> Hint: being able to cite Plato does not make you in any way, shape, or form, more "intellectual" than the guy at the end of the bar who knows every Man U soccer game score, who scored, against whom, in which game, at what game time, using which strategy.
> Having consumed a 500 page book does not make you more intellectual than having consumed 500 episodes of Coronation Street. Consumption, in general, is a low hanging fruit, intellectually. Your love for Doctor Who doesn't make you smarter than someone's fanning over Rihanna.
> Intellectuals are rarely lonely. Because true intellectuals see value in information, no matter the sender or matter. Restrictive topic selection is pretty much the definition of anti-intellectualism, in my opinion.
Big red flag anytime anyone prefixes something with "true." First you stubbornly deny what an intellectual is, then you redefine its meaning to suit your narrative, with your "true intellectual."
I mean yes, you have described literally the rhetorical techniques they are using to communicate their idea. Would you give them the green flag if they framed it more humbly "I meekly propose my opinion, that if one wants to better define intellect they could consider.. "
> Having consumed a 500 page book does not make you more intellectual than having consumed 500 episodes of Coronation Street. Consumption, in general, is a low hanging fruit, intellectually. Your love for Doctor Who doesn't make you smarter than someone's fanning over Rihanna.
> Intellectuals are rarely lonely. Because true intellectuals see value in information, no matter the sender or matter. Restrictive topic selection is pretty much the definition of anti-intellectualism, in my opinion.
Big red flag anytime anyone prefixes something with "true." First you stubbornly deny what an intellectual is, then you redefine its meaning to suit your narrative, with your "true intellectual."