Pseudo-intellectuals

[Coolboyrulez0]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

ffr posters

[Wayward Vagabond]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

I'm a pseudo-intellectual

[Charu]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

My favorite is when someone uses a Thesaurus and don't know what they're doing.

Like this

"My cherished phenomenon abides when personage practice the Thesaurus and establishes a plethora of ambiguous text."

[Alioth]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

I'm a pseudo-intellectual

At least you're somewhat smart XD I'm very street dumb haha~

[choof]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

haha~

[L.B.D.D]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

my iq is 73

[Dynam0]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

Do you need an expansive vocabulary to be considered an intellectual?
In writing/speaking, at what point do clarity and embellishment become convoluted?

I ask because I'm not a Philosophy/English major and I find a lot of academic writings in those fields overly flamboyant and fluffy.

[Izzy]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

I think it makes sense to only use words as they are necessary. When something can't be described without using a more complex word with a more specific definition then you should use it. Otherwise it just looks like you are over-complicating the topic to make it seem more than it really is. Only when trying to have an intellectual discussion though. Writing a novel or something would be different.

[rushyrulz]

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

this is in my signature


Just thought you should know~

[Arch0wl]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

you're not going to fool me by believing there's an oasis of narcissistic supply in the signatures

I'm on to your mirage tactics

[choof]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

oh

if arch0wl has signatures turned off then I guess he won't be mad when I change my signature in a moment

[rushyrulz]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

[snootybritishaccent]You infer yourself to be an all-knowing miser, however you are vastly incorrect in the sense that you have no factual information to base your increditable opinion on.[/snootybritishaccent] :holierthanthousmirk:

[Arch0wl]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

Do you need an expansive vocabulary to be considered an intellectual?
In writing/speaking, at what point do clarity and embellishment become convoluted?

I ask because I'm not a Philosophy/English major and I find a lot of academic writings in those fields overly flamboyant and fluffy.

Neither of these fields allow for flamboyance or fluff, really. Some subdisciplines (and I really mean "a negligible amount") of philosophy allow for bullshit, but I'm just saying that because I regard the arguments as bullshit. The language itself is fine.

Every term in, say, Kant's critique of reason means something toward his argument. You probably aren't familiar with the context of these terms and can't immediately discern them, but that doesn't mean that they carry meaning specific to that discussion that can't be substituted by using a more commonplace word.

This technically qualifies as philosophy, specifically argumentation theory. It's very web-oriented in writing style; I had corresponded with a few professors who specialize in argumentation and looked at making a more academic version for publication in a journal, but the fact that I'd have to wait 3-6 months for publication and that I couldn't circulate my writings to anybody who didn't have access to the journal turned me off tremendously. I care much more about people being able to read the things I say than I do about where they're said.

However, if this had been written in a journal there'd be more jargon and that's not because you need to use jargon to fit in or anything but because it would fit into existing theories of argumentation and that would have to be addressed. (The part where I say you can make an argument via context is specifically a point of contention.) Since I'm writing for a web audience I have a license to not give a fuck about that.

Also, most people do not use language in precise ways. Most people tend to skim toward what they think is the conclusion of an argument and simply react in a conclusion-vs-conclusion fashion. This is obvious because when people argue on somewhere like reddit, they tend to just state their conclusions without supporting reasoning, and in more obvious cases the first word of their reply will be their verdict, like "no" or "exactly", as if their acceptance/rejection of something is the most important thing worth mentioning first. (I also know that most people do not use language in precise ways because the LSAT is one of the hardest standardized tests administered for graduate school, and people as a whole perform horribly on it. The reasoning section in particular demands a very precise reading of words and lots of people are really bad at this.)

Ultimately, philosophy is about avoiding being misunderstood. You would think that this means you should use commonplace language always, but you're wrong: when you simplify a concept you're taking away details that allow for a better understanding of it. It's fine when commonplace language allows you to express a concept, but you can't always do that. The ideal of being able to simplify a concept and retain all of the substance of that concept breaks down under close analysis for pretty much any kind of knowledge except possibly math and even then I doubt it. What would most likely happen if Kant had written in commonplace language is that laypeople would think they understand his arguments and dismiss them because they think they don't need to understand him any further, even though they only superficially understood the details of the arguments (because it's a simplification) / why his reasoning leads to his conclusion. It's a lot better to choose an option where the people who can understand your argument do so with 100% clarity and highly literate people know exactly why you're right than a bunch of laypeople thinking they understand you completely when they actually don't.

You can understand virtually all of the jargonic terms in philosophy by getting a copy of a dictionary for the field. I personally have the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, but other respectable choices exist. You can buy these used on Amazon for like $10.

[lurker]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

not reading the whole thread yet but i think this is what you're looking for
edit: on looking at the whole thread it appears that i am wrong
i think there's two general categories of pseudo-intellectualism:
1. using troll logic and big words to obfuscate obvious facts (IRONY, see most of this thread and the comic MracY posted)
2. using big and important words to make absolute nonsense sound believable to dumbasses (see what i linked above, possibly the chris langan video as well but i'm kinda scared of watching that)

[Izzy]

Re: Pseudo-intellectuals

http://www.johnellis.com

What the fuck am I reading.

http://www.johnellis.com/pdf/WaterScamsExposed.pdf

If you buy an E5 machine, you are invited to a party at the Shohola property where you can meet people with similar success stories!

Oh hell yea. Party and Shohola's house!