Who else here was smart, went to an elite school, is a student of the canon...

Was Socrates a "fake douchebag" to everyone, or was he simply trying to engage them, make them genuinely consider their own preconceived notions and beliefs? I don't think Socrates was fake, and I think that he truly believed in the citizens around him. Perhaps even a little too much.

I see. I take back my comments then. Apologies for jumping to conclusions.

>it frequently feels as if people want to show me up
Not trying to toot your own horn, here, but I get the same vibe oftentimes. I think people feel a bit threatened by people who are intelligent and aren't afraid to express it. Do you find that you get this vibe from more men than women?

>but inevitably people try to start 'intelligent' conversations about subjects which take them completely out of their depth.

this is the truest thing you've posted. this is alarmingly common, and prominently frustrating when you are someone not only learned on some particular subject, but learned to the point of consciousness of your own incompetences. at that point it starts to feel embarrassing to tread in waters you are not able to float in, and you either develop strategies for steering clear or simply announce when the conversation is too far beyond your expertise. but most people do not have that impulse, and will wax idiotic about some topic about which their only knowledge is some anecdote related to them by a friend of a friend of a specialist in the field or else some stupid bullshit they downloaded into their head from Facebook or a youtube video.

Ugh , I'm the poster here and re-reading this sounds incredibly arrogant. I didn't mean to suggest that I'm a genius, but I have been told that I am intelligent by others so I think I give off that demeanor.

>you might not be listening very well to the ideas they're trying to convey but haven't yet received the education to make said ideas sound/appear intellectual.

To supplement my earlier post, I don't easily succumb the tricks of sophists. I can work my way past the trappings of unrefined speech, but oftentimes I'll find that the intellectual landscape it couches is spartan. Some peoples lives and opinions are almost wholly unconsidered. A substantial number of people operate at a level hardly above that of livestock.

>A substantial number of people operate at a level hardly above that of livestock.

This is a myopic view, but to a certain extent this rings true. A lot of people out there just want to live simple lives and think of things in simple terms.

the problem is that one only thinks "deep" conversations are worthwhile when one knows nothing about philosophy, literature, or the humanities or sciences generally—when you're learned in those fields, the best conversations actually skim the surface, taking on the whole history of that knowledge with the panache only known between friends, often in error but never in doubt.

no, the best conversation is shallow. depth is for writing. people who don't read are inclined to believe the opposite, because their search for depth continually comes up short save for the flashes insight "deep" conversations occasionally seem to unearth—but this more by, as you say, "probability" than by the thoughts themselves.

>the best conversation is shallow
Not the poster you are referring to, but personally I couldn't disagree with this more. The best times in my life have been as a result of engaging others in deep conversation - provided I know that the people I am having a conversation with are intellectually honest and aren't prone to be offended at controversial opinions. This can be difficult to find, but it does happen and it's glorious.

Intellectually connecting with someone, face to face, is a very powerful thing.

my claim is not that that conversation was not worthwhile, but that the popular notion of "deep conversation" is bunk, and that "deep conversations" are precisely the ones that lead to intellectual dishonestly and offense at controversy. it's the shallow conversation that, by comparison, yields the gems—but i suppose, revising my claim somewhat (this was not at all clear in my first post but should have been), this "by comparison" is vital, because the whole shallow/deep dichotomy is just horse hockey.

What on God's green earth do you mean when you say "shallow conversation", anyway? I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean. Maybe all of my "deep conversations" have actually been shallow ones, according to your view?

this is just good b8 right? pls tell me this is just b8

That's what I mean. I mean that when exploring topics the average joe thinks to be "deep," you're just taking tricks, engaging each other in bullshit word games, trying to outwit the other. But when two people can really communicate authentically with each other, it's shallow, the truth of the conversation is on the surface, there's no digging around for some truth that isn't there.

So...you basically just took the words "shallow" and "deep" and flipped them?

dont forget that in the end all is vanity, enjoy what you've got while you still have it.

if you want to be a reductionist smug cunt about it, yes. but this is exactly what i'm talking about.

Your prose reminds me of that tool from the Decartes thread.

I don't know user, how would i though? I can't even dissern if i'm stupid or smart.
I'd like to know how you would talk on a topic you don't know alot about.
I mean if the people come to you and try to talk about everything, probably you aren't educated enough in one or another subject, right? Do you just roll along, or do you say you have to read up on the topic?
Also a small tipp, it may be the look you give, the posture you have and so on. I know intelligent men, who seemingly morph into the croud by just having the appearance of an average guy.
Would you mind giving me an e-mail adress, i am looking for answers and i can't find them. You know, it's hard to be uncertain.

yeah, and you remind me of an unimaginative faggot.

which one? not OP but i was following that thread

Just so I understand you correctly: a shallow conversation is one in which you meet a "mental soulmate" where the two of you are on the same wavelength (i.e. roam the same echo chambers) but a "deep" conversation is where you find someone of a differing view point and you actually have to argue and defend your viewpoint. Sound about right, you cunt?

