Can I get some examples of pseudo intellectualism?

Making this thread
Posting on /lit/
Reading in public
Being poor

>>9810419
jordan peterson
sam harris

>>9810419
https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot

>>9810429
>t. Pseud

>>9810419
everything ever written by Nietzsche

File: Whale-bird.jpg (122KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 540x540px

>>9810428
>being poor

This:
>>9810804
People who read Nietzsche very badly.

>>9810419
my diary desu

>>9810419
noam chomsky

Nerdwriter1

>>9810419

Jordan Peterson
Sam Harris
Scott Adams
Christopher Hitchens
Richard Dawkins
Slavoj Zizek
Noam Chomsky
William Buckley
Gore Vidal

The /lit/ catalog

>>9810419
/pol/
/lit/
/sci/

>>9811456
anyone have the latest IGNORE pic?

Reading on public transport

>>9810419
I suppose that depends on how you define intellectualism, doesn't it?

>>9810760
That wannabe anarchists

>>9810419
Honestly, and I don't mean this to even be snarky, but pointing out who is an "pseudo" intellectual like this >>9811456
Is the most pseud thing there is. It reeks of bottom dog defensiveness and tall poppy mouth breeders.

People who are genuinely smart and confident in that will be able to see the gold in many educated ideas, even if they don't agree with them, they would not make it their mission to "out" others for being dumb because they wouldnt imagine that process as being able to give them anything they don't already have.

>>9811825

>pointing out pseuds is pseuds

You did the exact same thing you pseud.

>getting trapped in your own paradox

Plain dumb

File: 1498974457254.jpg (3MB, 3460x3012px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3460x3012px

>>9811500

>>9811898
If everyone is a pseud, who isn't?

>>9811858
No, I didn't point out any pseuds, I named the criteria for pseuds, and demonstrated an example. Not the same as naming a specific celebrity that I'm "better than."

>>9811922
According to /lit/, only absolute nobodies and unknowns. Makes them feel better about themselves.

ITT: pseuds are people I don't like

>>9811898
lmao papa franku

whenever someone spells it out instead of just casually calling someone a pseud desu

>>9811923

Lol dat dishonest reasoning.
You weren't calling that anon a pseud when you said that what he did is "the most pseud thing there is?"

What exactly is the fucking difference? You think these semantic games make you sophisticated? They're a fucking joke.

And he never said he was better than anyone, that's 100% projection on your part.

File: 0.jpg (30KB, 1000x624px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1000x624px

>>9811935
Listen, man, I don't know what you want me to say and I don't really care. I stand by the fact that a usual giveaway for pseuds is that they like to tear down thinkers more than they like to enjoy engaging with their ideas, AND I don't think pointing that out is a pseudo-intellectual thing to do. Maybe you just need to get over it?

>>9811898
>that random fucking soros photo

was Plato a pseud?
he didn't have tenure and just wrote sloppy fanfiction

>>9811456
>my man molyneux aint't on that list

Yaheaeaz

File: jordan-peterson.jpg (311KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 1200x800px

basically people who dont read a lot but say they do like pic related

John Green is one of the biggest pseuds I've ever seen

>>9811488
anyone have this in full?

>>9810419
Thinking the bible is the word of god

>>9811459
>>9811491
not even pseudo.

>>9811488
Intellectual vapourwave is not vapourwave.

>>9812320
But he's an historian. Haven't you seen all the videos of him summarizing Wikipedia articles?

>>9810419
see
>>9812489

File: socrates.jpg (154KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 600x800px

>>9811898
>Socrates
what did he mean by this?

>>9812815
Historian and cancer profiteer

>>9810428
>Reading in public
Why aren't you reading at any given chance, you pleb?

>>9811898
I'm surprised aurini wasn't posted there. He is the literal definition of a pseud and takes him self so serious too.

>>9812249
Molyneaux is the biggest pseud. His arguments are pure sophistry.

File: 1500763222771.png (249KB, 248x459px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 248x459px

>reading on the train

Is there anything more pretentious, more attention-seeking?

>>9813298
What do you do on the train?

