The influence of intellectuals is always very limited. — frank

I'd modify that to, intellectuals are rarely immediately influential. And whether true or not, it's a useful point. It leads to the question, Generally (if there is a generality), what are the characteristics of the influential person? If intellectuals are not influential, then who (or what) is?

If money is power, anyone with wealth is influential. In a militarized society, soldiers influence.

I shouldn't say intellectuals are never in charge. They are in a theocracy. When else?

This leads to a taxonomy of influence - I don't think that was what your OP was aiming for.

I think social and collective influence lies ultimately with us, the collective, the community, the society, in a feedback loop that resolves, crudely and simplistically, to stimulus and response, input and reaction.

Reason, the purview of the intellectual, is usually the least efficacious of prime movers, on a short-term basis. Long-term, it seems we tend toward reason: ultimately, reason governs. The catch is that reason's foundations - the presuppositions that, by being presupposed, give reason its direction - are not themselves necessarily reasonable. Nor subject to easy change. Because they, in many cases, are fundamental to the society/culture in which they are in force, they (the presuppositions) don't change until and unless the society/culture changes.

We're in the midst of such a change with respect to human sexuality. Judge for yourself how difficult that is. Fifty-odd years ago, homosexuality was (not well-) defined as a sickness. Another is individual freedom. It would seem, on consideration, that social change at fundamental levels, because of the power of media, becomes something experienced on an individual basis over a lifetime, or a generation, or even just a few years, instead of over hundreds of years, or the result of a general catastrophe.

In a free country - and I like to think America is still a free country - we, the greater community, get what we want and thus what we deserve. Reason is the way out, the restorative. But reason, however pen-based, sometimes requires the sword. We Americans are presently undergoing a restorative period for a self-inflicted sickness (as did, not that long ago, the Japanese and Germans). It is only through a mature understanding of our institutions and their purposes that we can hope to avoid the sword. We, collectively and for the most part, seem to have that mature understanding and wisdom. But that leaves another question, both for us particularly and in general: when events can move as quickly as they do in our modernity, can reason move quickly enough to keep up?

The mark of a great intellectual is to have the wit to woo.

So I think we agree that influence over the wider world (beyond the Magi Tribe itself) is not what we consider when we name great intellectuals.

Was the first person who thought of irrigating crops an intellectual?

Immediate influence, we agree, with some qualification. We haven't defined influence. In the sciences and technology are powerful intellects whose influence has been rapid. Even in politics with the powers of a Hitler (& co.). It must be that at this juncture we more carefully consider our terminology.

If you mean in wisdom, then, yes. But even wisdom requires discrimination in respect of efficacy. We often think of efficacy in terms of conspicuous change. Sometimes a lack of change is a mark of genius.

We're stuck at this point with thinking our topic through. I notice your OP has two questions: What is the mark of...? And what is their influence? We cannot approach these until we decide what an intellectual is. It's your thread. What do you say an intellectual is?

The thread originated with a conflict between myself and BitterCrank over whether the people who invented crop irrigation should be called intellectuals. We didn't argue about whether the invention of the solar calendar was an intellectual achievement or not. I assume we agreed that it was.

The obvious answer is that one should look to context to find meaning. :)

Well, if context determines meaning, then everything is context-based and thereby relative - or whatever you want it to be. I was going to ask if by "intellect" you meant capacity, or perhaps behaviour?

If by intellect you mean an unusual power of mind to comprehend a determinate subject matter, then I submit Lebron James as an intellectual. Following a recent not-very-good losing performance and in answering a question about that performance, he gave an exact rundown of several minutes of play of the game, implying that he had exact recall of everything that happened. I call that a sign of intellect and intellect in action. But who cares about basketball.

And we may require an ability to apply and use that power. Lebron James qualifies on that count!

On irrigation, one might ask if the achievement itself partook of intellect - but that requires a different sense of intellect. Without constraint on the possible meanings of the words we use, how can we mean anything determinate?

I suspect that irrigation was not so much invented as "discovered." That is, an effort, in some parts accidental and serendipitous, of collective intellect. If you want to call a group intellectual, without there being any individual intellectual, you're free to do so. But it qualifies the use of the term.

