Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 5,559,185
  • Total Topics: 106,348
  • Online Today: 763
  • Online Ever: 3,311
  • (July 08, 2021, 03:14:41 AM)
Users Online
Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 05:58:06 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Intellectual/Pseudo-intellectual

Started by Sam, July 15, 2007, 02:07:47 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sam

As many of you know, a couple of months ago I smoked a silly amount of weed and in my drug-addled state thought doing a lot of name-dropping would make me appear intelligent and well read. This was clearly a mistake, and I look back on those posts with embarassment and shame. In short, I was clearly being a twat.

However, one thing that I have been mulling over as a result of this is whether I am an intellectual or a pseudo-intellectual. Now, clearly, those posts were the work of a pseud in many respects but I'd like to think underneath it all I could be classed as an intellectual as well. The reason is that I am genuinely excited and inspired by learning and knowledge and love ideas. I don't read all that stuff primarily to impress people; I would still be reading heavy stuff even if I never posted on here or never had any cause to mention it in "real life" or anywhere else.

When I posted messages mentioning lots of books and thinkers it was mainly because I was genuinely inspired by the ideas therein and wanted to discuss them. At least, that's what I was thinking as I fumbled around the keyboard in a haze of smoke. Obviously, looking back, the desire to be seen as well-read etc was also there and to most people (rightly) that would have been the over-riding impression and not the aforementioned love of ideas. I'm not going to pretend that I wasn't showing off because if I'm honest, a part of me was. But I do have a thirst for knowledge and I do love to read, purely for my own enjoyment and pleasure.

So I'm probably 75% intellectual, 25% pseud (many may disagree with this figure!).

Anyway, I thought there might be some interesting scope for discussion about what constitues an intellectual and what's the difference between a genuine one or a psued. Which are you and to what extent?

And no, I am not stoned as I type this. Just a bit tired, but otherwise sober. In the last 7-8 weeks I have had the equivalent of one spliff (at a party) and haven't bought any weed at all (nor do I plan to). Where do I collect my medal?

Why would you like to be classed as an intellectual? What difference does it make to your life?

This kind of deliberate self-labelling will only limit your worldview in the end. It's as limiting as saying 'I could never respect someone who reads the Daily Mail' or 'I don't like Chinese food', only 62% more smug.

I'll soon start a thread about how one perceives other human beings, I think that will give you an opportunity to share some of your passion for life without being entangled in this kind of ephemeral navel-gazing.

Edit: I'm obviously a pseud, for what it's worth.

Ambient Sheep

Quote from: Sam on July 15, 2007, 02:07:47 AMIn the last 7-8 weeks I have had the equivalent of one spliff (at a party) and haven't bought any weed at all (nor do I plan to). Where do I collect my medal?

I don't know, but it sounds to me as if you deserve one!  Well done, mate.

It's too late at night to tackle the rest of your post now, even supposing I felt qualified to do so!  :-)

Sovereign

have you based your personality on adrian mole or something?

Oscar

Having a love of learning is fantastic and makes life a joy, but the difference between someone who loves to explore new ideas and an irritating pseud, at least on the surface, is that someone who loves ideas will explain those ideas in a way that other people can relate to and join in with, but a pseud uses dense, confusing sounding information (such as names) that no one understands, because his/her intention is that other people are impressed not engaged.
I think that difference is something that is learned in the world outside of education though - in University name dropping is a way to get grades, outside of University it's a way to get avoided.

Harry Coal

Quote from: Oscar on July 15, 2007, 10:18:39 AM
Having a love of learning is fantastic and makes life a joy, but the difference between someone who loves to explore new ideas and an irritating pseud, at least on the surface, is that someone who loves ideas will explain those ideas in a way that other people can relate to and join in with, but a pseud uses dense, confusing sounding information (such as names) that no one understands, because his/her intention is that other people are impressed not engaged.

Now that's an intellectual!

The Plaque Goblin


Shoulders?-Stomach!

