What's the difference between a pseud and an actual intellectual?

What's the difference between a pseud and an actual intellectual?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/GF5EZgRxulg?t=17m26s
docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic
twitter.com/AnonBabble

none, though it may also be rather large

pseud - watches Filthy Frank
actual - watches iDubbz

pseudo:actual intellectual:

the Mayans could smell mathematical impurities

Pseud - reads The Republic and says he knows the Greek
actual intellectual - reads pic related.

A pseud dedicates his life to comfort and extremely scattered, as well as aimless studying on many different subjects that he happens to find or becomes interested in then goes to the next thing. He latches on to what he reads without making up his own mind and mimics tastes and opinions to inflate his own ego or to defend himself against others judgements.

An actual intellectual dedicates his entire life to one or only a very few disciplines and sharpens his mind off the intense hard work and dedication brought from studying these fields. Someone who has truly been taught, and has taught himself deeply on a subject, to the point where even if he isn't knowledgeable on every single subject he truly knows what it is like to be extremely knowledgeable on at least one. When you meet someone like this it totally comes off in the way they handle themselves in conversation or a debate.

Only one owns a diploma

Yea, the pseudo.

There's no real divide. Bloom, Borges, Campbell, etc, all are considered authorities. Each I just mentioned have faked deep knowledge of a subject, or implied they knew more than they actually do.

Bloom, since he's still living, ought to be called on it. He claims to be able to translate German, but isn't confident enough to speak it.

It is perhaps unnecessary to learn a language for the sake of literature, but considering Bloom's bullshit claim that he could read 1000 pages in an hour and retain all, learning a new language or 50 should have been a mere small side project for him. And yet he can't converse in multiple languages like Borges, Joyce, and Eco have demonstrated they could.

Bloom is an authority, but he's also a pseud. His pseudery is negligible compared to his authority.

Shallowness

It's the difference between just knowing how to talk about something and actually knowing what you're talking about.

What's your view on Richard Dawkins?

Pseuds actually exist, "actual intellectuals" do not.

He's both at the same time. Take the purple pill.

This. Pseuds are gonna be the first people to suggest that someone can be an "intellectual".

Scientists are scientists. Writers are writers. Researchers are researchers. Pseuds with zero accomplishments are "intellectuals".

Bloom never fucking said he can read a thousand pages in an hour

Well if you aren't an actual intellectual yourself you can never really tell the difference, you just got intuition to go on and that's really going to deceive you more than help you

Ding dong you're wrong.

I'll let you figure it out though.

how they do that?

>underclass ressentiment

neck yourself, prole

Figure out that you're full of shit? Way ahead of you "bro".

And therefore, pseuds like da Vinci, Cicero, Newton, etc. are nothing as compared to the absolutely-not-sterile specialism of nineteenthcenturyminded (abcedminded) academicists who know a lot about the specificities of frog communication under anticlimatic conditions but have no idea how that even relates to the ecosystem or to Relevance at all; because yes, they are engaged in the art and science of knowing more and more about less and less...A generalist approach won't hurt you

ah shit "bro"

The other post wasn't me.

I learned alot from reading his books on evolutionary biology. He's also kind to blacks, chinese, and middle easterners, barring his despising of Islam. He's fair minded so I like him.

I'm troubled by his militant atheism since it may ruin his posthumous reputation. His outspoken atheism is also patchy in its aggression. Once when he was asked why people should be atheists, he dodged the question by rambling off topic. He also is strangely quiet when confronted by an obstinate opponent in argument. He's done this enough that propagandists could easily portray him as a beta. He's an odd fit for the bulldog role and not the ideal man for the task.

Basically, he knows alot about evolution, but should have been less flamboyant for his atheism.

Dawkins is a fraud though, very sorry son. He means well anyway.

hm, I should have edited this. a bit of repetition

Consider the difference between a funny guy and a forced funny guy.

The funny guy makes people laugh from time to tome. The forced funny guy talks about how funny he is.