The one who was vehemently arguing against cogito.

not quite, you stupid git. it's more like you learn more about yourself, the world, and the people around you when you aren't pursuing mental goop clogging your brain like the "meaning of life"

Triggered you, eh fuck boy?

Well I agreed with him there, and I agree with him here, too.

Cool, you're probably a samefag, or equally retarded. I don't give a shit.

i really wish dim witted fascists like you who only believe in one way of thinking would go back to the ideological trough-feed of /pol/ where you belong.

That's kinda harsh. What drives you to say that he is an unimaginative faggot?

Oh boo fucking hoo.

mainly that he thinks that simply "swapping the terms" is all i was arguing for, and further that he doesn't see how that alone is sort of consequential for how we think of the problem OP highlighted, and now that i know he's one of those smegmatics from the cogito thread my appellation is, i think, all but confirmed.

play some call of duty, it's more your speed: thoughtless and choppy.

Veeky Forums

Socrates was the definition of fake (see: Euthyphro). I think he did genuinely want to teach others, but if you've read Symposium or Apology he fires off some real shots.

Don't worry about it. It's all too easy to come off as arrogant, and arrogance and truth are not mutually exclusive.

Admittedly I've never payed much attention to the gender dynamic. I do think combativeness occurs more frequently with men in my personal life, but at the university level I would say its fairly evenly split (although the women seem more likely to drop the issue).

Yeah, I truly don't mean it as an insult, but when you dig deep enough many people are primarily motivated by instinctual self-interest. The quintessential example of this is the guy who goes out for the express purpose of trying to get laid.

>intellectually honest and aren't prone to be offended at controversial opinions
These specimens are rarer than one would think, and are exactly the type of people I'm not referring to in the OP. You can't be intellectual unless you have an intellect to speak of, and you can't be honest if you have an agenda.

I believe I understand what you're trying to say, and I agree with the core message: that there is little/no value in the archetypal pontificating of potheads.

>I'd like to know how you would talk on a topic you don't know alot about.
I try not to. If I must, I will listen actively, ask directed questions when I believe it would be appropriate to do so, and attempt to reason through the information presented to me while not necessarily accepting it as fact.

LOL. I see the Veeky Forums hive mind is out in full force (or it's just mostly one salty fucktard who got ass blasted and wants revenge). I'm betting it's the latter.

You seriously don't have a fucking clue how to write coherent sentences.

>I believe I understand what you're trying to say, and I agree with the core message: that there is little/no value in the archetypal pontificating of potheads.

yeah, that was the basic thrust, but i think it's important to carry along with it the idea that what we think of as small talk, useless and disposable chatter, is actually where we really get to know each other and what we ourselves are made of. there's something even utopian about the possibility of small talk and gossip, and while these can become brain-numbing sludge at a point, i think that point approaches must faster when we're after "collective consciousness" or "what if life is like the matrix" or even more seemingly banal topics like "my goals and dreams"

This is how I recognized you, btw.

it's weird how you're the only one who persistently has trouble understanding me, and other people you interact with in these threads. it's as though you're illiterate, as i've been saying all along.

I did read the Euthyphro, and I came away with a different intepretation of Socrates character than you did. Then again, I'm not so sure that Socrates as he was portrayed in the Dialogues ever existed.

>you can't be honest if you have an agenda

To a certain extent, I believe that everyone has an agenda. To find an ideologically pure, intellectual person would be...I don't even think I've ever met someone like that. Everyone has their own preconceived notions and biases, no one is exempt from this.

No, fucktard. I just have a problem with you. I do love triggering and assblasting you, though. It's quite amusing.

This is the Pseud King, by the way. Proud to introduce him.

I guess that's valid. Though i would refrain from namecalling.
Well that seals it. You actualy have the problem at hand you were talking about.
I'm sorry for you, you seem nice at heart.
I am genuenly interested how you got to the stage of being smart, or how you noticed that you were.

>To find an ideologically pure, intellectual person would be...I don't even think I've ever met someone like that

this is precisely why i find small talk so precious: it's "shallow" enough in the sense i mean that agenda can't find the space to surface; it's conversation for itself despite a world of instrumentality.