Quote from: Sovereign on July 15, 2007, 02:43:02 AM
have you based your personality on adrian mole or something?

That's exactly what I thought, reading the thread. A quite bizarre tautology.

Sam

Quote from: The Boston Crab on July 15, 2007, 02:40:28 AM
Why would you like to be classed as an intellectual? What difference does it make to your life?

This kind of deliberate self-labelling will only limit your worldview in the end. It's as limiting as saying 'I could never respect someone who reads the Daily Mail' or 'I don't like Chinese food', only 62% more smug.

I don't necessarily want to be labelled as an intellectual. But obviously I'd rather be labelled an intellectual than a pseud.
The reason I posted this thread was to clear my name a bit. Some people, notably Dark Sky thought I didn't even read any of the books/people I was referring to when in actuality I have read a great deal.


Utter Shit

You'r
Quote from: Sam on July 15, 2007, 02:22:30 PM
The reason I posted this thread was to clear my name a bit. Some people, notably Dark Sky thought I didn't even read any of the books/people I was referring to when in actuality I have read a great deal.



You're not doing a very good job of dispelling the accusations that you're a pseudo. This passage isn't much different to what you were doing back then, you're still looking to impress someone by telling them how well-read you are - it's just this time you're not bothering to name-drop, you're just throwing out a general "No really, I am well-read!" statement. Boring. If you're an intellectual, great news for you. Fuck off and enjoy that fact yourself rather than trying to prove it to everyone else, because no one cares.

CaledonianGonzo

Quote from: OscarHaving a love of learning is fantastic and makes life a joy, but the difference between someone who loves to explore new ideas and an irritating pseud, at least on the surface, is that someone who loves ideas will explain those ideas in a way that other people can relate to and join in with, but a pseud uses dense, confusing sounding information (such as names) that no one understands, because his/her intention is that other people are impressed not engaged.

I think Oscar's definition of the difference is excellent, and I think Sam, you were guilty of coming down on the pseud side a few months back.

Back then I asked you about Structural Anthropology, cause you'd mentioned it so often (http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=14543.msg682638#msg682638):

Quote from: meI know sweet FA about Structural Anthropology.  Let's hear about:

a) what it is and
b) why I should be interested in it.

Bear in mind that I, and presumably most of the posters, have no grounding in philosophy, structuralism or anthropology.  Therefore you'll need to think about explicating its worth in layman's terms.

Instead of explaining, you hit me with this:

Quote from: SamThe reason you should read Levi-Strauss is he is simply the greatest intellectual alive today who has done more for human thought in the twentieth century than anyone else. Structuralism is the single most important current in the twentieth century and has spawned an immense amount of exiciting intellectual enquiry. He writes beautifully, Tristes Tropiques being particuarly elegant and engaging. If you want to understand the twentieth century you have to read his books.

Not only not very engaging, but also (in the last instance) a wee bit patronising.

I'm still open for an explanation, btw - even if I asked it in a semi-flippant way, it was only ever meant as a genuine attempt to find out what the ruddy hell was going on (and give you a chance to prove to people you weren't just trying to impress them).

pk1yen

If you drop names where they are unrelated to the context of conversation, or they add nothing to the discussion, then you're being a knob. If it genuinely fits and adds ideas to whatever's being talked about; or you genuinely want to explain how good you think a certain book is, for example, then it's fine to drop names. But if you feel "Further Reading", "See Also" and "References" sections should be added to the end of your conversation, you're probably using too many sources.

That said, I'm always scared people will see my new-found (over) use of semi-colons as pseudo-intellectual. Bastards.
I say that after removing one.

Utter Shit

That quote from him is just nonsense that skirts the issue. Sam's employed the ultimate pseud technique as well, name-dropping. I know fuck all about structural anthropology, but if I wanted to make someone think I did then I would go to Google, type in "structural anthropoly, theorist", and the first name (check if you don't believe me is a Mr. Levi-Strauss. So I could just say "read some of Levi' Strauss' work", reel off a few bland, general reasons why you should ("He is simply the greatest intellectual alive today" - no discussion of why) and there you go.

