Talk:Intellectualism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

editing[edit]

This article was ruined by Mhazard9 on 4 February 2010. I don't have the patience to fix it. 69.226.74.2 (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe I do. 69.226.74.2 (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The following passage was removed not because it was false, but because it expresses only one among very many views on this topic, and it violates WP:NPOV to include it without including some about the others (though some editors might think that adding other views would violate WP:NOR, since there is no source I'm aware of that could be described as a synthesis of these views):

To date, philosophers dispute that Socrates’s conceptions of knowing truth, and of ethical conduct, can be equated with modern, post–Cartesian conceptions of knowledge and of rational intellectualism.[1] For example, Michel Foucault demonstrated, with detailed historical study, that in Classical Antiquity, knowing the truth is akin to what is contemporarily understood as “spiritual knowledge”. Without exclusively concerning the rational intellect, this form of knowledge is integral to the broader principle of “caring for the self”.
Typically, such care of the self involved very particular ascetic exercises meant to ensure that knowledge of truth was not only memorized, but learned and integrated to the self in transforming oneself into a good person. To understand truth, therefore, meant “intellectual knowledge” requiring one’s integration to the (universal) truth, and authentically living it in one’s speech, heart, and conduct. Achieving that difficult task required continual care of the self, but also meant being someone who embodies truth, and so can “speak freely”, via parrhesia — the Classical-era rhetorical device denoting: “to speak candidly, and to ask forgiveness for so speaking”, and, by extension, the moral obligation to speak the truth for the common good, even at personal risk.[2] This ancient, Socratic moral philosophic perspective contradicts the contemporary understanding of truth and knowledge as rational undertakings.

If this upsets anyone, I'm sorry. 69.226.74.2 (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Socially, “intellectualism” defines one as a non believer in mythology or religion.". Would one define a religious Professor of Theology as an intellectual? This is a perjorative and nonsensical statement. ruprecht (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Heda Segvic. "No one errs willingly: the meaning of socratic intellectualism" (PDF).
  2. ^ Gros, Frederic (ed.)(2005) Michel Foucault: The Hermeneutics of the Subject, Lectures at the College de France 1981–1982. Picador: New York

Intellectualism, that is it?[edit]

In this article, which is very frugal, nothing is mentioned about the "high fly" of intellectualism after the "Enlightenment". I am very sorry about that and reduces this article to nonsense.

Be happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.129.136.48 (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Edit?[edit]

There was one section: Edit. Very peculiar. My comment: You touch something but don't want to "think it through". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.129.136.48 (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Intellectualism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is this, then?[edit]

I'm hesitant to claim the this isn't something that wikipedia can have a topic on, because there are many different things I can think of that could be called "intellectualism" - some of which are discussed on this very page. But it's possible for a word to refer to more than one thing, especially if no one topic has rigorously defined it.

I'm not sure the title of this article as is really means much of anything by itself, "intellectual" is just sort of a catch-all you say about someone if you don't have something more specific you can call them. The page should probably be made into a dab. - car chasm (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William James con intellectualism as rationalism....[edit]

The problem with characterizing intellectualism as synonymous with philsophical rationalism, as opposed to philsophical empiricism, is that it implies that empiricists aren't intellectuals. In his book, Some Problems of Philosophy, [1] William James defines intellectualism thus: 

         'INTELLECTUALISM' is the belief that our mind comes upon a world complete in itself, 
         and has the duty of ascertaining its contents; but has no power of re-determining its 
         character, for that is already given. (221)

And the first thing he felt compelled to clarify about this definition was its realation to the classical philosophical disntction between empricism, or the beleif that all of our knowledge is derived from sense experience, and rationalism, or the beleif that at least some of our knowledge is not derived from sense experience: 

         Among intellectualists two parties may be distinguished. Rationalizing intellectualists 
         lay stress on deductive and 'dialectic' arguments, making large use of abstract 
         concepts and pure logic (Hegel, Bradley, Taylor, Royce). Empiricist intellectualists 
         are more 'scientific,' and think that the character of the world must be sought in our 
         sensible experiences, and found in hypotheses based exclusively thereon (Clifford, 
         Pearson). (221)

Hence, it cannot be the case, as the third sentence of this article claims, that, "In the field of philosophy, the term intellectualism is synonymous with rationalism, knowledge derived from reason."

Purechao (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

References

  1. ^ Some Problems of Philosophy: A Beginning of an Introduction to Philosophy: Longman's, Green and Co., 1911. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Some_Problems_of_Philosophy/NeObBxIPrLAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intellectualism&oldid=1215716393"