Pseudo-intellectuals

[DigitalS3r4ph]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

Deepak Chopra for example, is on the grey line between these two boundaries, as the things he says can easily be shown to be ridiculous, but he is successful at convincing millions that he is an expert.

I feel like Deepak Chopra is a poor example to use in this case as his work primarily involves conversation of the esoteric, and could be an philosophical intellectual in his own right, hence why he has such a large following; whereas someone like Michio Kaku is a communicator in theoretical physics grounded in science. Apples to oranges (Or Green Apples to Red Apples depending on how you want to argue it).


I believe this is more along the lines of what you were looking for? Merry Christmas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd1cqRu0mdw

Arch0wl's pretty much got this thread summed up though, lol.

[hi19hi19]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

Honestly Arch is right, what the hell is this shit doing in Critical Thinking.

Linking stupid shit that has no factual basis is basically the exact opposite of this forum's purpose.

[MracY]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

I wanted to make conversation first, but that seems not possible now, so I'll say it here.

Isn't it distasteful to gain pleasure from listening to badly structured logic in the first place?
What kind of pleasure do you derive from that?
Because it feels good to be intelligent yourself?

Long ago I used to lead debates, so I think I can assert this: more often than not, people dismiss someone's point as unintelligent when they don't properly understand it.
It's very easy to misinterpret someone's point because something is ill-defined or people misunderstand the fundament of someone's argument.
Because of this, it's necessary to be properly nuanced, or you become illusioned about your own intelligence.

[ScylaX]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

Generally you spot ~pseudo-intellectual~ talks when the speaker use a convoluted syntax to voice complete platitudes or banalities.
And it's not because you intuitively think they're "showing off" (well they ~maybe~ do but that's not the problem), but because their speech is way to complex compared to the blatant plainness of their idea.

It's really hard to prove somebody is actually talking nonsense. Hegel is nonsense, Heidegger is nonsense, and so on. Generally you have to go deeper and directly talk with the person, or actually try to figure out how this could make sense for all I know, sorting out their train of thought and shit.
I mean even Kant can seem completely hermetic at first, yet he's as clear as spring water.

Now I don't know anything about Langan and I just know he's an autodidact, not a philosopher with academic recognition, but giving the benefit of the doubt is a completely free move.

[Arch0wl]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

However, I would say your tone is too condescending. I suggest using a more nuanced tone as well, or making your point in another way.

frankly, you're right. I have a particular frustration with "pseudointellectual" because it's like the smart person's version of "hater" or the internet cynic's version of "stupid" and is a crutch for people who don't want to be more descriptive about what it is they find offputting, so someone is deemed a "fake smart person" in lieu of this. I also have a particular frustration with it because actual, real writings that deserve to be taken seriously (such as those in the humanities) are deemed this, which is ridiculous for reasons I hope you can think of on your own as they're too numerous to list here.

so, in short, I shouldn't have indulged my frustrations to the extent that it came out in text and I apologize.

[rushyrulz]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

TBH I'd be more interested in people who are actually really smart but can't talk their way out of a paper bag.

Answer to this thread: Every politician and mainstream scientist ever

EDIT: cool I just found this: http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/....php?p=4141075

[Arch0wl]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

can't talk their way out of a paper bag.

Answer to this thread: Every politician

interesting that you say this given that politicians are selected based in large part on their speaking ability

[rushyrulz]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

My second line was completely unrelated to my first. I was calling mainstream scientists and politicians pseudo-intellectuals.

semi-sarcastically.

becuz thred is ded

[iCeCuBEz v2]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

arch is trolling right?

usually hes serious so im confused

[Arch0wl]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

this was moved from critical thinking to here

[Arch0wl]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

although I can understand your confusion; my avatar screams 'serious'

[Izzy]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

I keep avatars and signatures turned off because otherwise I occasionally associate what people are saying with their avatars and I can't read peoples posts in an objective manner.

The forum is such a different experience without them.

[Arch0wl]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

yeah I have signatures turned off but I keep avatars on for easy identification of who is posting and because they're not that intrusive by comparison

[Reach]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

Rick Rosner, though you won't find much. But he's more entertaining.

I don't even know how to classify Langan. He is seriously a strange dude if you know anything at all about him other than what you see in an overly edited and contrived video. There's quite a bit of evidence to suggest he is indeed very smart but he may or may not be crazy as well :P

[stargroup100]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

Isn't it distasteful to gain pleasure from listening to badly structured logic in the first place?
What kind of pleasure do you derive from that?
Because it feels good to be intelligent yourself?

I've touched upon this topic in a couple of different critical thinking threads.

Seeing it as entertainment for me covers a few things that are important to me/that I like: it's a way of coping with the urge to fight/argue with these people, it's a way for me to understand the way other people think, it gives me insight on the reality that there exist a large number of people that think that way, and it challenges certain philosophies I accept almost without question to think about how and when they're valid.

Long story short, I'm fascinated by how other people think, and I want to understand.

Rick Rosner, though you won't find much. But he's more entertaining.

He actually seems like kind of an interesting guy. Definitely not nearly as crazy as Langan.

Let's keep it coming.