If Sam isn't a fraud, he does a bloody good impression of one.

Mr Colossal

Yeah, peoples main problem seems to be that  it's not like you've spared any consideration about them when you're writing something you 'supposedly' enjoy, and are attempting to start a discussion about.  Perhaps being in university, immersing yourself in people from your course/with similar interests, you've slipped into this habit of assuming people know precisely what you're talking about.


just taking the levi strauss quote:

Quote
"The reason you should read Levi-Strauss is he is simply the greatest intellectual alive today who has done more for human thought in the twentieth century than anyone else. Structuralism is the single most important current in the twentieth century and has spawned an immense amount of exiciting intellectual enquiry. He writes beautifully, Tristes Tropiques being particuarly elegant and engaging. If you want to understand the twentieth century you have to read his books."

There are many Who!? what!? like!?  Why!?  questions that immediately jump out at you whilst reading these 'empty' statements, which even people who had READ that particular levi-strauss book would be struggling to engage with, yet alone people who haven't got a clue what you're talking about!

So perhaps that's where the 'pseud'/'fraud' allegations are coming from. Spare a  thought for your reader, try take on a more teacher-like role (and by that i dont mean be patronising) assume you're preaching to people who don't have any knowledge of Levi Strauss, Structuralism, and where, why, and how it's 'the single most important current in the twentieth century'  (also does 'structuralism' have any competition!?) and you'll immediately make such an obtuse collection of statements, not only a lot more accessible, but your care for reader and subject will shine through as 'enthusiasm', and make it a lot more engrossing!

You're spending money on these books and taking time to study them, so i don't doubt for a second that you've got a genuine, bona-fide interest in the subjects... But just engage your brain and take all this into contemplation BEFORE pouring reams and reams uncongenial tangents out-there, because when you provide an unpenetratable wall of detached text like that, the lack of justification provided to anybody reading will switch the onus from whatever subject you claim to be ardent about discussing, onto you.


(also openly stating that you desire to be perceived as an intellect doesn't help either!)

the ruffian on the stair

I am an intellectual. It's so obvious I make no attempt to hide it. No one in their right mind would call me or consider me to be a pseudo-intellectual. I don't have to name drop authors because I haven't read most of them. If I want to read a brilliant and engaging book I'll write one myself (I can do it I'm that clever). Again the same thing applies to philosophy. I haven't the time to read all those Greeks and periwig prats. If I want something profound to stimulate me I listen to the sound of my own voice or I read my diary. I don't need to prove myself and I certainly don't need to improve my mind. About fifteen years ago my girlfriend's sister bought me Cervantes "Don Quixote" and Hardy's "Jude the Obscure" for Christmas. I left both books at the sister's house and pissed on her bathroom carpet for good measure. Short. Simple. I made my point.

The one thing I don't have is, weed. Now in order for you to research my intellect I think it best that you post me any weed you might have laying about your flat or house. If you don't have any in the house, pop out and buy some and post it to me (even if this means going into dangerous parts of town to meet drug dealers. I can assure you I'm worth taking the risk for).   

thugler

I think a lot of people who claim to be or try to appear as intellectuals are not in the vein of sam at all. More often then spout the ideas of whatever they have been reading as if it's the gospel, and will assume that just because they are seen as 'greats' that their ideas are fantastic. this pisses me off far more than the stuff sam has done (his levi strauss nonsense apart).

Not sure if I'd call myself an intellectual, since I don't spend nearly enough time learning/reading etc. While when I do read I do tend to go for something fairly 'clever', I don't read nearly enough, nor act like I would expect an intellectual would act. Nor am I a pseud since I don't try to pretend to be an intellectual or really want to be considered one (even if I did call someone a cunt the other day for reading one of jordan's books).

buttgammon

I'd say I'm intelligent but I'm not an intellectual. I'm interested in philosophy and stuff like that but much of it I can't make head nor tail out of and I'd rather be watching the football or listening to music than reading Derrida.

