Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

O noes i has lost!

[Kay12]

A pseudo-intellectual is simply someone who is not a real intellectual.

They tend to be a wannabe intellectual that is concerned more with catagorising people, judging people, and appearing smarter than other people in intellectual hierarchies than furthering their own intellect just for the sake of knowledge and wisdom.

A psuedo-intellectual typically engages in mind-masturbatory excercises that serve hardly any purpose than to stroke their own intellectual erogenous zones for the sake of their personal, fragile ego.

A psuedo-intellectual may have knowledge of things, but generally lack the knowledge of practical applications to their own life and others'- or wisdom.

The classic case is one of special individuals who argue for enforcing extremist ideologue paradises that impact all of society while their own personal life is a bloody mess. In other words, hypocrites.

They also don't like admiting to themselves that they are psuedo-intellectuals, or that they may not know something.

The problem is that it's way too easy to just dismiss someone because they're apparently being "pseudo-intellectual".

[KaelGotDwarves]

What a jerk, that Jean Baudrillard - claim "reality" is merely comprised of symbols and signs that simulate true reality - disregard that human context is all we have to add meaning to our lives.

The problem is that it's way too easy to just dismiss someone because they're apparently being "pseudo-intellectual".

Only psuedo-intellectuals care.

[Kay12]

The problem is that it's way too easy to just dismiss someone because they're apparently being "pseudo-intellectual".

Only psuedo-intellectuals care.

Exactly my point, you see?

[Vector]

Actually, the claim is that there is no such thing as one centered reality once it's gone into our personal sensor systems, and that furthermore deriding something as fake is foolish.

For more of that, read some Derrida.

[Max White]

The problem is that it's way too easy to just dismiss someone because they're apparently being "pseudo-intellectual".

Question: Do you have physical evidence and reasonable logic behind your claims?
If yes, then no personal attack can dismiss what you say. You can not dismiss a person, not in anything intellectual anyway, only their argument. If you find yourself being dismissed then you are dealing with pseudointellectual.

[Vector]

Physical evidence?

I see, so now the only realities are material and strictly scientific?

[Max White]

I see, so now the only realities are material and strictly scientific?

Yes, and double yes. And as the human condition is part of the physical world, I am within my rights to enjoy things too complex to be understood rationally... Like ferrets!

[Grakelin]

The problem is that it's way too easy to just dismiss someone because they're apparently being "pseudo-intellectual".

Question: Do you have physical evidence and reasonable logic behind your claims?
If yes, then no personal attack can dismiss what you say. You can not dismiss a person, not in anything intellectual anyway, only their argument. If you find yourself being dismissed then you are dealing with pseudointellectual.

I know a website that will.

This also pinged on the "Pseudointellectual" search.

[Aqizzar]

I will now refer everyone to Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation.  You have all lost the argument.

I'm afraid that I have marked myself as a pseudo-intellectual, and it may provide some insight as to the nature of the difference.  I've had an electronic copy of Simulacra and Simulation sitting on my desktop for well over a year, and I've never worked up the stomach to read past the first couple pages.  It compliments the literally dozens of research and commentary books I've bought over the years and never read more than a chapter of, if that.  Instead, I read Wikipedia articles and reviews about them, and occasionally catch an interview with an author, and let that suffice for a knowledge base.

[Max White]

I know a website that will.

BUHAHAHAHAHAHA! Haven't been there in a while, but always good for the laughs!

[PsyberianHusky]

Actually, the claim is that there is no such thing as one centered reality once it's gone into our personal sensor systems, and that furthermore deriding something as fake is foolish.

For more of that, read some Derrida.

I would read whoever that guy is, but I fear the pursuit of this knowledge for the goal winning this internet thread once and for all would put me in the category of pseudo intellectual, so it appears my only winning move is not to play.

[Vector]

The joke is on me, because the authors I'm offering up are packed with things many people here would call rank pseudo-intellectualism of the worst sort =)

[Kay12]

The problem is that it's way too easy to just dismiss someone because they're apparently being "pseudo-intellectual".

Question: Do you have physical evidence and reasonable logic behind your claims?
If yes, then no personal attack can dismiss what you say. You can not dismiss a person, not in anything intellectual anyway, only their argument. If you find yourself being dismissed then you are dealing with pseudointellectual.

Note the message which I was replying to:

A pseudo-intellectual is simply someone who is not a real intellectual.

They tend to be a wannabe intellectual that is concerned more with catagorising people, judging people, and appearing smarter than other people in intellectual hierarchies than furthering their own intellect just for the sake of knowledge and wisdom.

A psuedo-intellectual typically engages in mind-masturbatory excercises that serve hardly any purpose than to stroke their own intellectual erogenous zones for the sake of their personal, fragile ego.

A psuedo-intellectual may have knowledge of things, but generally lack the knowledge of practical applications to their own life and others'- or wisdom.

The classic case is one of special individuals who argue for enforcing extremist ideologue paradises that impact all of society while their own personal life is a bloody mess. In other words, hypocrites.

They also don't like admiting to themselves that they are psuedo-intellectuals, or that they may not know something.

The problem is that anything can be dismissed as "mind-masturbatory", "pointless", "wannabe-intellectual" and "pseudo-intellectual" without thinking about it any further. Stuff like that is not clearly defined, and accusations like that can even halt progress. For example, Euler's work on prime numbers was very unpractical and, in a way, "mind-masturbatory" back then. No one knew any real use for primes - they were considered to be useless in every aspect except mathematics. However, times changed, and today, they're the foundation of public key encryption and various other technological marvels.

[Max White]

I freaking love this site. Go here for pseudointellectuals!