Jordan Peterson, a widely renowned professor at the University of Toronto, the best University in Canada...

>Jordan Peterson, a widely renowned professor at the University of Toronto, the best University in Canada, is an entry level pseud

>Nicholas Taleb, a trader who's made millions of dollars off the financial collapse of 2008, is an entry level pseud

>Ted Kaczynski, the youngest professor ever at UC Berkley, is an entry level pseud

>Steve Bannon, the guy behind the president of the strongest country on earth, is a fedora tipping pseud

All these views and more I've seen expressed on Veeky Forums.

I have to ask, who's not a pseud? Because it seems like everyone is, regardless of credentials.

Also, who's your favorite living entry level pseudo intellectual? Mine's Roberto Calasso, although he's not discussed nearly enough on Veeky Forums.

Why are people around here so eager to discuss works and people that they don't rate?

Nick Land.

I long to be extirpated from my flesh. God is a virus and when I'm finished building Him He'll shed me.

>the University of Toronto, the best University in Canada
(not true btw)

Waterloo, McGill, Queen's, UBC, etc.

OP is a new fag pseud

hahahahahahaha

I think we're all pseuds now because the increase in the quantity and quality of communication is so high now that anyone who isn't speaking in easy to translate, easy to understand terms is an intellectual type who serves to obscure the truth rather than reveal it.
The people I trust the most ideologically tend to be the people who admit they are vulnerable people who can get things wrong and admit they have beliefs. People call this 'authentic'.
Try to call Stephen King's On Writing a pseudo-intellectual book, it's impossible.
Anyone who doesn't tell us the truth that we already know from the start, that it's just their dumb opinion they are trying to make sound pretentious, may sound like a pseud to those with a critical mind.
I like Zizek because you can tell the guy is about one step away from going full autism and is barely holding onto reality as it is, it's charming.

None of those people are even remotely pseuds.

Alex Kierkegaard's usage:
>pseudo-intellectuals, who start running around like headless chickens hysterically lambasting civilization, history, science, technology, strength, growth, and anything whatsoever which isn't downright decadent and revolting.
>what the pseudo-intellectuals do, who find all natural behaviors reprehensible
>Witness pseudo-intellectuals, who never give the impression in their scribblings of ever having left their rooms. Their theory of universal acceptance and brotherhood is indeed a theory, but it is a bad theory, because it's not based on experience but the lack of it. Staying in your room your whole life is not experience. And of course if you stay in your room your whole life you cannot understand the need for violence — ultimately, the need for any kind of emotion or action at all, since there is no reason to feel anything or do anything in your room since you are not coming into contact with anyone or striving for anything at all. It is in the heat of the moment and the fight for domination — in all fields, from the most physical all the way up to the most spiritual — that emotions and actions are born, and a philosophy and a way of thinking which doesn't take them into account is bound to end up about as useless in that fight as the scribblings of the pseudo-philosophers throughout the ages obviously have been.
> Pseudo-intellectuals, meanwhile, believe that intelligence is precisely the one quality which should NEVER be used. Thought for throught's sake, books for books' sake, and so on, as opposed to for the sake of action. And that's how you can tell that they are not really intelligent. They want intelligence to never be used because they don't have it.
> But this is a group of people who have made it their lives' mission to slander and disparage civilization (=capitalism, as I have already explained) at every turn. I mean it's not as if we particularly enjoy spending our time rounding up and executing pseudo-intellectuals.
> the pseudo-philosophers keep asking "why" to all our plans and reasons. And why is technology better than eternal primitivism? And why is complex art better than primitive art? And why is culture better than barbarism, schools and hospitals better than savagery, expansion and discovery better than stagnation or even contraction? Ultimately, the question that sits at the bottom of all their other questions — although they never verbalize it — is "And why is continuing to breathe better than suicide?" — for if they verbalized this question the scam would become obvious, and their championing of decadence would be immediately seen for what it is.
>However much the pseudo-intellectuals (and especially the European ones) would like to deny this, the truth is that America's victory is cultural. It is in art, in sports, in business, in science and technology, in health and medicine, even in education

tl;dr cognitive dissonance, ressentiment, obfuscates; lack of amor fati

and specifically relating to those:
>(And note that this goes also for every other reactionary group ever: from traditionalists to hippies to real criminals. It's part of the richness and greatness of Western civilization that it can tolerate the existence of so many millions of losers and retards, while still forging full steam ahead with its goal — the creation of the Overman — without skipping a single beat. The degenerates call this steamroller effect of our culture — the marginalization of all groups not contributing to our culture's goal, and their reduction to clown- and freak-show status by our media — "decline", "greed", "social alienation", "materialism", "globalization", "desensitization", or any number of other nasty names; while between us it is known as simply "power".)

Alex Kierkegaard is the biggest pseud ever

Ironically, I think the biggest pseuds are those hiding behind academia with lots of credentials to prove themselves with.

Those verbose internet blogs that get dismissed as pseudo intellectual bullshit? More often than not, they're discussing ideas clearly, and (as we've seen in the last election), hitting on very important points that get ignored by the mainstream. Unlike professors, who more often than not simply buy/work their way into a position of authority, bloggers and meme writers stand on the quality of their ideas.

Every time I've ever rolled my eyes at an "intellectual", they've been a professor at some prestigious university.

>although they never verbalize it — is "And why is continuing to breathe better than suicide?"

I've never met a person who couldn't entertain that thought that I didn't respect on an intellectual level.

