Thread: 'An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself 'Albert Camus

Fuck yes.

I have had manic episodes where all my precious rationality breaks down. More specifically, the part of my mind that checks whether my thoughts are sound shuts off. But with each episode, I get better at turning that part back on. I train myself.

I value it highly, as without it there isn't a worthwhile intellect.

Nice quote. Xei has spoken on this kind of thing before, here's what he had to say:

Originally Posted by Xei

I have always thought that people vastly underestimate their intelligence. I think the reality is, once you reach a kind of 'critical mass' that allows you to think about your own thought processes, there is a very large amount you can achieve. The issue is just how motivated you are. I swear, if everybody was smart enough to learn the underlying reasons for whatever they're learning about, instead of trying to memorise it as a deluge of disparate facts, they'd be fine. Just reduce stuff to a simple, intuitive chain. And for anything they're learning that really is just a list of disparate facts (like the names and dates), which really constitutes only a minor aspect of education and arguably doesn't count as knowledge at all, just use various mnemonic techniques. But people just aren't bothered to put in the effort, despite the large gains, and then excuse their poor performance on various factors like their genes or their teachers.

Richard Feynman was once measured as having an IQ of only 125, but went on to win a Nobel Prize for his work in theoretical physics. A common theme in all of his discourse is his reduction of complex phenomena to the intuitive atomic components that any idiot could understand. The man just knew how to think properly.

Originally Posted by Xei

I swear, it's the only way to learn. I always say; you don't need to be particularly intelligent to do great things. You only need an IQ of a sufficient level to be able to do self-reference; to think about your own thought process, to evaluate different methods of developing skills and understanding, and your resultant performance, and work out for yourself that the above is the only way to learn. Everybody else just looks at these people with some kind of resigned envy, as if they're superhumans, with some innate ability to learn a longer list of facts than them. In reality, it's just that these people have never actually bothered to try to learn anything properly; their whole concept of what learning is is flawed, and so they see intelligence as some kind of magic, rather than simply the result of hard work.

^^^ You mean none of that is the norm? ^^^

No wonder so many people seem to be idiots...or try-hards.

I think reflecting on human behavior (including our own) and the reasons for them is a big and essential part of intellectual evolution. I think there is a balance though, a balance that needs to be coupled with our basic life drives/impulses. You need to observe an event or action first to reflect on it. The only way to do that is to experience whatever biological evolution does in order to survive (creating chemical processes that incline the organism to action like hunger, sex, beauty, aggression, etc). We can then reflect on these things and figure out how they connect in the greater scheme of nature. There is always a delicate balance though, it seems: "an ounce of action is worth a ton of theory"- Emerson

I'll add to the original quote one from Aldous Huxley: "An intellectual is someone who finds at least one thing more interesting than sex."

Originally Posted by Xei

Nice quote. Xei has spoken on this kind of thing before, here's what he had to say:

I would say you simplify learning processes far too much, their is some truth to what you say though. You seem to be discounting the phenomenon of geniuses, and the effect things such as Autism, Aspergers, other differences in brain chemicals, blah blah not gonna pretend to be a doctor here or anything; can have on peoples ability and ways of learning and seeing.. We must remember, that their are also differences in how one uses their intelligence, some like yourself might be interested in breaking things down, others may be more socially intelligent able to navigate through conversations to get themselves ahead in the world... I think your technique of simplifying everything may be a bit of a double edged sword, because in my experience rarely are things truly that simple.

And your use of " Just reduce stuff to a simple, intuitive chain" is so scant with details that it becomes meaningless and impossible to gain any insight into how such techniques work. Some will look at the big picture, some will try to get to the basic starting point of a problem.... I don't know who looks at these people with resigned envy, perhaps you're running into some sort of view you've created based on experiences.. but most people I know praise those of fair mind.

I don't know, I figured this out a while ago, been working out ever since:

1. happiness is solely an effort at satisfying and meeting our survival needs to the highest possible degree, we are biologically rooted to experience joy in activities and objects that are essential for our continued survival - we create strategies and methods that are efficacious in optimizing how well we satisfy our social/sexual needs, implicitly and explicitly ad infinitum, concentrating ambitiously on satisfying these needs, and then systematically working on the subsequent need of highest order.


2. understanding this, we proceed to assimilate the nature and workings of our surrounding environment, and from our empirical observations deduce the best ways that we may meet our social/sexual needs. In order to gain acceptance as highly appreciated and valuable to society, the conclusion is reached: ("In this society value is ascertained by meeting the needs/demands of other members of society, I will be compensated proportionally to my perceived value, allowing me to survive and thrive optimally - contingent on how successful I am at this effort, as very high value will result in being highly accepted, loved, appreciated, and desired by my peers/mates who help satisfy my needs and interests").

3.proceeding this observation, understanding that our entire lives will need to revolve around being valuable (among other environmental variables not considered) we start by attempting to best understand what profession allows us to achieve the highest degree of respect, acceptance, and appreciation/love (manifestations of value) from the target social group (other professional/like-minded individuals/potential mates) that we think will best satisfy our greatest needs/interests. In other words, the reasons why people choose the career path they do (doctor/engineer/business man) can be derived from social perception and value they wish to be recognized with.

Modulations (but not exceptions) are those careers passionately pursued for needs outside those of social/sexual interest. For example, a physicist largely concerned about
some nuance in quantum mechanics who is interested in the connotations and possibles of other probabilities for the purposes of further understanding his environment (the universe) largely still a very essential survival oriented behavior, intense interest in fully comprehending ones environment is quite advantageous. While not really concerned about the fiscal connotations or his fellow peers, still may experience gratification from satisfying an essential need.