I think the mark of an intellectual is to be well-acquainted with your own ignorance, and to always be striving to deepen one's understanding. A "true" intellectual cares little about their reputation as an intellectual, and views inquiry as open-ended, anarchistic and collaboratory. The solitary thinker is as impotent as they are arrogant.

Well, if context determines meaning, then everything is context-based and thereby relative - or whatever you want it to be. — tim wood

One should look to context to discover the meaning of an utterance. That's pretty obvious, isn't it?

The interest I was expressing by the OP is in the first question: What do you think of when you hear that a person is an intellectual? What about them makes them intellectual? I'm not asking for guidance from you. I'm asking you what you think of.

For example: Teddy Roosevelt is considered to be one of the very few intellectual presidents the US has ever had. Carter was another. One of the funny stories associated with Teddy is that he loved to recite the entire Song of Roland (in archaic French if I'm remembering correctly) to his visitors. If they demonstrated appreciation, he would do it again. That struck someone as a sign that Teddy was an intellectual.

I think the mark of an intellectual is to be well-acquainted with your own ignorance, and to always be striving to deepen one's understanding. A "true" intellectual cares little about their reputation as an intellectual, and views inquiry as an open-ended, anarchistic and collaboratory. The solitary thinker is as impotent as they are arrogant. — darthbarracuda

Nice.

The mark of a great intellectual is a great intellect :)

What do you think of when you hear that a person is an intellectual? Have there always been intellectuals among humanity? Or is this a more recent development (1500 years is fairly recent)?

To what extent is any great intellectual a product of his/her times? Are intellectuals influential? Or do they merely formulate and reflect? I tend to lean toward reflect. The influence of intellectuals is always very limited. — frank

Aye, there have always been intellectuals, though environmental circumstance certainly has a lot to say about how frequently they might emerge.

Some have limited influence, many have none, and the few take their lions share of influence, glory, and greatness (as they do with many things).

But what are the marks of a great intellect?

Is it the charisma to be popular? The scruples to be humble?

Is it a capacity for learning or the drive to do so?

Is it the present or future value or utility of their ideas and ideals?

Does "greatness" merely equate with "influence"?

To the aphid the ant is great, and to the ant, the spider. While masquerading as an antellectual I've encountered many-legged-foes greater than myself, some magnanimous and some cantankerous.

Here forced to define greatness of intellect, I lean toward the precise definition of magnanimity:

Magnanimity (derived from the Latin roots magna, great, and animus, mind) is the virtue of being great of mind and heart. It encompasses, usually, a refusal to be petty, a willingness to face danger, and actions for noble purposes. Its antithesis is pusillanimity. Magnanimity is a latinization of the Greek word μεγαλοψυχία, megalopsychia which means greatness of soul and was identified by Aristotle as "the crowning virtue". — Wikipedia

I see. I once saw a huge Chinese watercolor painting with goldfish swooping down from the upper left corner. Boldness met grace. It was the work of a master. When that happens in the medium of mind, that's a great intellectual. Shakespeare.

Shakespeare came to mind when I was parsing a mental list of people I consider to be great intellectuals.

His prose was dense and bold, but graceful and rich in meaning. And his influence is utter mainstay.

If half of the fanciful depictions of the upstart crow can be half-believed, and if my take on
Shake's work is accurate, he was embroiled in a war of wits with his detractors, his patrons, himself, and the world.Trading gilded barbs with feathered friends seems petty from some perspectives, but for someone so immersed in the craft it would seem a display of respect to be worthy of public satire in the high style of the day.

We know his plays are great, but what did that greatness take? What was he like?

Clever. He was definitely clever. And perceptive (is that the same thing?). Also seemingly obsessive.

Why did he write 126 love sonnets for "a lovely boy"? Why are there so many double meanings in his writings which may have been cryptic even in their time?

I wonder how greatness in production corresponds to qualities in the individual. The qualities that enable people to produce great works might not be the same set of qualities that produces great people. Surely greatness in different areas demands different qualities. Beyond the boldness of taking risks toward worthy and noble goals, and a refusal to be dragged down by the petty and mundane, the qualities of greatness, including greatness of intellect, seems to extend in all directions.

I wonder how greatness in production corresponds to qualities in the individual. — VagabondSpectre

My mind went straight to a challenge I set for myself: come to recognize the ways I'm related to Adolph Hitler.

