> mention architects, engineers, and other sundry
> professions who
> qualify under some definitions. So why does getting
> paid disqualify
> them?
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/