What is to gained from this perspective, or quite lateral observation, of life is just do a few simply things.

1. know your environment (or society) and how it to best live in accordance with it
2. identify your intense needs and "interests" in the most suitable social identity/group/profession
3. pursue these needs with passion and vigilance
4. Feel intense gratification following your achievements that grant you value (love,appreciation,respect etc) in your particular social system
5. Live the rest of life in cyclic euphoric bliss, profiting from your awareness and adaptability.

I was personally lost at the ambiguous use of the word intellectual. I love Camus and I've read nearly everything he's ever written, but I find the quote, when used out of context, to be vague and redundant. I also find the quip by Huxley that CitizenofZeal posted to be a quick witted but ultimately empty sentence. One can find all sorts of clever things to say when one does not bother to properly define their claim. I would say that the act of watching oneself is mindfulness, not intellectualism, simply because the word itself means nothing specific.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I was personally lost at the ambiguous use of the word intellectual. I love Camus and I've read nearly everything he's ever written, but I find the quote, when used out of context, to be vague and redundant. I also find the quip by Huxley that CitizenofZeal posted to be a quick witted but ultimately empty sentence. One can find all sorts of clever things to say when one does not bother to properly define their claim. I would say that the act of watching oneself is mindfulness, not intellectualism, simply because the word itself means nothing specific.

Agreed. I found the quote to be simple. I think an intellectual would consider "his" own thought process, but that doesn't make one an intellectual.

I think humans are still very in touch with their animal instincts and ideas like survival of the fittest. People feel like they need to be strong and weakness needs to be avoided at all costs. I think that applies to how we think as well. That causes all sort of problems, and the reason people can get very defensive. It is extremely easy to believe something and be wrong and the natural instinct is to stick by your choice otherwise it shows weakness. So many people defend ideas and believe things because they don't want to appear weak, even if it this often subconsciously done. People are very smart and so we are very good at making excuses that explain away flaws in our thinking.

The more primitive parts of our brains are probably the reasons for most of our bad understanding of how the world works. The reason it is important to watch yourself is because you need to keep those primitive parts of your thinking in check. In times of stress, or when quick thinking is needed, we naturally go to instincts and lower levels of thinking, and that is when we get into real trouble.

Albert Camus is one of my favorite 20th Century philosophers, but I agree that much of this quote's meaning is lost when taken out of context. I believe that what is meant by this can be clarified by looking further into the meaning of the word "intellectual".

Let's begin by finding a mere definition of the word.

Adjective
1. appealing to or engaging the intellect: intellectual pursuits.
2. of or pertaining to the intellect or its use: intellectual powers.
3. possessing or showing intellect or mental capacity, especially to a high degree: an intellectual person.
4. guided or developed by or relying on the intellect rather than upon emotions or feelings; rational.
5. characterized by or suggesting a predominance of intellect: an intellectual way of speaking.

Noun
6. a person of superior intellect.
7. a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, especially on an abstract and general level.
8. an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings.
9. a person professionally engaged in mental labor, as a writer or teacher.

Definition #7 seems to be the most helpful so far, but we must first understand the definition of "intellect" as well.

Noun
1. the power or faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands, as distinguished from that by which one feels and that by which one wills; the understanding; the faculty of thinking and acquiring knowledge.
2. capacity for thinking and acquiring knowledge, especially of a high or complex order; mental capacity.
3. a particular mind or intelligence, especially of a high order.
4. a person possessing a great capacity for thought and knowledge.
5. minds collectively, as of a number of persons or the persons themselves.

The first definition here seems to complement the above definition of "intellectual", and I believe that I am in a justified position to state that, by mere definition, an "intellectual" is one who not only places high value upon abstract and complex philosophical ideas, but is interested in understanding and becoming familiar with the process of thinking and gathering knowledge. Now, let's take a look back at that quote, which I shall give in it's entirety.

“An intellectual? Yes. And never deny it. An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself. I like this, because I am happy to be both halves, the watcher and the watched. "Can they be brought together?" This is a practical question. We must get down to it. "I despise intelligence" really means: "I cannot bear my doubts.”

"Someone whose mind watches itself", eh? Well, let's re-word this to make it more manageable in relation to the previously established definition of Intellectual. What Camus appears to be saying is that an intellectual's mind is always thinking about it's own processes and thoughts. To me, this seems to fit quite nicely with what we have seen earlier.

Now, on to the question as to whether or not all who are intent upon understanding their thinking are indeed intellectuals. My answer to this is, almost. While this situation may sound eerily familiar to the statement that "All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares", it is in reality quite unbalanced. While all intellectuals, by definition, have "minds that watch themselves", there are very few who have such minds that are not intellectuals. This can be considered a statement similar to "All squares are rectangles, but very few rectangles are not squares."

What kind of person can fit the very definition of an intellectual, yet not be one, you may ask. The first that comes to mind would be Aristotle. While he frequently thought about his own thinking, hell, he wrote an entire book about it, he did not seek to actually understand how he thought, save for a vague and deeply flawed proposition about how the human soul provides the ability to think, much like how he believed that a flower's soul allows it to absorb nutrients from the soil.

Existentialism is like western buddhism. In fact I'm rereading the Myth of Sisyphus right now and it reminds me a lot of buddhist philosophy regarding mindfulness and realizing existence cannot be confined to words or truisms.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Existentialism is like western buddhism. In fact I'm rereading the Myth of Sisyphus right now and it reminds me a lot of buddhist philosophy regarding mindfulness and realizing existence cannot be confined to words or truisms.

It also sounds like Taoism...in that regard.
"The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao."

It is like neither one exclusively.