Anyone here ever realize how much of a major pseud they were

Me. I spent years memeing books on /lit/. In the past year or two I've actually read books, books I had opinions on. Someone called me out on my wiki knowledge and I felt ashamed. I started with the Greeks for a little bit and some HS stuff before trying to figure out what I like

>>9677579
hi, ontologicool

>>9677579
Yeah. The older you get the more you'll realize how much of a pseud you actually were/are. I've been told I'll feel the same about what I think of myself now as how I currently think about how I thought 10 years ago, but we'll see...

t. 33 year old

>>9677599
Kek, but no

>>9677601
I do this thing where every year I look back to where I was a year prior and think of that version of myself as a big dumb idiot whom I'm ashamed to acknowledge ever existed

>>9677644
Yeah, I usually end up doing that about once a month.

When I became 13 I realized worrying about whether I was a pseud made me a pseud because that's what I observed among the poor people and now I'm rich and a patrician who takes advantage of the pseuds, they who think they can be patrician without money, and they think that I can be a rich pseud but those don't exist thus I stand on them with one leg while they twitch on the ground like the ants they are and as a poor chap you can never drink my wine because my wine is worth more than the clothes on your back as I'm playing 3D reversi in a 2D world you poor loser.

>>9677579
Well, this depends on how you understand "pseud". The critical thing is to understand that some people engage in posturing as an intellectual while unknowingly solidifying their knowledge about a subject they've recently engaged in, and others, who've had time to reflect on what they might have regurgitated in the past, give no real critique or rational breakdown, or even novel reiteration of the subject. The first are people that are usually awed by a subject and use any opportunity to speak about a subject without any commitment to understanding the subject rigorously. The humble among them slips by the sneers of those committed to that subject. University students and rich yuppies at dinner parties have these people in spades. While this first person is excusable and should be shown not only the humbleness to not speak, but the humbleness to speak and address what is possible that they yet do not know; the second, however, is The Unholy, the detestable. One must always beware of the second. A good example you'll find here is Jordan Peterson. The label doesn't fit, and yet for some it seems to, right? If you understand that distinction you'll begin to understand why no matter how much you understand of a single subject, only the rhetoric, the language will be judged.

And, by the way, if you're rigorous in your field then only enter into other fields if you've got an agenda.

Killing your masters will make sense only if you're willing to subjugate yourself first.

>>9677672
Back to the Greeks.

>>9677579
A non meme answer, any path you're on is inherently yours. To sway from it is to extend your path that will lead to both familiarity and unexplored terrain. Even this crisis of yours could be episodic. No, not talking from a psychoanalytic approach, that would be the meme answer. Nothing wrong with you desu.

>>9677691
Expand on the concept of "the Unholy"

>>9677659
>not bi-weekly
psued

Woke bump

>>9677794
>not hourly
get off my board

>>9677579
a pseudo-intellectual is merely someone who cannot give credit where credit is due. who cannot accept their learning from those who came before. who cannot accept their ignorance.

a pseudo-intellectual is essentially a dishonest person.
so what you're really asking is, "when did you grow the fuck up"

The difference between a reader and a pseud is bringing yourself to utter the phrase "I haven't read that", as opposed to craftily avoiding any admission to gaps in your knowledge. Especially when it comes to philosophy, where wiki memory reigns supreme.