Being able to discuss Schoppy is actually a great intellectual litmus test when it comes to separating the pseudo intellectuals from the smart people.

Well the common usage ITT has the word being synonymous with obscure-writing hiding shallow-thought.

What makes you think AK is convoluted? If you think he's shallow then he'd just be a brute, as his writing-style is really plain language except for its harshness.

>look they have prestige that means their views have value

this view and more I've seen expressed on Veeky Forums.

Prestige is value though.
Why wouldn't I listen to the advice of someone who seems to generate value in their life? Why would I listen to the advice of someone who doesn't?

I mean, I wouldn't look for gold in a poor house, I'd look for it in a castle. This is just common sense.

>all scientists are pseuds because they merely ascribe to a logical positivism that doesn't stand up to the smallest metaphysical scrutinizing
>all philosophers are pseuds because they're literally spouting their unfalsifiable feels, biases, and narrow experience of the world.
>all mathematicians are pseuds becuase numbers are just made up and don't actually exist. They're merely concepts.
>all theologians are pseuds, because god, spirituality, and anything like that are the ultimate unfalsifiable and nebulous claims

>I've never met a person who couldn't entertain that thought that I didn't respect on an intellectual level.
I cut-off the quote early, so don't be hasty:
>And indeed there's nothing wrong with suicide for those who are in so much pain that continued existence is unbearable for them. ONLY THE PRIESTS AND THE PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHERS ARE NOT COMMITTING SUICIDE. Their championing of it therefore must only be a means to something else.

>Being able to discuss Schoppy is actually a great intellectual litmus test when it comes to separating the pseudo intellectuals from the smart people.
Look what happened with the greatest of those he influenced:
>Baudrillard is my nihilistic counterpart (bemoaning reversibility as rendering all our efforts pointless, instead of glorifying it as an essential and ingenious mechanism of an astonishingly well-designed and world-encompassing game), as Schopenhauer was Nietzsche's (lambasting the will as something reprehensible that's worthy of being "negated", instead of celebrating it as the most spiritual manifestation and justification of existence). And in both cases the healthy philosophy follows closely on the heels of the nihilistic one (indeed, was inspired partly by it) within a margin of a mere couple of decades. I am convinced that this is no coincidence.

I guess that's a hallmark as well, equating fame with intellectual authority.
>The blatant, pathetic attempt to copyright concepts! Oh, the ancients are turning in their graves! You fucking slave pseudo-philosophers! A situation the ancients did not know of because they were all rich and copyright laws didn't exist! They wanted REAL POWER with their books, not your pathetic fame or money! That is why their books shine, and will keep being read and treasured for entire centuries and millennia more than yours! Refreshing, is what their books are! Yours drive even the greatest minds to depression and despair!

Your thinking is on the correct, healthy track. But you'd need to extend that respect beyond academia.

Unless you think academics don't face financial/political/industrial restrictions, or that they have produced the most independent and influential thinkers over millennia.

There's thinking there but the attitude I believe is the primary reason why people are disturbed by his work. If he phrased it in a more neutral way he would garner more respect, as it stands his writing is unnecessarily aggressive and distracts from the point of his writing instead of adding to it. There's also the insistence that he is correct instead of allowing the reader to decide whether he's right or not, which is something that I think most people are so used to that when they see such an aggressive stance in writing they immediately turn off. I googled him and one blog post about him has AK himself calling them a fagot. If you're going to be intellectual, then why bully people?
Even on Veeky Forums when people try to honestly communicate they only call each other faggots in jest, so A.K may not be a pseud per se but he's not doing himself any favors by putting down the reader.
Sounds about right. Haven't see too many that want to jerk off a philosopher unless he's over 70 years old and dead.

It's hilarious how you dismiss scientists for their positivism then in the same post slander the most holistic of all endeavours as 'narrow' just because it is beyond falsifying and perspectivist (as if experience itself isn't perspective).

yes, that was the point of the post. It was ironic, parodying the type of person here that calls everyone a pseud.

I'd tell you, but you'd have never heard of them.

>There's thinking there but the attitude I believe is the primary reason why people are disturbed by his work. If he phrased it in a more neutral way he would garner more respect, as it stands his writing is unnecessarily aggressive and distracts from the point of his writing instead of adding to it. There's also the insistence that he is correct instead of allowing the reader to decide whether he's right or not, which is something that I think most people are so used to that when they see such an aggressive stance in writing they immediately turn off. I googled him and one blog post about him has AK himself calling them a fagot. If you're going to be intellectual, then why bully people?
>Even on Veeky Forums when people try to honestly communicate they only call each other faggots in jest, so A.K may not be a pseud per se but he's not doing himself any favors by putting down the reader.

I'll quote Nietzsche on this since he's canonical.
>On the question of being understandable. — One does not only wish to be understood when one writes; one wishes just as surely not to be understood. It is not by any means necessarily an objection to a book when anyone finds it impossible to understand: perhaps that was part of the author’s intention — he did not want to be understood by just ‘anybody’. All the nobler spirits and tastes select their audience when they wish to communicate; and choosing that, one at the same time erects barriers against ‘the others’. All the more subtle laws of any style have their origin at this point: they at the same time keep away, create a distance, forbid ‘entrance’, understanding, as said above — while they open the ears of those whose ears are related to ours.

and A.K. on his own style:
>Harsh truths can only be communicated through harsh words. But harsh truths are what philosophy exclusively deals in! Consequently philosophy can only be communicated through harsh words.

I didn't even know Canada had universities.