Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Do you, or any other person, really need "rationality" defined? The OP provides two compatible definitions for "anti-intellectualism."
If we are to argue about rationality or intellectualism, multiple definitions would increase the value of our understandings, especially as we communicate to perhaps develop the terms previously assembled to have a specific but pliable, possibly reassigned direction.
Think of it like fallen tree branches. I want to introduce them to you as I perceive them, I want to play a game with them, with you also as a player. However, there are certain rules to the game, so we can have the maximum amount of fun out of it without unnecessary conflict. So I do tell you about those branches, and how they are so different from any other branches, especially in relation to the game I am looking forward to play with you. It is not really a need, but a joined possibility upon a consciously formed inquiry for interest.
In terms of language, if you want to communicate about your reference, it is respectful to provide your previous comprehension of it, otherwise the signal might as well never be returned.
Red:
Well, as I said, anti-intellectualism's definition can be found in the OP and in the link provided for it in the OP. Indeed, at the link, one'll find an exhaustive and nuanced explanation of it it.
As goes the definition of "rational thought," if I need to define that for you (or anyone else for that matter) I and that person, you if the "shoe fits," are best off not engaging in and argument/debate about anti-intellectualism, it's pervasiveness in American society, why it does pervade American society, what, if anything, to do about it, etc., for both our sakes.
I am not contesting what you are providing me with.
Is your intention with the thread only to inform? I have been informed.
I had the impression you were requesting for interaction as it is an open online forum thread in the clean debate zone.
Blue:
I'm happy to engage in additional discussion on the topic, but there isn't something I think I need to define in order to have that conversation. If there is something you want defined to engage in further discussion and that term(s) hasn't already been defined, by all means, ask for the specific definitions you desire.
No definitions required. Discussion appreciated.
Let me ask you a question, before I present you with my ideas on the topic so your own may be included in our interaction and thus we may arrive at greater, improved ideas with mutual benefits.
Which of the questions posed in the OP is the most important to you? I would like to proceed from that one question selected by yourself for us to engage in further discussion.
One of the many amusing aspects of a pretentious troll thread like this is that some people are so in love with being so in love with themselves that they cannot help playing a caricature of the delusional, self-important buffoon even when what they are doing is held up right in front of their faces. This, of course, is where this whole "anti-intellectualism" bullshit notion stems from. A certain type of insufferable dope finds it irresistible to believe (and even more so, play at) they are 'intellectual.' They don't need to have any actual proof of something resembling a brain in their heads because in our 'everyone gets a trophy' feel-good culture of endless and baseless affirmation, being an 'intellectual' is - like everything else - a feeeeeeling. And of course it would be 'hateful' to question anyone's feeeeeeelings about anything.
And so, here we are.
No intellectual I know would devote so many words to such a manichean theme.
Those trying to impress others might, however.
There isn't much intellectual discussion to be had in a thread with such cowboys and Indians type framing. It might appeal to those encumbered in similar fashion by their extremely partisan nature, but there is little to discuss when a gauntlet has been laid in such a way as to invest a sense of superiority in the offering of such polemics.
