Life is awfully long to spend it only reading one book... I think it's silly to pigeonhole intellectuals as people who read philosophy. There's surely just as many that read quantum physics or actually do go into artistic fields.Xard wrote:Men of intellect read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason,
aes⋅theteXard wrote:men of aesthetes are actually out there creating aesthetic experiences. They don't fap forever about books, films, music or - worst of all - animus
1. a person who has or professes to have refined sensitivity toward the beauties of art or nature.
2. a person who affects great love of art, music, poetry, etc., and indifference to practical matters.
People who are out there creating an aesthetic experience are called "artists".
Fan was derived to be a less pejorative term of "fanatic" which, in fact, does mean: "a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal." I'd say a large portion of the "fans" around here are extremely critical. It's hard to do the analysis that's done without also being critical.Xard wrote:all kinds of fans are in final analysis irrational because being fan of something means reaction/relationship to work is irrational
For me, there's fans, fanboys/fangirls, and fanatics and I'd say that each step takes you towards more 'dangerous' territories. Probably the only thing that separates fanboys/girls with fanatics is that the former's love and devotion are given to things that they really can't do any harm with. Fans tend to be more... passive in their interest. I'm a "fan" of several sports but I don't really care enough to devote a huge chunk of my life to them.