<p>I’m confused as to how you derived that axiom. If an intellectual is one who is characterized by his intelligence. Then there might be a problem with your platitude. Intelligence is inherent. Meaning, it is within in you. It isn’t as simple or obvious as height, eye color, etc. </p>
<p>your statement implies that that to if one does not show that they are ‘an intellectual’ then they are NOT ‘an intellectual.’ Yet, how can one show what is within? I mean truly show, not hint at the existence of? You may look at a clock move and realize it is a clock yet not know how truly intricate it is unless you open it up. You cannot ‘open up’ an individual to see his or her intelligence. </p>
<p>From that, if one cannot truly/fully expose their intelligence but merely hint at it through one’s work, writings-other words- one’s application of intelligence in the natural world then no showing or demonstration can show you just how much of ‘an intellectual’ you really are. Even if a clock did not tell time, (suppose it stopped working) it would still be just as complex. </p>
<p>Socrates was known for going around questioning basic assumptions of the Athenian citizenry; he didn’t even record his own thoughts or philosophy (Plato, his student did) yet he is universally considered an intellectual.</p>
<p>Furthermore, It’s fair to say that Socrates intelligence was “different” from say Beethoven’s so you couldn’t put some sort of value, grade, integer, etc. on the degree or form of intelligence they possessed to truly prove that they were ‘an intellectual.’ </p>
<p>Sorry, if my post sounds a bit combative. I’m more so curious as to how you came to that conclusion.</p>