They had a nose for numbers.

Yeah, works for Malcolm Gladwell. The ideal should be the T. Broad knowledge about as many things as possible and a few areas where you go really deep.

How is he a fraud?

this, not even memeing

>How is he a fraud?

youtu.be/GF5EZgRxulg?t=17m26s

Does this guy really love science?

da Vinci wasn't educated and had no formal education. A complete pseud.

Pseuds think they're intelligent. Actuals know they're intelligent.

pseuds walk like this
and intellegtualls walk like T H I S

See here, this is what the bookshelf of a bonafied intellectual looks like.

>strunk and white
american prescriptivist scum pls leave and read nietzsche

Pseuds post in Veeky Forums, and/or use the term "pseud".

I have a strong distaste for people who say they like "intellectual" conversations. Usually can't follow a conversation, practice selective hearing, and are more concerned with parroting some point they read online in lieu of actual study or personal research. There's too many film majors and musicians who think I am going to want to listen to their opinions on marx or nihilism just because I've read the source material.

a pseudo-intellectual pretends to understand a thing and an intellectual understands a thing.

>DIE HARD

Degree, If you don't have a PhD you are not an Intellectual.

>Moonraker

Wow, the one Bond book you've got and it's the worst one

>we are anonymous
xD

>Intellectual: doesn't let what what he personally desires to be true get in the way of what is true
>Pseudo intellectual: does

Basically the Pseud places politics and ideology above truth

I feel like politics, especially in the United States, has been a breeding ground for pseudo-intellectualism. Maybe it's because I'm in college, but all of the young adults I know that pretend to be intellectuals all hold a preoccupation with modern politics. I actually had a long conversation with my Political Science-major friend about this: he basically asked me what I thought about current politics and what I thought about politically-minded youth, and I told him that I thought a lot of people only dive into modern politics because they feel it differentiates them from some perceived "underclass," but I also said that I believe the study of political theory and philosophy of power isn't a bad thing to be interested in. He surprisingly agreed with me and confessed that he felt himself, and many of his peers, only kept up with modern politics to the extent that they do in order to create a divide from those they view as "uninformed Americans."

Being true or pseudointellectual depends on what you are claimed to be by people.
There is no universal substantial criteria of "intellectuality"

I don't know. I have a PhD (and three other degrees), but since I waste time here, I'm fairly sure I'm a pseudo-intellectual.

I know that I know nothing.

Literally nothing wrong with being a self-aware dilettante. I'd much rather have a shallow understanding of an ocean than a deep understanding of a puddle.

will hunting didnt went to college

pseudo bad
intelleactual good
Bw)

psueds insult authors I like and think real highly of themselves

actual intellectuals are inoffensive and likable and they say insightful things

Your pseud definition works but the "actual intellectual" not so much - it sounds more like a professional expert than an intellectual, frankly.

If you want to be an expert, it is ok to only know your thing, but if you want to be "an intellectual", a wide range of knowledge is needed. One might say that the most important part of an intellectual is their ability to process knowledge, evaluate it and so on.

btw this comes from a philosophy student, I might value my field more than others (which might be more about learning one, well defined subject)
or at the very least, view it as "the intellectual field"

This is the real definition, though.

Another very pseud thing: saying simple, easy things which sound profound, yet their real objective is always to 1. be inoffensive and 2. sound good. No regard to actual truth or thought there, good feeling is more important.

Will Hunting wasn't real

>da Vinci wasn't educated and had no formal education.
A guy who wasn't educated had no formal education?

Shocking

Op, you can't get a better example of a pseudo than that.

Neither have you apparently, dumbass.

>calls out user for making a redundant statement
>is called a dumbass
Makes perfect sense.

>a dumbass goes to free school and drops out
>received formal education but remains an uneducated retard
>can't into logic, shitposts on Veeky Forums

you're still a dumbass

Sorry for pointing out that you made an idiotic statement Mr. Buttlbasted. I'll make sure to tell you that you're perfect in any thread where I recognize your posts from now on.

nobody notices you

don't take yourself too seriously fampai. there's a red x on your browser for a reason.

