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

>>8415652
none, though it may also be rather large

pseud - watches Filthy Frank
actual - watches iDubbz

>>8415652
pseudo:>>8414754
actual intellectual:>>8415652

File: 42ec45a890c92341c1f5f8f9778d82a0.jpg (31KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x400px

the Mayans could smell mathematical impurities

File: 18723182769.jpg (2MB, 3240x3600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3240x3600px

>>8415652
Pseud - reads The Republic and says he knows the Greek
actual intellectual - reads pic related.

File: 1465875828356.png (338KB, 381x359px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 381x359px

>>8415652

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

>>8415757
Yea, the pseudo.

>>8415656
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

>>8415652
It's the difference between just knowing how to talk about something and actually knowing what you're talking about.

>>8415774

What's your view on Richard Dawkins?

>>8415652
Pseuds actually exist, "actual intellectuals" do not.

>>8415786

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

>>8415795

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".

>>8415774
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

>>8415804

Ding dong you're wrong.

I'll let you figure it out though.

>>8415720
how they do that?

>>8415762

>underclass ressentiment

neck yourself, prole

>>8415852

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

>>8415746
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

>>8415871

ah shit "bro"

>>8415786
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.

>>8415871

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

>>8415882
hm, I should have edited this. a bit of repetition

>>8415652
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.

>>8415855
They had a nose for numbers.

>>8415875
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.

>>8415915
How is he a fraud?

>>8415744
this, not even memeing

>>8415937

>How is he a fraud?

https://youtu.be/GF5EZgRxulg?t=17m26s

Does this guy really love science?

>>8415875
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

File: 20160819_192908.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

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

>>8416059
>strunk and white
american prescriptivist scum pls leave and read nietzsche

Pseuds post in /lit/, 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.

>>8415652
a pseudo-intellectual pretends to understand a thing and an intellectual understands a thing.

>>8416059
>DIE HARD

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

>>8416059
>Moonraker

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

>>8416059
>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

>>8416172
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."

>>8415652
Being true or pseudointellectual depends on what you are claimed to be by people.
There is no universal substantial criteria of "intellectuality"

File: 66.jpg (389KB, 500x605px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 500x605px

>>8416113
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.

>>8415652
I know that I know nothing.

>>8415746
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.

>>8416113
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

>>8415746
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"

>>8416104
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.

>>8416255
Will Hunting wasn't real

>>8415974
>da Vinci wasn't educated and had no formal education.
A guy who wasn't educated had no formal education?

Shocking

>>8416059
Op, you can't get a better example of a pseudo than that.

>>8416561
Neither have you apparently, dumbass.

>>8416605
>calls out anon for making a redundant statement
>is called a dumbass
Makes perfect sense.

>>8416608
>a dumbass goes to free school and drops out
>received formal education but remains an uneducated retard
>can't into logic, shitposts on 4chan

you're still a dumbass

>>8416614
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.

>>8416618
nobody notices you

>>8416605
>>8416614
>>8416621

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

>>8416618
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.

>>8416634
find the red x in your neck and click on out with a skewer

>>8415652
>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

>>8415774
>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.

>>8416698
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

>>8416728
>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.

>>8416766
It's a little bit like a professor of computer science who cannot code past BASIC.

>>8416775
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.

>>8416635
I wasn't calling him out for his sentence structure though, I was calling him out for the content of his sentence.

>>8416635
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 anon'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.

>>8416255
>didnt went

Looks like someone around here didn't go either.

>>8416818
That's the joke dum dum

>>8416820
I see now that you were merely pretending to be retarded. Forgive my previous statement senpai.

>>8415744
all i need to do to be an intellectual is read a 4chan infographic? neat

>>8416671
kill yourself nick

>>8416059
>no Art Of The Deal.

File: sideye.jpg (11KB, 287x285px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 287x285px

pseud: writes a paper on gender
actual: discovers relativity

Pseud - pretentious and arrogant

Actual - values humility above all else

>>8415652
One has read more

>>8416059
Nice Wal-Mart Bookshelf
I have exactly the same one

>>8416239
>>8416104
only good posts itt

>>8416059
>intellectual
>cant spell bonafide properly

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

>>8417278
>self-aware pseuds are actually intelectuals
no

>>8417278
only good post in this thread
/thread

>>8415652
>What's the difference between a pseud and an actual intellectual?
reads books about science, philosophy, and literature
reads textbooks scientific/philosophical papers

>>8415744
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.

File: 1471584652258.jpg (12KB, 438x438px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 438x438px

pseudo = wanabe, noob, shit brick. sham.

>>8415744
I'm almost afraid of ask, but what do the colors mean?

>>8415974

His "helicopter" couldn't even fly.

What a fucking idiot.

>>8416059

Chekhov is good, fuck all other repliers.

>>8415652
That's a good question. Judging by the replies, not many know the difference or have any way of determining truth. I'm scared.

>>8418280
Use this for philosophy instead
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic

Also, read hesiod at the same time as hamilton.

>>8416255
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.

>>8415937
>makes people laugh from time to tome
Joyce would approve.

>>8418770
kekd
>>8418219
then he's a hypocrite not a pseud kek

seems and is

>>8415652
Accomplishment.

>>8415652
An intellectual agrees with me but a pseud does not.

Plumage

actual intellectuals don't come to /lit/

>>8415652
If you're an intellectual you're genuinely curious about uncovering truths, you're not posturing for identity or looking for existential relief, you're just interested in understanding things.

That's literally all it is

>>8418555
Not interested in Philosophy. More of just general knowledge of the Greeks and their literature.

File: iK1R6Pj.jpg (768KB, 1157x1637px) Image search: [Google]

768KB, 1157x1637px

>>8419526
I think you have the first part correct.

