Protestantism

» pink101 - intellectualism

In response to intellectualism posted by redback:
.
Here is the link to the post that uses the word, intellectual, as a put down.
http://protestantism.suite101.com/discus...
.
There is more that one intellectual lurking about at this site.
.
That could be the glue that holds one to Suite101.com.
.
"An intellectual is a person who uses his or her intellect to study, reflect, or speculate on a variety of different ideas."
.
So do you think the difference in this issue is that intellectuals use their intellect to gain understanding while others use some other facility? And, it true, what facility might these others use?
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - intellectualism

In response to intellectualism posted by pink101:

I don't go in search of the person who is hinted at in posts as causing offence. Blame sticks point back at me. And I don't put my foot in the glue you refer to that allegedly binds here...that was my point in the earlier post.

From reading the link, I think Boanerges uses a 'special purpose' definition of the term 'intellectual' ie to what the message of the Bible is per his understanding of it. And BTW, I'm a lousy apologist for Boanerges too. I'm also not beyond totally missing his intellectual and emotional points as well as yours.

I flippantly referred to quantity over quality for any intellectualisng I may do. I understand the intellect is contingent upon one's intelligence so for example the failing student and the ascending professor may get different marks in the same exam even tho' both exercised their intellect along the way...within their relative will to do so.

"So do you think the difference in this issue is that intellectuals use their intellect to gain understanding while others use some other facility? And, it true, what facility might these others use?"

Obviously people study, speculate etc for totally different purposes. I don't think people respond exactly within a limited definition so any label an observer gives is risky. 'Intellect' has 5 definitions and 'intellectual' 7, in my dictionary and an encyclopaedic dictionary would be far more informative.

But this is not about theory???

-- posted by redback

» Migisi - intellectualism

In response to intellectualism posted by pink101:

.
Here is the link to the post that uses the word, intellectual, as a put down.
.
Consider the source. (sarcasm)

-- posted by Migisi

» redback - intellectualism

In response to intellectualism posted by Migisi:

I hadn't entered the 'the bible' topic at all until Pink threw me the link. I thought the offending language was the 'glue' that pink referred to hence my post about me not wanting to stick my boot in it...if you follow my thread.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - My Purpose

.
My purpose in supplying the link was NOT to point my finger at anyone as a guilty party or as a stinker; but, it was to put the word, intellectual, in context.
.
Once it is in context, I thought we could pursue the question of how non-intellectuals gather and qualify information upon which they built their opinions and ideas.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - My Purpose

In response to My Purpose posted by pink101:

"...NOT to point my finger..."

I was merely adding my own purpose and sense of context in a 2-way conversation.

I understood you wanted to identify what separates the intellectual from the non-intellectual...but citing a post where 'intellectual' wasn't the worst put down it contained, IMO.

To answer your question without repeating my responses gets hard. You seem to be applying a different definition of 'intellectual' that enables a "non-intellectual" whatever that is, to be able to gather and qualify information.

People who fall into the commitment "true love" seeks, may rely more on an emotional process rather than the intellectual one where 'reason' needs to predominate. And it may not matter to some how one feels about whether God is just or not if one's feelings are out of sync with Bible teachings. I suspect there is tension between the concepts of 'God is Love' vs 'God is Agape Love'. We may rely more on the fuzzy emotional idea of selfish 'love'.

I flavour my responses with feelings and asides that are hardly pure reason. Governments seem to knee-jerk in response to crises that in the cold light of day are not above criticism.

Two intellectuals sit in a bar arguing about God. The non-intellectual is the one who accepts that label after losing the argument ipso facto...or believes the argument was lost. But Redback, an observer, who doesn't use 'intellectual' as a put-down wonders when the substance of the argument was lost by both.

-- posted by redback

» _Boanerges_ - substance of the argument was lost

In response to My Purpose posted by redback:

Main Entry: predilection
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: inclination

Synonyms: bag, bent*, bias, dish*, druthers*, fancy, flash, fondness, groove, inclining, leaning, liking, love, mind-set, partiality, penchant, predisposition, preference, proclivity, proneness, propensity, taste*, tendency, thing*, turned onto, type, weakness

Notes: a propensity is a tendency while a predilection is a partiality - thus, a propensity (from Latin meaning 'hanging toward') is a behavioral predisposition whereas a predilection is a personal characteristic (from Latin meaning 'choose or love before others')

Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2007 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
* = informal or slang

Predilect
\Pre`di*lect"\, v. t. To elect or choose beforehand. [R.] --Walter Harte.

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - My Purpose

In response to My Purpose posted by redback:

Redback wrote, You seem to be applying a different definition of 'intellectual' that enables a "non-intellectual" whatever that is, to be able to gather and qualify information.
.
I think the definition of intellectual that you provided is pretty good and I'm using it. Here it is again: "An intellectual is a person who uses his or her intellect to study, reflect, or speculate on a variety of different ideas."
.
But Redback, an observer, who doesn't use 'intellectual' as a put-down wonders when the substance of the argument was lost by both.
.
So, who's having an argument here? Not me.
.
I'm trying to flesh something out from which I think we can draw some important conclusions.
.

.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - substance of the argument was lost

In response to substance of the argument was lost posted by _Boanerges_:
.
Can you make your point here, Wendell? I don't understand what you're trying to put across. I could guess; but, that would be presumptuous on my part, wouldn't it?
.
In other words, you might as well have dropped in the Gettysburg Address.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - substance of the argument was lost

In response to substance of the argument was lost posted by pink101:

dont understand.. well, that is usual when there is a communication problem.. Ive been as direct as they come.

my suggestion is to start at the beginning, read through the messages and then see if something pops out...

if not.. well.. what can be said...

-- posted by _Boanerges_