You can't say that because he beat you in that one. He pointed out his sentence structure was fine.

He's still wrong about DaVinci though.

find the red x in your neck and click on out with a skewer

>pseud
acts like they know everything, pompous, no one says anything about their intelligence because it isn't noteworthy however everyone around them needs to be reminded of it by them, probably works at starbucks or burger king, hates failing and never tries again if they fail.
>actual intellectual
endless pursuit of knowledge, takes opportunities to learn, people around them say they are intelligent, can make a living off their intelligence eventually, fails well and learns from their failures.

Pseud: marxist
Actual: neoreactionary

>He claims to be able to translate German, but isn't confident enough to speak it.

That isn't quite as unreasonable as you claim it is. The language production faculties are distinct from those activated in reading, they only develop if you actually practice speaking, but lacking them doesn't prevent you from comprehending sentences of the other language even if you'd never be a native speaker.

I realize that, but at the rate that Bloom claims he could mentally process, those aspects of learning a language and more should have been child's play. A month's long mastery, instead of nearly a decade, as it would take most people

>A month's long mastery, instead of nearly a decade, as it would take most people

Why? Like I said, speaking is fairly independent of reading ability, so there's no reason why what you are saying would have to be true.

It's a little bit like a professor of computer science who cannot code past BASIC.

Not really. If you don't speak a language much, you don't learn to speak it, simple as that.

More like a professor of computer science who uses internet explorer.

It's a matter of degree. In my book, a pseudo-intellectual is someone who is comfortable referring to texts or authors they have never read but only read about.

I wasn't calling him out for his sentence structure though, I was calling him out for the content of his sentence.

And his defense of his structure doesn't hold up anyway. Saying somebody wasn't educated implies they weren't educated in any form, public or private. If user's original statement pointed out that Da Vinci dropped out of public school and also was at private school for a period of time then you're right, his structure would've been fine. That's not what he wrote though, so his statement is still redundant.

>didnt went

Looks like someone around here didn't go either.

That's the joke dum dum

I see now that you were merely pretending to be retarded. Forgive my previous statement senpai.

all i need to do to be an intellectual is read a Veeky Forums infographic? neat

kill yourself nick

>no Art Of The Deal.

pseud: writes a paper on gender
actual: discovers relativity

Pseud - pretentious and arrogant

Actual - values humility above all else

One has read more

Nice Wal-Mart Bookshelf
I have exactly the same one

only good posts itt

>intellectual
>cant spell bonafide properly

a pseud doesn't think himself a pseud
an intellectual knows himself a pseud

>self-aware pseuds are actually intelectuals
no

only good post in this thread
/thread

>What's the difference between a pseud and an actual intellectual?
reads books about science, philosophy, and literature
reads textbooks scientific/philosophical papers

Can we all talk about his picture? Can I hear some arguments for and against? I will seriously follow this if it has any validity. I've been looking for something that can give me a loose road-map to the Greeks.

Pseuds actively try to appear intelligent. Intellectuals have made genuine academic achievements. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

pseudo = wanabe, noob, shit brick. sham.

I'm almost afraid of ask, but what do the colors mean?

His "helicopter" couldn't even fly.

What a fucking idiot.

Chekhov is good, fuck all other repliers.

That's a good question. Judging by the replies, not many know the difference or have any way of determining truth. I'm scared.

Use this for philosophy instead
docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic

Also, read hesiod at the same time as hamilton.

I'd argue that Will Hunting was intelligent, but he wasn't an intellectual. I think the word has applies mostly to people in academia, or who have a lot of knowledge on a subject (not just plain potential).

A pseud is often someone who thinks they know something because they think they have the potential to know it.

You can't be a real intellectual until you have not just amassed knowledge but have synthesised some if your own.

>makes people laugh from time to tome
Joyce would approve.

kekd
then he's a hypocrite not a pseud kek