Tfw deep down I know I'm a pseud

Here is the attention you wanted.

...

Then youre not, user. Take that anxiety seriously and keep going.

>tfw deep down i am a genius limiting himself

Don't worry about being an intellectual, you can just be someone who reads books.

Hey, don't *fuarking* mock Reddit.
*receives Karma*
Thank you, dear sirs.

This. Every other pursuit is allowed to be casual but as soon as you show an interest in lit or philosophy then everyone has to aspire to being a fucking full-time scholar. Just read what interests you.

The only justifiable reason to ever read books is a masochistic commitment to truth and knowledge. Any act of discovers lays you vulnerable to total existential dismemberment as a result of the dark and mysterious depths of modern knowledge.
If you don't have that self annihilating will then you should not be reading books, stick to safe domains like television and politics where nothing will disrupt your innocent sleep

Woah dude, I'm just about to start reading Nietzsche too. Will I need to use spark notes as much as you did???

you sound sensitive.

Oh sweet summer children, how little you know the cliff you skip on

I respect the effort that you've put into this bait, love.

um, no, sweeties

There are people that are much smarter and better read than you who didn't devote their lives to intellectual pursuit. You sound like you substituted literature for a religion.

>There are people that are much smarter and better read than you who didn't devote their lives to intellectual pursuit.

Name one

Um how bout you lick my damp and pink asshole, sweatheart?

>Name one
Homer (the poet not the cartton)

>damp and pink
gurm is that you?

Homer didn't even read Joyce, he was a fucking pleb

Holy shit are you a pseud or what. He wrote the fucking Anaeid he doesn't need faggy Joyce

>start learning Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.
>Read the Greeks. Philosophy, history, and fiction. Pre-Socratics, Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Polybius, Hesiod, Homer, Aeschylus, Euripides, and Sophocles.
>read the Romans. Cicero, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Virgil, Ovid, and Horace.
Read the Bible in the original languages (Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Aramaic, and Koine Greek) as well as the King James Bible.
>Read the early Christian writers. Ignatius, Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.
>Read everything Shakespeare ever wrote.

If this was all you did for the rest of your life, you would die an extremely wise man.

He'd die a virgin t b h

Worth it t b h

that was gonna happen anyway t b h

kek

It's not worth learning all these languages unless you already have a natural acuity for learning. I can imagine, if you're one of these super brains with seemingly perfect memory, language learning just sort of happens along the way because you pick everything up.

Why bother pretending to be able to compete with gifted people? You'll always be a joke to actually smart people unless you're actually smart.

For someone of average intellect, learning Latin or Greek could only result in you looking like you are trying to seem smart.

tfw I'm intelligent, nihilistic with a wicked sense of humor.

easy on the kant, babs

fuck you these always get me

Most people are pseuds.

>tfw I'm a pseud
>tfw a quality education is so inaccessible in this country that it's impossible for me to overcome this.
>tfw autodidacticism is a futile endeavor
I'm becoming more bitter and anti-intellectual by the day. Ever since I was young, I wanted to be some sort of scholar, but soon I'll probably burn all of my books in a jealous rage.

>tfw finally accepted that creative writing cannot be taught

F. Scott Fitzgerald wasn't talented.

shallow people tend to focus on the image that others hold of them; if you're past a certain threshold of intelligence, this obsession will lead to a schizophrenic desire to be all things to all people—necessarily contradictory unless you live in a fully homogeneous society. my breakdown included the belief that i was the reincarnation of julius caesar, among other things.

the two natural reactions to this unstable looking-outwards, it seems, would either be a cultivation of the inner self, or a quick 'n' dirty repression of such reflections. the latter usually involves alcohol or some other numbing drug, and is, as such, not healthy in the long term. the former is advocated by the stoics (to a degree), and is the process of placing one's self (and one's limitations) in the boundaries of external forces. many wise people agree with the stoics.

it is my unlearned and indefensible opinion, however, that both reactions are deleterious. the proper method to curing one's discontent with themselves (in such a narrow manner) and leaving behind the feeling of being a pseud is to deny the self without denying anything else. this method therefore precludes buddhism, which denies the existence of an apprehensible and objective reality. i also don't necessarily mean that self-flagellation in pursuit of christ's imitation is the healthy alternative, because a sudden flight to religion could either fuel one's narcissism or alter one's perception of reality for the worse.