>recognizes my prose style
>has a cute pet name for me
>"introduces" me
>>on an online forum
>>>even ironically

i think it's obvious who has triggered whom, friendo.

Stay triggered, fagboy. Your shallow/deep dichotomy is fucking stupid.

>whoah, I swapped the meaning of terms, aren't I deep???

you're the one to keep on posting angrily, my man. it's very easy to bait you by just repeating my propositions.

and you only think it's stupid because your whole life is lived on the wrong end of it, lol

Sorry, I meant shallow.

case in point, desu: a smart, insightful joke that cuts to the quick of my little idea here by lying flat on its semantic surface rather than trying to unearth some argumentative fault from its depth. well done. but of course you've only proven the worth of the idea in doing so. so bravo.

>complains that I introduced him
>after he introduced me
The hypocrisy continues!

illiterate and forgetful! really how do you even manage to find this forum every morning? and btw, is that before or after you search through the trash heap around your desk for a freshly emptied bottle of pepsi max to piss into?

Well, if you claim that "tool from the Decartes thread" was a proper introduction, then sure. But your complaint came after you already "introduced" me, ya dumb pseud.

Can you stop? I'm genuinely interested in OP. Don't make this a shitpost fiesta. I can make you a thread on /b/ if you want to argue on.

I'll stop. I promise. I think I already did enough damage, anyway.

>damage control

OP here, when I was in 7th or 8th grade I got really into playing Devil's advocate all of the time because I relished in the rise I got out of people. I think it really helped hone my argumentative and critical thinking skills, but eventually the novelty wore off. As I've grown and matured I've retained these abilities, whereas most of my peers never seemed to develop them. I eventually stopped arguing with my peers, because once I stopped reveling in their anger I realized that it was like arguing with a brick wall. I wasn't self-satisfied in my wisdom, and sought out authorities who might be capable of imparting some of theirs. My parents, grandparents, teachers, professors, etc. All have left me unsatisfied. As I got older and older, I realized that these authority figures were exactly like my peers, just... older.

I have one person who I would consider a mentor, and at this point my correspondence with them is limited to one e-mail every four months. I unironically have to read the Greeks to ward off intellectual heat-death.

The best conversations I've had with other people (outside of my specific areas of academic interest) have been about their personal lives. When you get comfortable and close enough with another person, this sort of small talk lends itself to emotional and spiritual depth of conversation. It might be possible to reach these depths under the pretense of "hopes and dreams," but certainly not with some sterile hypothetical.

I encourage you to reread pic related and consider the context of the dialogue.

In any case, nobody is an ideological blank slate, but some rare people are capable of having preferences without becoming overly-invested to the point where they consider any criticism of their pet belief system a personal attack.

>I am genuenly interested how you got to the stage of being smart, or how you noticed that you were.
I have a sign that tells me when I am about to do wrong, and it is not preventing me from speaking at this juncture, so I will tell you. As a boy I was always seeking after wisdom: first from my family, next from professionals, then from authors of fiction, and finally from my professors. Mystified at every juncture, I sought out spiritual guidance from the oracle on how to go about obtaining wisdom for myself.

Through this process it was revealed to me that I had already been blessed with a great wisdom. I balked at this revelation, for how could I possibly be wise? I cavalierly disregarded the oracle, and continued searching for wisdom in all of the same places.

Ever unsatisfied, I finally realized what the oracle had truly meant: I was wise in my continual search after wisdom, for I was wise enough to admit that I did not possess it! Sadly, this small bit of wisdom which I do possess has not been well received.

>re: Socrates
Okay, I've read that before. In the context of the Euthyphro, they've just had a looong conversation that lead them back to where they started. Euthyphro got tired of it and wanted to leave, because who has time to speak with Socrates to challenge their own beliefs? Anywho, though Socrates definitely speaks with irony here, I don't think that this is definitive proof that he's being "fake" with people, he just teases them when he knows they have no idea what they're talking about - as Euthyphro, being a religious scholar, had no idea what holiness was. He challenged people, but that doesn't mean he's being "fake" with them, he's just really trying to get them to think.

Who knows, though? Perhaps I'm projecting who I am on Socrates. I think, to a certain extent, he is a character that you can do that with.

I use the term 'fake' somewhat loosely. He obviously doesn't believe that Euthyphro has any special knowledge of piety whatsoever, but he humors him nonetheless. It's not necessarily mean-spirited, but its certainly 'fake'.

I understand you now. I suppose in that sense of the term you are correct.

You can only project where you think you belong. Therefore hitler could project into napoleon, though not into others. There isn't an universal person (you) can project into. Maybe you can, but (you) can't.

