1 2
To Foxflow: if you put it that way, I can agree with you (generally speaking, I mean ... I like the sentence Jackson quoted and quite agree with it). However, Jackson referred to him as a "pseudo-intellectual". I don't know whether he's fully aware of what this word means. Here's what Wikipedia says:

"Pseudointellectual is a pejorative term used to describe someone who engages in false intellectualism or is intellectually dishonest. The term is often, though not always, used to describe one who regularly critiques the work of professionals, while lacking the requisite background knowledge and experience to have an informed opinion. Synonyms for this character include sophist, and in medical terms, mountebank and quack .

A pseudointellectual may affect traits that he stereotypically associates with persons of intellectual privilege, such as the display of books, classical music and art or the use of complex language, for the purpose of seeming intellectual.

Someone who comments on, or is knowledgeable of, disciplines outside his or her own field of study is not a pseudointellectual, as long as he or she is intellectually honest and does not misrepresent his or her own background and understanding of the subject. For example, polymaths are not considered pseudointellectuals."

I don't want to argue, and hope I made myself clear ... Ghandi was a peaceful man, respected by many different religious groups and also by atheists. I just find it unfair to refer to him in such pejorative and derogatory terms.

Ghandi was a popular person, therefore people think that whatever he said is very unusual for a common person to think. Although common persons have no less intellect than those pseudo-intellectuals.

Jackson, are you saying that Ghandi was a "pseudo-intellectual"?
If so, I would find it rather offensive...

Dear anon. Friend

I'm sorry if I have offended you. I didn't want to offend anyone. I must have said it differently. Actually I was trying to say that everyone has talents if we really look for them. But when someone becomes famous, then whatever s/he says is taken as if an ordinary human would never be able to think like that. When Ghandi said, Hate the sin, not the sinner, he didn't say something very unusual or remarkable. We all know that in certain cases we shouldn't hate the sinner, but it's impossible to do this all the time.

As Floxflow said, ''...those pseudo-intellectuals can, most of the time, express the things they think about better then normal persons with the same intellect''. He is absolutely correct. Most of the time those famous intellectuals say things in a way which is spicy because of good and right combination of words. That does not in any way mean that a person who is not famous has talent any less than them. Neither was I trying to despise Ghandi. Sorry, if you found my tone little offensive.

Best wishes, Jackson

PS: I didn't mean that Ghandi was a pseudo-intellectual. That was a poor choice of words. Sorry
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
the wikipedia defintion of pseudo-intellectual kind of surprised me, i didn't know the word had a that much negative background. In holland we use the word (translated ofcourse) in a much lighter and softer way.
Very nice discussion that makes me think and inspired me to write because again it affirmed one sentence that I have always on mind. : "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure that you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

I like this sentence of Gandhi - it provokes to think, it is short and clear, it is controversial. He said and - realy mean it- in some circumstances, time period etc. the sentence was preceded by something and something came after... If we cut anything from any speech it won`t make the same sense as it would be in the whole composition.