I write stuff myself but it's never deep or challenging and it's probably a load of bollocks. So I find intellectual stuff interesting sometimes but I never really get too deep into it. the closest I've got to true intellectual realms would be reading a book of cartoons about Lacan because I couldn't understand his actual writings. Some of his works are said to be badly translated, though.

And I'm not name-dropping because I admitted I couldn't understand it.

wasp_f15ting

I haven't read your previous posts to really comment, but I can comment on the subject. When people are at uni they are experiencing, probably for the first time amazing introspections into the human condition, as such they feel the text they are reading is speaking to them and you feel like you "feel exactly like that" without discerning the varieties of philological discourse.

What used to happen to me was, I would read a bit of Marx and though "OMFG I FEEL LIKE THIS" and a week later read Malthusian economics and feel like "OMFG I FEEL LIKE THIS" the point is, real academics use a lot of intellectual reference points to agree with their point of view, as such young and inexperienced individuals like myself were drawn into the argument without realising the identity of the ideas themselves.

After reading a fair bit for myself, I have realised you have to "pick a side" or your arguments and mental thought processes become extremely entangled with lots of contradictions. There was a prospect article on the matter of writers with great prose and writers with great ideas. So the former may convince you in a complicated way that their way of thinking is rational to you, and the latter might some completely aggressive and too far out for you.

Picking a side has meant I can concentrate on thought that really addresses the way I feel about life, and within doing this I have found convincing arguments against what I believe in, in the critique by authors I like against the ones I don't. Though this is rather simplistic, I don't want to look at the counter arguments till I am retired and settled down with a cup of coca.

So to answer your initial question, its all about passion as you love Zizek, you pretty much know how much Lacan is used in his work. Zizek is passionate about one persons foundation ideas that makes him a strong intellectual because he has a very strong sense of philological identity. A weak/pseudo intellectual in my eyes is a disorganised academic who doesn't know what he believes in. 

Sam

QuoteThe reason you should read Levi-Strauss is he is simply the greatest intellectual alive today who has done more for human thought in the twentieth century than anyone else. Structuralism is the single most important current in the twentieth century and has spawned an immense amount of exiciting intellectual enquiry. He writes beautifully, Tristes Tropiques being particuarly elegant and engaging. If you want to understand the twentieth century you have to read his books

I agree this is total bollocks and very patronising. It's exactly those kind of posts I am embarrassed to have written.

Sam

Quote from: Simon O'Brien on July 15, 2007, 02:27:01 PM
You'r
You're not doing a very good job of dispelling the accusations that you're a pseudo. This passage isn't much different to what you were doing back then, you're still looking to impress someone by telling them how well-read you are - it's just this time you're not bothering to name-drop, you're just throwing out a general "No really, I am well-read!" statement. Boring. If you're an intellectual, great news for you. Fuck off and enjoy that fact yourself rather than trying to prove it to everyone else, because no one cares.

When I said "in actuality I have read a great deal" I didn't mean "in general" but "...of the books/people I posted about". I am definitely not as well read as most people, but I am fairly well versed in the stuff I am interested in.

Anyway, I think I've shot myself in the foot yet again. Please just ignore me. I think it's time for another break from the board :)

Utter Shit

Quote from: the ruffian on the stair on July 15, 2007, 04:48:25 PM
I am an intellectual. It's so obvious I make no attempt to hide it. No one in their right mind would call me or consider me to be a pseudo-intellectual. I don't have to name drop authors because I haven't read most of them. If I want to read a brilliant and engaging book I'll write one myself (I can do it I'm that clever). Again the same thing applies to philosophy. I haven't the time to read all those Greeks and periwig prats. If I want something profound to stimulate me I listen to the sound of my own voice or I read my diary. I don't need to prove myself and I certainly don't need to improve my mind. About fifteen years ago my girlfriend's sister bought me Cervantes "Don Quixote" and Hardy's "Jude the Obscure" for Christmas. I left both books at the sister's house and pissed on her bathroom carpet for good measure. Short. Simple. I made my point.

