Intellectualism

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
Are there many officers who you would describe as intellectuals? How are they upon by their fellow officers and soldiers? Are topics such as politics, philosophy, art, literature disucssed alot in the officers mess?
 
#3
auberonvonbulow said:
Are there many officers who you would describe as intellectuals? How are they upon by their fellow officers and soldiers? Are topics such as politics, philosophy, art, literature disucssed alot in the officers mess?
Not you again... enfant-wah.

Surely intellectualism gets in the way of your single-minded crusade to the top of the pile as quickly as possible? Don't worry about it - in your case any form of self realisation is going to be a rather painful experience.
 
#4
If you stand around waffling shite that nobody understands (regardless of how clever it is) then people will label you a weirdo, or billy no mates or both.

You may isolate yourself in the mess and with your soldiers, for the sake of showing you are "intelligent" or "intellectual" - you can be that without needing to ram it dowm throats.
 
#5
short answer no.
long answer hahaha no, more likely to talk about the football.
some people, shockingly, are intelligent without advertising.
honestly i suggest you join the ta, see what you think, then reconsider the regs. its possible you may be too much of a delicate flower for the army, look at the raf as i suggested before.
 
#13
southernfairy said:
why would that be dissapointing? what did you expect? officers arent stupid, but they dont call themselves intellectuals. theyre more of a sports crowd
But the two arn't mutually exclusive are they? Sports equals not an intellectual seems to be what you are saying.
Would Amercians call them 'jocks'?
 
#15
well they arent jocks exaclty...but they mainly have degrees, know a lot about politics and have opinions, i myself have a degree in philosophy, but they wouldnt call themselves intellectuals because its mainly banter. and stop this arrogance toward soldiers, the army is the wrong job for that view.
 
#16
auberonvonbulow said:
southernfairy said:
why would that be dissapointing? what did you expect? officers arent stupid, but they dont call themselves intellectuals. theyre more of a sports crowd
But the two arn't mutually exclusive are they? Sports equals not an intellectual seems to be what you are saying.
Would Amercians call them 'jocks'?
Think 'Teddy' Hall?

To be fair he didn't ask if Officers refer to themselves as intellectuals. Not that it would matter anyway because that doesn't mean they're necessarily referring to themselves as intelligent but rather their interests.

Like he said, the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
 
#17
southernfairy said:
well they arent jocks exaclty...but they mainly have degrees, know a lot about politics and have opinions, i myself have a degree in philosophy, but they wouldnt call themselves intellectuals because its mainly banter. and stop this arrogance toward soldiers, the army is the wrong job for that view.
A degree in philosophy is good. I enjoy political philosophy the most. Which university if you don't mind me asking?

I'm not being arrogant i'm simply realising there's a difference between officers and soldiers. We arn't all mates you know, they have to take orders.
 
#19
auberonvonbulow said:
Bugsy said:
auberonvonbulow said:
I must say the responses are disappointing.
It's probably because everybody's recognised the fact that you're a bit of an arrogant, pretentious pratt.

MsG
Why the personal attack? Are you a squaddie?
It doesn't matter whether I'm a squaddie or not. Just about anybody would come to the same conclusion if they saw this presumptious shite:
Are there many officers who you would describe as intellectuals? How are they upon by their fellow officers and soldiers? Are topics such as politics, philosophy, art, literature disucssed alot in the officers mess?
Quite apart from the appalling grasp of English syntax, spelling and grammar, you're intimating that you consider yourself an "intellectual" and pretend that you're concerned that your innate "superiority" would perhaps alienate you from "the team".

So what you want to get across is the hidden message: "How can I be "one of the lads" when it's obvious that they can't match me intellectually?".

It's a very clumsy and transparent ploy, and that's why nobody's particularly interested in your bluff.

MsG
 
#20
auberonvonbulow said:
Contrarian said:
How do you define intellectual?
Someone who is deeply involved in thoughts and theories often very abstract one's. Someone who is a man of letters and can discuss a wide range of topics like those mentioned in my first post.
I infer that your premise assumes a certain level of intelligence is necessary for one to be an intellectual.

What is intelligence? How do you define the term? Is intelligence objectively measurable? If so, how? If it's not measurable, is it possible for us to ascertain what intelligence really is, without cultural references?

It is possible that I am lacking in the intelligence department. However, this not need prevent me from being deeply involved with abstract thoughts and theories. However, my thoughts and theories could be absolute mush, and so might yours be. I can be a man of letters even if I use syntactically defunct 'txt-speak', as long as I send letters. I may be able to discuss a wide range of topics, but to a poor standard.

All of the pursuits and interests you describe are possible without a high intelligence quotient.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads

New Posts