Uh...I guess, if you really believe that, I can't dispute it.

I think i structured it wrong. You can only project into people which you have a connection with. Therefore you can only project into some people, whilst others can't. Aristrote is someone you relate to, which is why you see him as relateable. Though universally speaking that has no value.

>being intelligent
So the drive to be intelligent makes intelligent?

Oh, I understand your point more clearly now. Thanks.

great post user. i can't express how painful it is to go through lectures at uni every day and listen to young "philosophers" (pretentious idiots) who learn from reddit/youtube/facebook quotes

very well said user, i couldn't agree more. shallow conversations do not obscure the truth - they are honest

Also i just have the feeling that nearly every person has an unbased pool of knowledge. I talk to professors (studying buisness) and they can't even think outside the box.
They look at me like i'm stupid. Because i'm insecure that gets to me and i never know if it's because i say stupid stuff or annoy them with nitpicking.
I need validation, does that alone make me sub-par?

Not trying to sound elitist, but if you're studying business, it's expected that the professors wouldn't be well-versed in higher quality discussion. They probably look at you like they're trying to figure you out, like if you are subtly making fun of them. One thing I've learned, as I've gotten older, is that EVERYONE is insecure, to some extent. It just varies from person to person. A lot of professors are just as insecure as you or me, they often can hide it better.

You're still refraining from an opinionbased answer. Is that because you don't agree?
Then if what i say is true, do you dismiss me as one of the people you talked about in the first post?
Or have you become totally apathic to agreeing/disagreeing?
I'm open to more options too.

Also, professors in general can be a bit intimidating. They're very focused, and questions that don't interest them can be met with disdain.

To be clear, I'm not OP. I think to some extent you are right, but I also believe that some characters are more universal than others. For example, very few people could see themselves in Hitler or Napoleon. It takes a very particular type of person to do that. But Socrates, to me, strikes me as more of an everyman - a very intelligent everyman, to be sure, but I think he still plays that role, nonetheless. In the same vein, I think a lot of people see themselves in, say, Jesus of Nazareth, because he fits a particular type of ideal person.

OP, speaking as a reasonably bright person who went to a shitty school and was mostly self-taught, I can say that automatically your tone and your manner rankle with me. Trust me, I understand some of what you're saying. I'm no genius, but I like challenging conversations and playing devil's advocate and all that kinda stuff, and it depresses me that a lot of people take their ideological positions so seriously that I can't do that often. I guess we're kind of feeling the same. But you gotta drop the attitude. You don't want to be haughty? Then stop it. Turning cold and distant because you're smarter than other people isn't the fault of those people - it's your fault, for growing into an intolerant elitist.

Yeah i know that, though everything i talk about is sincere.
Again, i think this just was about recognition of my own thought.
So again, does that make one sub-par? I can read people quite well, though it gets problematic the more i think about it. And i don't want the world to be so shallow. Well ignorance really is bliss.

Who am I, or anyone else to tell you if you are sub-par? That's a judgement I don't think anyone's qualified to make. I hear and understand you perfectly well, so take that for what it is. I share your ability to read people pretty well, and yes it can lead to issues. The best thing to do is to give people the benefit of the doubt - as hard as that may sometimes be.

I wasn't giving an example who you could relate to, i was saying that for example Hitler reflected himself in Napoleon. That it differs from person to person. And yeah. there will be people who are more relatable than others.
Sorry for not being more intelligible - was writing from my phone and i can't read what i worte.

Sounds like we agree then.

I must apologize, it is something i do often. I want to hear someones opinion, or more to say i want to understand everything. That includes people, theorys and so on.
Also i wanted you to answer so i could see what stance you take. Are you still apathetic towards me? Understanding is for you something of higher value?
And the last point, which i probably already answerd, is that i can't just let it be. It is something i just can't. Were you the same? Or did you somehow learn how to adjust?

If you're asking me for a stance on whether you are sub-par or not, I would say no, instinctively. As far as whether I'm apathetic or not, I wouldn't necessarily say that - I wish you success. I'm having a bit of a hard time following you.

>Understanding is for you something of higher value?
Would you mind rephrasing this question? I'm not sure what you're asking.
>Were you the same? Or did you somehow learn to adjust?
I think similar, perhaps not quite the same, but I think there are aspects to what you've said that is fundamental to human experience / the human condition. Insecurity is something that *everyone* deals with, and, ironically, I feel like I can say that with almost absolute certainty, barring people with some sort of mental handicap or psychosis. You get better with it over time.

