Pop-intellect Intellectualism has gone through

December 12, 2001

Pop-intellect
Intellectualism has gone through a serious bastardization of meaning. I think this mostly comes from the notion that only those people and things in the distant past can be intellectual or intellectually stimulating. Let’s take for example literature. When you think of intellectual literature, what comes to mind? Shakespeare? C.S. Lewis, maybe? What else? For many, the only responses lie within a certain time period, mostly 18th or 19th Century. Why is this? Well, for the most part, I think that literature (or anything for that matter) of the time has a mystique that lends itself to intellectualism. Many great works were written during this period in history, they have been tested through time to be worthy of our close attention.
I despise the fact that many shun current literature or that of the 20th Century as merely pop culture or non-intellectual. Well, what does intellectual mean anyway? How can you define something that is intellectual? What qualifications would a piece of literature or music have to meet for it to be of intellectual status?
I would propose the following requirements:
1. It must be something that appeals or engages the intellect. This is fairly straight forward.
2. Because it must engage the intellect, it must also be something that is in the path or guides to the path of the pursuit of greater knowledge.
3. It cannot be something that is governed by will or desire. Therefore, one must be of a rational state of mind in order to engage in intellectual pursuits.
4. Because of the first requirement, it must follow, that nothing can be ruled out due to content, time, or nature. More specifically, as long as it engages the intellect and falls under the conditions of second and third requirement, it can be considered intellectual.

Intellect is the faculty of one to know and understand, which is distinctly separated from feeling or will.

Wouldn’t this open up the idea of intellectual endeavors?

---