If you want some hardcore pseudo check out a feels thread on >>>/r9k/ shit gets wild their.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida

>>9813298

woah bugs... easy on the carrots

>>9813298

i read on the train. reading in public is spectacle if you see the person looking around to see if theyre being seen.

id rather read a book than stare at other people reading or swiping away on their smartphone.

>>9812320
Actual good answer here. The guy and his crew are not particularly intelligent or talented, but they make plenty of money regurgitating already commonplace ideas, facts and themes in a simplistic manner intended for the lowest common denominator (both in their web content and in John's books).
Good examples would be most of the "educational" youtubers, as well as many of the political ones though I'd argue that many of them aren't pushing any intellectual narrative. The ones that are, are probably pseuds.

Pseud does not equal "guy better educated and more famous than me whom I disagree with". There are highly educated pseuds, like that woman who teaches philosophy at Harvard and had that pants-on-head retarded abortion justification discussion with James Franco, but you tend not to hear about them as often since they stay in their echo chambers.

>>9811898
>boogie

>>9811898
>jesus christ is a pseudo intellectual

I fucking hate this board and everyone on it

>>9813155
you seriously replied to that post seriously... god, is this board autistic

>>9810429
i listened to one of petersons podcasts called on religion myth, science, and truth, and it was basically him babbling from one subject to the other for 2 hours straight.

File: DFW3.png (192KB, 376x390px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 376x390px

>>9810419

Almost everything this guy has ever done.

>>9813935
The sheer volume of research he did makes up for it though

just browse /lit/

I'm actually not even willing to call Peterson a pseud even as a joke.
That man is literally saving western civilization.

>>9811898

>no reviewbrah

File: IMG_1501.jpg (24KB, 395x395px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 395x395px

>>9810419
Someone voiced an opinion that made me feel uncomfortable.

>>9811488
Ehhh pas mal pas mal...

>>9812836
Dostoevsky too? This chart is bait, m8.

>>9813298
I, myself, prefer to read on the beach. On a chair

>>9811456
>Slavoj Zizek
>Noam Chomsky

>pseudo-intellectuals
Please, Chomsky is one of the greatest erudites of our time, and Zizek's public commentary does not really reflect his actual philosophical career. He started telling jokes on tv only in his 50s, before that there are 40 years of intensely productive academic career. Generally reading his books will just show you that he really dumbs down lectures and interviews for uneducated people to understand him.

>>9811898
>"That's not fair" guy from Twilight Zone
Topkek

C. H. Jung
Ain Rand
Slavoj Zizek
Peterson etc

Homsky is good guy, but only in linguistics' area.

Just look in the mirror, OP.

>>9814624
>but only in linguistics' area.

eeeeek wrong.

his linguistics are intimately linked to his politics. remember political ideologies rely on assumptions on human nature. chomsky views people as structurally social, creative producers....as seen in peoples use of language and his theories on linguistics.

ha ha newb


why is /lit/ full of brainlets these days?

you're annoying. go away

>>9814624
Chomsky is respected in political science and foreign politics studies, and his works are read almost worldwide by students and scholars.
I genuinely can't see how Chomsky is not qualified in political sciences. Have you ever checked on his sources? The guy is a walking encyclopedia.

>>9813298
How cynical do you have to be to assume someone else reading is a show for you? That others only exist inasmuch as you perceive them? You're projecting your egotism.

>>9814654
Did you ever read his writings? I did.

>>9814667
Students and scholars can read everything. And that doesn't make some bullshit more scientific.

>>9814654
Everyone's theories about everything is linked to their politics you fucking hack.

>>9814717
>scientific
You're an idiot.

>>9814857
Tell your arguments please.

>>9810419
>>>/lit/

>>9813748
>>9812320
Is anything for kids or teenagers pseud

>>9814882
Well you seen to think that scientific is better than scholarly for some reason. But the only difference at that point is actually conducting a scientific experiment. So do you think that to have a good knowledge of a field (e.g., politics) you must conduct experiments?

>>9811898
>Jesus Christ, Bertrand Russell, Kafka, Chomsky
>Socrates

This isn't funny this is just embarrassing

>>9811898
>Tolstoy next to OnisionSpeaks
kek'd

>>9815099
Damn, you beat me to it.
This entire board is an example.

