What is the difference between an intellectual and a pseud? What

An intellectual will not feel the need to prove to themselves or others how intellectual they are

I think that really is the only definition. A well-read pseud can still be pseudier than a poorly-read intellectual

An intellectual is a smart individual you agree with. A pseudointellectual is one you disagree with.

Sociologically speaking, I think you have to look at it as a question of legitimacy and illegitimacy, a relation or non-relation to the official, canonical or normative culture of intellectualism, as defined, for instance, by the universities or the established church. For example, There are members of the Church of England and there are dissenting nonconformists; there are university students and there are autodidacts. Weber says that historically the promotion of "intellectual culture" is related to the establishment of a religious priesthood or a bureaucratic civil service.

>>9188818
pseud.

>>9188711
An intellectual is on a personal path (he reads books because he is actually interested in their content, and he's sure that he will be able to use those informations). He will also be able to become the teacher of himself, freeing himself from the need of secondary literature to understand what he's reading.

The pseud is just trying to fit in (he reads Sartre books because he wants to be able to join debates about existentialism). Most of his opinions are just reworded essays he has read on the subject. He sees philosophy, literature and poetry as a social act, and use it to further improve his social condition.

tl;dr: read books by yourself and talk about it only with people who are worth talking to. Since we're both on 4chan we can assume that we're both pseuds.

It's simple really. A true intellectual is someone who never strawmans the opinions of people he disagrees with.

>>9188884
>doing it for social interaction

I must admit that I only watch movies and shows to be part of their community fandoms. But when it comes to books, I read what I feel like reading, I'd rather read a literally forgotten (and never famous in the first place) fifteen-page sci fi novel by an incompetent author and enjoy it than read Camus, Lao Tzu, Nietzsche, Sartre, Greeks, etc. just so I could brag about it on /lit/ and elsewhere.

Am I an intellectual?

>>9188902
yes

>>9188964

you're bragging right now, so no

>>9188964
>doesn't enjoy reading Nietzsche

hahaha oh wow

>>9188964
of course not.

>>9188964
hmm

maybe not

one possesses a high degree of cultural capital, the other is in the process of doing so

>>9189007
Fuck Nietzsche. He took the philosopher's life because his hot colleague with whom he was in love didn't let him smash.

(this is a fact. Read one of his biographies)

>why the hate
imagine you have two guys who offer to design a flood defense system for your city. one guy knows how to build one competently, and the other guy just likes telling people he knows how to fix the city's flood defense system. would the city be angry if you let the second guy build it?

>>9188718
>>9188808
>>9188830
>>9188902
>>9188964
>>9189020
Intellectuals
>>9188818
>>9188884
>>9188964
>>9189007
>>9189019
>>9189065
>>9189087
Pseudointellectuals

I hope this helps to answer your question OP

>>9189099
>made the pseud list
good to be hated by bad company

File: 1465160111918.jpg (3MB, 5096x3452px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5096x3452px

This picture may help.

Should anyone be added to it, btw?

It's about the standards of cultural capital required by them, and if they live up to it.

Example: "Start with the Greeks"
An intellectual would tell you to SWTG because he has read later philosophy and personally knows how important the Greeks are to them.
A pseud tells people to SWTG because he's heard people parroting it on /lit/, but if you ask him to give detailed examples of Greek thought revisited by contemporary philosophers, he'll be disarmed.

Pseuds will often write excessively long answers to demonstrate how well-read they are, and because they can't synthetize their thoughts into simple answers.
t. Pseud

File: FUKKEN OWNED.png (293KB, 593x937px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 593x937px

See if you can tell which person in this picture is a pseud.

>>9189129
>which person

Both.

File: no_war.jpg (83KB, 1375x645px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1375x645px

>>9189116
Gud.

>>9189129
both

>>9189129
One's a beta pseud, and the other is an alpha pseud

An alpha pseud is a pseud with an aura of authority

>>9189113
>Scaruffi
>Pseud
nah
This guy consumes an insane amount of art and has a pretty unique taste

>>9189129
both

>>9189129

Who is worse? Both are worse.

>>9189113
It's >everyone I can think of

>>9189129
That text is pretty woke t b h

>>9189129
>lack
I really doubt that guy read Lacan at 14 though if he did, that's more pseud than Nietzsche at 14.

>>9189113
>Chomsky
>pseud

He's famous, but he is still a major authority in the academic world, his arguments are coherent and are pretty much always backed by hard facts.
Not realizing this only means that you're a pseud.

>>9189129
Is this postmodernism?

>have a thought, share it on your blog
>people think you're a retard because you're using big words while making big metaphysical considerations

The only way to win with Sargon of Akkad is to be a complete retard, able to only slander ironically other people's opinions.

>>9189274
what would you win if you won?

>>9189299
The Akkadian throne I guess

>>9189308
kek

>>9189113
You're basically telling me that if someone can achieve fame amongst normies then they're automatically pseuds? Does that make Nietzsche and Socrates pseuds????

>>9189517
Well Socrates definitely is

>>9189519
DELET THIS

>>9189145
I'll tell him that you think he's an alpha pseud.

>>9189517
Nietzsche is a pseud but Socrates isn't.

>>9188711
To the first, intellectualism is a means, and to the second, it is an end.