Why didn't I ever accept the challenge if seeing how Shakespeare is my brother? If our great ones are totally unlike us, we'll never understand them. If they are like us, do we all have latent greatness?

Influential figures make their own precursors.

In the critics' vocabulary, the word "precursor" is indispensable, but it should be cleansed of all connotation of polemics or rivalry. The fact is that every writer creates his own precursors. His work modifies our conception of the past, as it will modify the future. — Borges, Kafka and his Precursors

I would say influence, creativity, and accuracy are some of the most important standards that should apply in judging the greatness of any intellectual.

I think thought process reflects intelligence. I think a lot of people are split between left vs right brain. This can be observed in children. A creative child will have an imagenary freind and want to be a pirate. A logical child will question why he is born and process things like an adult.

Being Marx.
Being Marx is the best mark of being a great intellectual.
:nerd:

Accuracy? Or usefulness?

Which do you think is more important in intellectual greatness: left or right brain?

Being Marx.
Being Marx is the best mark of being a great intellectual.
:nerd: — Akanthinos

But what can we do with his remarx?

Left brain is more useful but often not as creative or spontaneous. Left brain is also more likely to be really harsh. So right is good for ideas while left is good for nuts and bolts.

An intellectual is a member of that endangered cohort of men and women who exercise independent use of the intellect. Usage of said faculty that is independent of; cultural, religious, social and instinctual bias and dogmatism.

One who is relatively free of that which Freud referred to as 'mass psychogenic delusion'. To be an intellectual is to be a pariah, the greater the independent use of the faculty of intellect, the greater the social isolation of the intellectual.

The greatest intellectuals therefore, are the greatest unknowns.

M

I definitely agree that reflection is an essential trait that an intellectual should have. Being able to reflect means to actively engage with the world instead of receiving external influences passively.

But speaking of intellectuals, I also wonder why intellectuals in Europe receive more attention than those in the U.S.? As part of my college class discussion, we mention the difference between aristocratic Europe and democratic America play a role here - intellectual elites are seen as a threat where the dominant value is equality. So what determines the popularity of intellectuals in a society? Is it true that anti-intellectualism is prevalent today?

I like this question a lot as I like to describe myself, when pressed, as a wannabe intellectual.

Thinking about this now I guess I’ve never really attempted to articulate what I mean by this before. So ... to me it means to be able to offer various perspectives, pull from several seemingly unrelated fields of study, to hold a mirror up to each other, and to explore and readily engage with difficult and often immeidately unsolvable problems.

The best intellectuals are those that manage to inspire people to learn more and to make people feel capable of understanding complex ideas - I’m terrible at this sadly!

Different personalities will give different weight to a problem. People like Feynman can inspire at all levels; he was combative with people in his field and also able to explicate complex ideas to the layman with charm making the listener feel wiser for listening to them.

I guess that is hte key point. A great intellectual makes one feel wiser and one want to be wiser still. Different personalities do this by rousing the listener out of a lazy slumber by charming inspiring them, and/or rebruking them. Some people thrive of combative discussion whilst other shy away from them. One person’s “intellectual” is another’s antagonist. I’ve been inspired by both types with the later being the toughest to get through. A taste of each is likely necessary, but I don’t think either is more effective than another and the weight of the intellectual in question is generally measured by the will to learn on the part of the listener (with both humility and confidence.)

What do you think of when you hear that a person is an intellectual? — frank

Honestly? If I hear someone say that about someone else that I'm not familiar with, my first thought is typically along the lines of, "The person in question probably says a lot of stupid shit, probably in a humorless way, that impresses the easily gullible person telling me this (or that the person telling me this doesn't understand/feels is above their head)."

I don't always think of "intellectual" negatively, though. Sometimes I think of it simply as referring to someone whose vocation is focused on theorizing, where I don't see the term as making a commitment to the merit of their particular theorizing.

What are the marks of a great intellectual?

It's very much like the mark of a great, as distinct from a mediocre 'sexual': fruitful intercourse as opposed to masturbation, either mutual or solitary.

^ It will be good if you define your definition of "Intellectual" so that I can give you the mark of the concept you speak of. Because my concept is "Intellectual is a person who are knowable in academia" . That mean the mark of "Great Intellectual" are, their theory/Stories/Works is use through out the ages.