there are truisms that have been so often repeated that they appear to lose their truth. "fake it 'til you make it," i think, is a brilliant example of what one should do when faced with such a crisis. again, this maxim doesn't endorse the pretense of knowledge which has yet to be attained. i see it as:
>you have a base of accumulated knowledge from experience
>divorce the knowledge from the experience
>don't hold absolute faith in your knowledge, but don't discard it either
>discard all thought pertaining to past experience
>cultivate a new set of experiences, from scratch, piecemeal
>if something new arises which challenges an assumption in your base of knowledge, test it by reason to see which proves superior
>repeat, until you have regained confidence enough to collate all the new experience and tempered knowledge
>at this stage, don't discard the humility

t. a pseud

shots fired lmao

Remain, Harold.

this is literally why you are a pseud. your inability to put forth any effort into learning or bettering yourself because you're scared you're still going to look stupid to literal geniuses. yes, there will always be people who are smarter than you, and there will always be people who learn more quickly than you do, but that doesn't give you a fucking excuse to not try.

I am surely positive that everyone in this thread has some form of autism or another.

Is this a meme?

start with MAGA

>surely positive
Spotted the psued

You can't have intellectual without pseudo.

So become a poser.

nah man honestly Latin and Greek are 100% not worth the effort. I've spent 5 years on both and can't read shit. Or rather I can't read anything I actually wanted to read (Virgil, Homer, Cicero etc). On the other hand, I've put half as much time into learning French and I'm effectively reading fluent. Camus, Sartre, Voltaire, news articles and journals: literally anybody is readable if I have a dictionary on hand. Sincerely, I'm telling you, the payoff for learning an ancient language is abysmal compared to that of learning a modern one. Latin syntax is fucked, Greek verb forms are also fucked, and the paucity of opportunities to speak and listen to either mean the usual, 'natural' method of language learning is severely constrained. Comprehensible input is also undesirable because the texts you're supposed to read are too artificial and simplistic to sustain anyone's interest to the point where they can read actual classical texts.

+ it's literal a fact of nature that old minds learn shit harder than young ones. In the time it takes to learn Latin to the point where you can actually, finally read a classical author with the fluidity of your native tongue, keeping in mind the fact that up till then all you've been able to read have been watered down puerile textbooks of no literary worth whatsoever, you could have read (and actually thought and pondered and compared and written about) a fuckload more other books in a language you actually understand, and have learnt something genuinely worthwhile in the meantime.
is right when he says it's not worth learning all these languages. And if you're old enough, it's probably not worth learning any languages at all.

But I'm an autistic fuck with no common sense, and I've sunk too much time into these bullshit classical languages to give up now.

...

nice post, i wish i could think of stuff like that and write it

>this method therefore precludes buddhism, which denies the existence of an apprehensible and objective reality.

I disagree. Maya simply means that the world is not as it first seems.

>implying Harold will ever die

He'll out shitpost as all.

honestly, i wrote that on too little sleep and too many uppers. feel free to disregard anything; buddhism is way out of my field.

BAS is amazing, still love the hijab one.

the only person smarter than me is Thomas Pynchon

Woah

deny the self of what?

You must be pretty stupid then.

wow, Veeky Forums is gay af

If you're here, you're a pseud

fuck you im not a pseud

>the process of placing one's self (and one's limitations) in the boundaries of external forces.

Can you elaborate on this?

At least I've contained my pseud phase to my teenage years- I'd say the peak moment was when I namedropped Kafka in my AP English class senior year without having read him. Wew laddie

Suicide

sure, that actually seemed a bit obscurantist. with apologies to the finer details of stoicism, their basic principles were that emotions lead people away from reason—reason which would lead people to virtue, which in turn described a state that was in accordance with Nature (or what monotheists would call "divine Will," chinese call "Tao," and DFW calls "water"). also, contemplation was all well and good, but it was a person's deeds which determined the nature of their character, not their intellect or rhetoric.

what you quoted from me could be boilerplate stoicism in the form of the serenity prayer:
>god, grant me the serenity to accept the things i cannot change,
>the strength to change the things i can
>and the wisdom to know the difference.
hackneyed, i know, but still very essential

deny the self of attention, by which i mean: don't hold what you perceive to be your current "self" worthy to be the primary object of your reflection. works can teach someone in crisis much more than a private dialogue with oneself. i suppose an analogue would be why catholics disapprove of christian mysticism outside the church—you might be intensifying your personal relationship with god, or you might be tricked by the devil. without the reference of the church, it's impossible (so they say) to tell.

the worst thing about doing all of the above is that deep down you know you'll never be a chad

At least you will be somebody.