4 ms·

Singapore and South Korea?

oarabbus_ 7y ago
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the definition, but I'd consider those to be excessively conformist nations and not the beacons of intellectualism.
- brownbat 7y ago
  The most celebrated historical ruler in Korea is mainly famous for his scholastic achievements, like inventing the current writing system. There are some K-Dramas that suggest the most popular students are the ones with the best educational accomplishments, in contrast to the cliche of the US football quarterback.
- lvturner 7y ago
  Perhaps I am misunderstanding the definition but why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Is intellectualism intrinsically non-conformist? (genuinely asking)
  - oarabbus_ 7y ago
    That is a good question; I don't believe anyone including the OP comment defined intellectualism, so we all likely have our own definitions. Personally I think intellectualism consists of a few components. The first is pure, raw "intelligence" or "brilliance", neither of which is particularly well defined, but it is my main criteria. For a nation, this is is essentially the power of science, invention, technology, etc. Next would be something like "diversity of thought" and "beauty of art". This includes both how "free" the people are, as well as how meaningful the creative, artistic, philosophical works of the nation are. This includes art, poetry, scripture, books, TV, music, theater, etc. Finally, I use a "modern day weighting" system. This means, if there was some hypothetical country that was historically a powerhouse, but was not remarkable in modern day, they'd be ranked equally to a country which was a world leader today, but inconsequential historically (or didn't exist until recently). With these criteria, I believe a country like China has sheer intellectual power and the artistic contributions which outweigh the (quite terrible) conformity of thought; Korea, on the other hand, is "too conformist" given the weight of its contributions.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the definition, but I'd consider those to be excessively conformist nations and not the beacons of intellectualism.

brownbat 7y ago
The most celebrated historical ruler in Korea is mainly famous for his scholastic achievements, like inventing the current writing system. There are some K-Dramas that suggest the most popular students are the ones with the best educational accomplishments, in contrast to the cliche of the US football quarterback.
lvturner 7y ago
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the definition but why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Is intellectualism intrinsically non-conformist? (genuinely asking)
- oarabbus_ 7y ago
  That is a good question; I don't believe anyone including the OP comment defined intellectualism, so we all likely have our own definitions. Personally I think intellectualism consists of a few components. The first is pure, raw "intelligence" or "brilliance", neither of which is particularly well defined, but it is my main criteria. For a nation, this is is essentially the power of science, invention, technology, etc. Next would be something like "diversity of thought" and "beauty of art". This includes both how "free" the people are, as well as how meaningful the creative, artistic, philosophical works of the nation are. This includes art, poetry, scripture, books, TV, music, theater, etc. Finally, I use a "modern day weighting" system. This means, if there was some hypothetical country that was historically a powerhouse, but was not remarkable in modern day, they'd be ranked equally to a country which was a world leader today, but inconsequential historically (or didn't exist until recently). With these criteria, I believe a country like China has sheer intellectual power and the artistic contributions which outweigh the (quite terrible) conformity of thought; Korea, on the other hand, is "too conformist" given the weight of its contributions.