The mark of an actual intellectual is a genuine search for truth.

Looking for existential relief is not contrary to being a true intellectual, unless, of course, that is the only motivation one has.

A pseudo-intellectual is someone who engages with intellectual content for some other reason than discovering truth, and they act as if they are in fact looking for truth and or are not being irresponsible.

There are various motivations, including posturing for identity, as you said, but otherwise there is the aesthetic motivation, where people engage with intellectual content because they find it entertaining, and the ideological or religious motivation, where people engage with intellectual content that pertains to a particular ideology or religion in order to immerse themselves within that ideology or religion. They do so for comfort or whatever other psychic motivation.

It's easy to identify the aesthetician by his careless attitude towards ideas, his transient or superficial engagement with them, and his selective hearing. You converse with him and he will affirm and parrot what you or others have said that strikes him as stimulating, often exaggerated or embellishing in the process.

The ideologue/zealot is easy to identify by his closedness - he mostly consumes content that affirms his worldview, and becomes defensive or closed off when you suggest alternatives to his worldview. This is in opposition to genuine intellectual activity, because a sure sign of the search for truth is the consumption of opposing views and their honest and equal consideration.

>>8418402
I believe it's simple design to help the reader follow the lines and what you need to read in order easier.

>>8419594
There are some books in that google doc that will help

Generally speaking the pseudointellectual has read a very small amount of primary source material, or even more disgustingly perhaps none at all. I've had people who have tried to field arguments against me who simply had not read the works we were debating the merits of but rather had read sparknotes or wiki articles on them and just regurgitated points on them.

Actual intellectuals are simply better read and/or have had more life experience with the topic at hand. Intellectuals actually know what they are talking about while pseuds know a few things about the topic, usually one very narrow aspect of it and try to present this shallow, narrow knowledge as authoritative.

>>8415657
i watch both

>>8418402
Different types of literature
Yellow = fiction, green = drama, blue = philosophy, etc.

>>8415652
The execreble pseud merely tastes the surface of their purported interest- whilst the venerable, true, intellectual chews down to the bone; swallowing every page they finish so as to fully digest the author's power. I am not being allegorical.

>>8416059

we get it youre a white guy

>>8418433
That's the only good thing there

>>8415652
pseud - favorite dialogue is republic
actual - favorite dialogue is phaedo

but srsly, an actual intellectual is humble and knows that he knows very little or even nothing. think of a sophist vs socrates

File: 1471500285067.jpg (47KB, 488x761px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 488x761px

pseud - has serious discussions on imageboards about philosophy and classical literature with various forms of virgins, neo-nazis, homosexuals, trannies, college drop-outs, and members of the autistic spectrum

actual - smuganimeface.jpg

Pseuds do it for the status
Intellectuals do it for the knowledge

File: 9781435154476_p0_v1_s469x700.jpg (22KB, 192x287px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 192x287px

>>8416239
>>8416104
>>8417278
>>8420230
Alright boys we've got a lot of "only good post(s) ITT" proposals. Let's start the voting for our grand prize winner of a new, 100℅ patrician copy of The Complete Works of Shakespeare. Only a true intellectual would own one.

>>8415795
>>8415824
Seconding. Calling someone an intellectual is like saying that water is deep just because you cannot see the bottom of it. Some people I know like to compare me to television characters that they think of as being "smart" just because I can do things they don't understand. Get way more credit than I deserve desu.

>>8415652
A pseud needs a thread like this one to tell them whether they're a pseud or not.

mainstream education

no excuses.

>>8420766
complete opposite

an intellectual needs a diploma

a pseud is self-assigned

>>8419744
>fiction

lmao kys famalam

>>8415744
most of that is garbage

>>8415966
I am not following. How about you actually explain

>>8415652
>intellectual
-knows multiple languages
-has varied interests and hobbies
-a refined taste in art
-doesn't waste his time on an anonymous image board
>pseud
-none of the above

File: file.jpg (1MB, 1371x1028px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1371x1028px

>>8420693
Already got one, senpai

>>8415652
I think the difference is action.

A fool wants people to know he is wise so he tries to act it, but a wise man is wise simply because he is. The difference is usually readily observable.

>>8416059
Thank you for the illustration, my dear martyr.

>>8416522
Underrated post.

>>8417278
But then every idiot who knows he's an idiot isn't an idiot, and every idiot is what he is.

Are you saying everyone is an idiot?

>>8421592
even by your logic your conclusion is false.

>>8415835
Yes he did

>>8421601
literally whos

>>8421601
being an intellectual is as much physical as it is mental. anyone who is out of shape or wears glasses is disqualified from being an intellectual due to physical inferiority and lack of will.

>>8415746
I study as many things as I can but I can't ever focus on one. Its not that I don't want to, I just physically cannot. My focus has only gotten worse and worse. Though I do learn as much as I can about a subject before my brain peels me away to something else for a time.

And if it helps my case any, I don't call myself an intellectual, that's just fucking stupid.

>>8420909
He's not interested in science and reason; he's interested in debunking religion

>>8423766
So you are just going to dismiss his entire career Over a single comment loosely interpretated.
You are a damn fool

>>8424153
Nigga I didn't even watch the video. I've seen some of his lectures and read a book and half of his. He really isn't in it for the science and reason.

>>8415656

Underrated post.

>>8424153
>fool
>interpretated

>>8415652
a pseud learns to try to become smarter
an intellectual learns to find the truth

>>8415746

You are confusing a psedo-intellectual with a dilletante, and an intellectual with any expert.

>>8424396
The book is entirely about reason.
Give me examples of your wrongnrss

psueds don't know they are psueds

intellectuals know they are psueds