> "Newt Gingrich is the intellectual of the Republican field the way Moe > was the intellectual of the Stooges." -- Andy Borowitz.
Carrol Cox wrote: > Witty, but I think it perpetuates some quite false premises. > > (1) It equates "intellectual" with intelligence rather than with a social > function. "Intellectual" is a useful term only when it refers to a certain > social role, independently of how well or badly that role is performed. I don't see that equation. Newt thinks he fits that social role. He doesn't really. He just plays an intellectual on TV. > (2) It equates intelligence with reaching the correct conclusions. Highly > intelligent people can have really stupid and/or obnoxious ideas, but that > does not measure their "intelligence."... An idea can be a stupid or > intelligent idea, but > that can't refer to the person(s) holding the idea. I don't see that equation either, especially since Borowitz wasn't equating intellectual with intelligent. BTW, what is an "intellectual" anyway? someone who's willing to pontificate if there's a hat dropping anywhere on earth? -- Jim Devine / "In an ugly and unhappy world the richest man can purchase nothing but ugliness and unhappiness." -- George Bernard Shaw _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
