Print

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

[KaelGotDwarves]

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.

You're whooshing the point so hard there.

Euler worked on prime numbers for the sake of working on it, not for the ego part of it. I jokingly stated that only psuedo-intellectuals will take "intellectualism" seriously enough to stake their egos on it.

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.

There may be one centered reality, but I am rather unconcerned with it. I do believe that there are some things which are fake that deserve derision - namely, those ill-conceived notions which cause needless suffering for the sake of various human ideologies.

More Derrida is something I will add to the reading list.

[Vector]

There is no such thing as a single centered reality.

Save the paradoxical center which says "there is no center."

[KaelGotDwarves]

See, I like you. You're no objectivist. We're friends.

[Max White]

There is no such thing as a single centered reality.

Save the paradoxical center which says "there is no center."

Are we talking philosophy or Einsteinium physics?

[Vector]

There is no such thing as a single centered reality.

Save the paradoxical center which says "there is no center."

Are we talking philosophy or Einsteinium physics?

Both are united by the foundations of mathematics, which also say that there is no centered reality.

See: Godel's papers.

[Aqizzar]

Another thing that marks me as a pseudo-intellectual - I have totally lost track of the issue being discussed, and I'm afraid of trying to pursue it.

I see the term "objectivist" being used, in negative response to the statement "There is no such thing as a single centered reality".  There being one actual reality that we all just observe is exactly where I sit in the realm of observational philosophy, but I'm not even really sure of what I'm talking about, much less how to defend it.

[KaelGotDwarves]

There is no such thing as a single centered reality.

Save the paradoxical center which says "there is no center."

Are we talking philosophy or Einsteinium physics?

Current quantum theory has Einstein rolling around in his grave.

[Kay12]

I jokingly stated that only psuedo-intellectuals will take "intellectualism" seriously enough to stake their egos on it.

I still don't get your point. My self-confidence derives mainly from my successful (so far...) studies and (relatively) wide knowledge base - if that makes me a pseudo-intellectual, is someone whose ego is staked on their sporting success a pseudo-athlete?

[Max White]

Both are united by the foundations of mathematics, which also say that there is no centered reality.

See: Godel's papers.

Really? I was given the impression that both philosophy and maths were sub sets of logic, thus neither rules the other, but both must abide by some common laws. Indeed, it would be logic that says there is no centered reality, and from that both maths and philosophy would have to agree.

[PsyberianHusky]

What about the platform of anti-intellectualism?
I don't know what the platform means, cause I ain't no intellectual.
But you intellectuals are taking these questions like. "What is the meaning of everything."; Then you take some jargen, and quote some egghead so I have no idea what you said.
Intellectualism is a powerful tool that can be used for taking authority away from the lowerclass.

A good case for Psydo-intellectualism is when it is used to needlessly complicate an argument.

[Vector]

I still don't get your point. My self-confidence derives mainly from my successful (so far...) studies and (relatively) wide knowledge base - if that makes me a pseudo-intellectual, is someone whose ego is staked on their sporting success a pseudo-athlete?

Do those things make you better than other people?

Really? I was given the impression that both philosophy and maths were sub sets of logic, thus neither rules the other, but both must abide by some common laws. Indeed, it would be logic that says there is no centered reality, and from that both maths and philosophy would have to agree.

Logic and set theory are the fields commonly known as "foundations" in mathematics.  So... the foundation of mathematics is pretty much logic =)

Intellectualism is a powerful tool that can be used for taking authority away from the lowerclass.

Excellent, full points, blah blah blah, have a donut.  You are winning the thread right now!

No sarcasm.  Seriously =)

[KaelGotDwarves]

I jokingly stated that only psuedo-intellectuals will take "intellectualism" seriously enough to stake their egos on it.

I still don't get your point. My self-confidence derives mainly from my successful (so far...) studies and (relatively) wide knowledge base - if that makes me a pseudo-intellectual, is someone whose ego is staked on their sporting success a pseudo-athlete?

Context. Psuedo-intellectualism is based on the concept of the egotistical mind for the sake of "faking" intellectualism, not "success". True success doesn't factor into psuedo-intellectualism. They are concerned with appearing more knowledgeable, not actually being knowledgeable.

[Kay12]

I still don't get your point. My self-confidence derives mainly from my successful (so far...) studies and (relatively) wide knowledge base - if that makes me a pseudo-intellectual, is someone whose ego is staked on their sporting success a pseudo-athlete?

Do those things make you better than other people?

When it comes to studies, yes it does, at least in comparison to most people. And the athlete is better than most people at <his/her preferred sport>. If you mean "better" as in "I'm a better person than you", no. I'm way too morally superior to be an elitist (catch the joke?). I am who I am, I've made choices that have worked out for me (so far), and if I achieve something, I hope it helps people live better. Some sort of Vonnegut philosophy.

Perhaps "intellectual elitism" would be a better term to describe what we're trying to discuss than "pseudo-intellectualism"...

[Reelyanoob]

What about the platform of anti-intellectualism?
I don't know what the platform means, cause I ain't no intellectual.

"Anti-intellectualism" isn't a specific platform, it's an insult to hurl at your ideological opponents. Nobody would label themselves as such.

Obviously, those using it, consider their view to be the "intellectual" one. In reality, both sides in ideological debates are utilizing their "intellect" to craft arguments against the opposing side. We might decide that one side is "right" and another side is "wrong" because their models do not conform as well to observable reality. But this does not mean that the losing side is somehow not engaging in mental effort. It might be possible that those losing a debate are having to apply greater mental effort to construct workable arguments.

The Anti-intellectualism term is conflated with anti-science (a label those against science would probably agree with more).

The use of this label is loaded in the same way as terms like "pro-life" (making you opponents therefore "anti-life"), so it's not a useful definitive term.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Another thing that marks me as a pseudo-intellectual - I have totally lost track of the issue being discussed, and I'm afraid of trying to pursue it.

I see the term "objectivist" being used, in negative response to the statement "There is no such thing as a single centered reality".  There being one actual reality that we all just observe is exactly where I sit in the realm of observational philosophy, but I'm not even really sure of what I'm talking about, much less how to defend it.

I would explain more, but I'd probably go way, way off-tangent. I'll merely link wiki. Don't take everything it says as ontological truth though Obviously follow links, read, and reason your own conclusion.

/snark

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)#Objectivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism

Now you may be asking why I use objectivist in a derisive tone - it's because moral objectivism is a very scary thing, from a compassionate humanist standpoint. Think Ayn Rand and eugenics, which are sanctioned by certain objectivist thought.

I still don't get your point. My self-confidence derives mainly from my successful (so far...) studies and (relatively) wide knowledge base - if that makes me a pseudo-intellectual, is someone whose ego is staked on their sporting success a pseudo-athlete?

Do those things make you better than other people?

When it comes to studies, yes it does, at least in comparison to most people. And the athlete is better than most people at <his/her preferred sport>. If you mean "better" as in "I'm a better person than you", no. I'm way too morally superior to be an elitist (catch the joke?).

A psuedo-athlete is more akin to a person such as a model that works to appear more athletic while not actually being so, in order to appear to be better than others who actually are athletic.