File: 71bf4186f2fd86fe7990f814bb956dd6d77d68ee46e6de9d981f02268d87422f.jpg (48KB, 394x406px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 394x406px

>>9810419
>browses reddit
>unironically talks about Bill Nye as if he has any credibility.
>continually uses buzzwords and obscure language to make a point in an "argument"
>gets offended from differing point of views
>thinks he's always right, incredibly pompous and arrogant,
>talks with the mannerisms of a stereotypical Londoner
>will dismiss you if you fail to recall his vague quotes from trashy "enlightenment" (((philosophers)))
>memorizes tons of pointless quotes that he googled, favorite quotist is fucking Winston Churchill
>quick to call others pseudo-intellectuals with a lack of basis for reasoning

That's all folks, if two or more of these correlate to you, you may be in threat of being a pseudo-intellectual.

>>9816262
>uses buzzwords and obscure language
>correlate to you
I hate it when people misuse the term corralate. Which reminds me, you forgot:
>anyone who reads "I fucking love science"

>>9811922
>>9812249
>>9812836
>>9813120
>>9813884
>>9814078
>>9815784
t. plebs

>>9816285
You just misspelled correlate you fucking twit.

Also, what the fuck are you even attempting to say?

>>9810419
This entire board, mah dude. /sci/ is pretty bad, too. People who actually study and apply their knowledge in real life aren't as eager to show off how smart or educated they are.

>>9816522
The problem we have here is that people perpetually browse this board and get a bloated sense of value from it.

They continue to discuss the same topics they've discussed a thousand times and in doing so minutely refine their understanding of these topics.

In refining these topics they resort to continually come up with arbitrary and abstract philosophies as a result, which is portrayed as complete gibberish to the layman.

Also, to all you /lit/ilectuals here, reading books doesn't make you smart.

>>9816513
How can you not understand?

People who overuse or misuse the term correlate are pseuds.

People who browse I fucking love science are pseuds.

Etc.

>>9810419
This thread.

>>9816522
>show off how smart or educated they are.

On an anonymous image board. This isn't leddit. There are no upvotes to tickle people's vanity.

I can find /lit/ to be a decently tolerable place to discuss countercultural ideas, but there's plenty of dross and garbage posts to be had.

The one thing I can appreciate is that people who come here just enjoy discussing ideas and books and shit, because they enjoy it. There is no need to stroke your ego because it's anonymous.

>>9816610
And yet it's by far the most hostile and insufferable board.

>>9811429
The definition of it desu

>>9816649
Guess I don't linger here too often, thank goodness. /his/ is way better most of the time, and there is a decent amount of overlap in subject matter.

>>9810428
>the wealthy in our society aren't idiotic
etymologically speaking

>>9811898
this is the fake one. I asked for the latest legitimate one, thanks.

>>9816781
None of them are legitimate you autist.

File: CPSTwpeWgAEkqQz.jpg (25KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x400px

>>9810419
Armoured Skeptic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnHmaUVxWDk

>>9816781
Who on there isnt a pseud

>>9814607
>greatest erudites

How can I be a great erudite one day

>>9813748
Speaking of which, James Franco has got to be one.

>be an elite
>Use status to take writing classes at a bunch of prestigious universities
>Release one of the worst poetry books of the decade
>On top of that, continually pump out moronic drivel posing as "comedy" with your secret butt buddy, Seth Rogen.

>>9811422
THIS.

>>9816262
>>continually uses buzzwords and obscure language to make a point in an "argument"
>>gets offended from differing point of views
>>thinks he's always right, incredibly pompous and arrogant
So everyone on /lit/ is a pseudo-intellectual?

File: 1500959482127.png (1MB, 2676x1057px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2676x1057px

>>9810419
Jakron of Akbar

/thread

File: image.jpg (75KB, 818x819px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 818x819px

>>9814066
>brain dead fraud
>saving western civilization

suicide yourself

>>9811898
>Cheech and Chong
>Mahler
lmao

>>9819012
Just about yeah.

You're browsing in it!

>>9819044
Nice ad hominem, smuggly

Ironically those who call others pseuds tend to be pseudo i intellectuals in the vast majority of cases