>not OP
Depends on what you want. You want the relationships? Then just act like everyone else, shouldn't be that hard.
You want people to take you for who you are, then be as you are. Either they accept you, or they don't.

I literally can't express how much better my life has been since I attended Oxford. I went to a state school and gradually became the stereotypical moody, withdrawn sensitive type who both despises the quality of his immediate culture and feels a weird pride for having been raised in a sort of anti-intellectual and brutal environment. I was all set to take my Russell Group humanities BA and spend my life working as an anonymous, insecure wageslave forever thankful of being offered a job and forever too insecure to pursue my creative ambitions. The chip on my shoulder had become something of a wedge, and I felt too out of place regardless of my environment, too resentful and bitter to even attempt to make it in the artistic world. Then I finally applied for Oxford and got in to study an English MA, with reassurance that should I work hard enough a career in academia or within one of Oxford's affiliated companies would be almost guaranteed. I turned up as apprehensive as usual, and the first few days were spent regretting my decision and desperately feigning a cultured personality. But then I realized that the people there were just interesting and that the snobbery and exclusivity I had anticipated was just a myth borne out of my working class upbringing. I've since graduated, having spend the year dining in grand halls with groups of interesting people, dating several girls (one of whom, a petite Russian whose family traces back to the aristocracy, is now my fiancee). I work four days a week at a publishing company and earn £38k a year. I regularly meet up with friends from my college and visit Oxford for nights out and for meetings with my professors. The Martin Eden-esque novel I have been writing for two years has been selected for publication at a major British publishing house and, honestly, I could not have imagined a few years ago how great life could be. I come on Veeky Forums and see how pathetic you all are and just shake my head and chuckle. If I saw you guys on the street I would of course throw you a penny or discuss Bukowski or whatever "realist" writers you enjoy, but ultimately I would be able to tell within ten seconds if you're an Oxbridge grad and would dismiss you as a potential source of good company if you are not. I never thought I'd know what it was like to be objectively better than somebody else, for the value of my existence to be superior to the value of a stranger's, but now I do and I've never been happier. People are awed by power and prestige. All I need to do is mention the university I attended (if only for a year) and they immediately begin to hunch and look at their feet because they know they are in the presence of greatness.

Boy, for living such a happy, successful life you take the time out of your picture perfect life to come and shitpost on Veeky Forums? I am so jealous.

Aaand I fell for the copypasta. Still, it was amusing to read.

Look, it's quite hard to dissern what i mean, even for myself, as some of it is contradictionary.
I do think i undestand you, the problem is reassurance. Though i can only get that by you being untrue to yourself, which again changes your opinion, and thus mine too.

>Understanding is for you something of higher value?
You said you understand me perfectly well, therefore i asked if understanding is something you cherish.

I hope you don't mind, i mean if you would, you would have stopped answering at the first reply, so i'll just go on.
If i feel someone is of higher inteligenz than me, i do need validation. And i feel like the other party notices that, and sees me as inferior, the same Feeling i have towards you.
You said that people talk to you on and on about stuff they can't grasp themselves, i feel like i'm spamming you full and that alone makes me inferior.
I can't accept not knowing, which wise people can, as i have learned.
I guess i just need to rant.

This post seems very off and insincere to me. Also, I think you think I'm someone else.

Anyway, I'm going to bed, good night.

Well thanks for talking, i think it helped me.

>this goddamn thread

Wankers, all of you.

Thanks for pointing it I was about to go on a rant lol

Agree, intelligent people do not go on image boards and talk about how much smarter they are then everyone else. Don't even get me started on the people who think going to an elite school somehow increased their iq by 50 points. You kids aren't special because you read a couple greek dialogues, playing devils advocates and having argumentative skills is the most basic ass shit. Your supposed intelligence means nothing if you've done nothing with it. Get a little older and you'll realize how dumb you were looking down at your family and friends for the shallow shit you described

Socrates is goading Euthyphro, to get him to develop his thoughts until he reaches that critical point, the aporia, toward which all dialogues with Socrates seem to lead. This isn't fakery; it's a pedagogical technique.

For such a bright lad you're rather dull in your understanding of Phil101 texts.

I'm trying to figure out what your dilemma is, the actual reason for this thread. Do you feel discontent about not being able to connect with other people? You sound like you're trying to convince yourself that the reason why you can't enjoy the company of ordinary people is because you know too much and they too little.

I know very much of you feel, but this thread remains a tribute to your inferiority. Do you feel less like a person each passing day; like a mouthpiece which is slowly losing it's voice?

I'm sure you're decently intelligent but you're still terribly immature.