The one thing I don't have is, weed. Now in order for you to research my intellect I think it best that you post me any weed you might have laying about your flat or house. If you don't have any in the house, pop out and buy some and post it to me (even if this means going into dangerous parts of town to meet drug dealers. I can assure you I'm worth taking the risk for).   


If there's one thing worse than pseudo-intellectuals, it's people who use message boards as a platform for 'performances' to show how clever and witty they are. Or, more to the point, if there's one thing worse than pseudo-intellectuals,  it's people who use message boards as a platform for 'performances' to show how clever and witty they are, when actually they prove the opposite every time. green crayon is the worst example of this, but you're not far off with efforts like this.

I'd say we should make a "Types of poster/posting you hate" thread, but in truth it would be hypocritical because we'd end up a bunch of posing Brooker-lite misanthropists, and would therefore be more annoying than the people we're moaning about.

rjd2

Christ where is rats when you need him?

Funcrusher

Quote from: Simon O'Brien on July 15, 2007, 07:02:20 PM
If there's one thing worse than pseudo-intellectuals, it's people who use message boards as a platform for 'performances' to show how clever and witty they are. Or, more to the point, if there's one thing worse than pseudo-intellectuals,  it's people who use message boards as a platform for 'performances' to show how clever and witty they are, when actually they prove the opposite every time. green crayon is the worst example of this, but you're not far off with efforts like this.

I'd say we should make a "Types of poster/posting you hate" thread, but in truth it would be hypocritical because we'd end up a bunch of posing Brooker-lite misanthropists, and would therefore be more annoying than the people we're moaning about.

Ye gods. That just seemed like a bit of pretty harmless self deprecating whimsy and gentle ribbing of Sam to me. If there's one thing worse than that, it's cunts like you. You're even worse than RJD2's latest album, and that's saying something.

CaledonianGonzo

Quote from: Funcrusher on July 15, 2007, 07:21:17 PM
Ye gods. That just seemed like a bit of pretty harmless self deprecating whimsy and gentle ribbing of Sam to me. If there's one thing worse than that, it's cunts like you. You're even worse than RJD2's latest album, and that's saying something.

Jesus - you're just as bad.  What sort of cunt would want to literally 'crush' fun?

(Who's next?)

BTW, Sam, for what it's worth, I feel guilty bringing up that post from a few months ago.  Cuntish of me - say you'll stay around....

Yes - that's right - I'm a cunt as well!

(Me - that's who!)

the ruffian on the stair

#24
Quote from: Simon O'Brien on July 15, 2007, 07:02:20 PM
If there's one thing worse than pseudo-intellectuals, it's people who use message boards as a platform for 'performances' to show how clever and witty they are. Or, more to the point, if there's one thing worse than pseudo-intellectuals,  it's people who use message boards as a platform for 'performances' to show how clever and witty they are, when actually they prove the opposite every time. green crayon is the worst example of this, but you're not far off with efforts like this.

I'd say we should make a "Types of poster/posting you hate" thread, but in truth it would be hypocritical because we'd end up a bunch of posing Brooker-lite misanthropists, and would therefore be more annoying than the people we're moaning about.


QuoteIf there's one thing worse than pseudo-intellectuals, it's people who use message boards as a platform for 'performances' to show how clever and witty they are.

As I said to the little girl who lives next door to me: take everything I say with a pinch of salt; unfortunately three weeks later she died of salt poisoning.   

QuoteI'd say we should make a "Types of poster/posting you hate" thread

What a nice person you are! And you have the temerity to point me out as a wanker!

Of course I show off. And fuckin' good at it too I am! If my posts are annoying you, don't read them. There's no science involved!

Mr. Analytical

Quote from: Oscar on July 15, 2007, 10:18:39 AM
Having a love of learning is fantastic and makes life a joy, but the difference between someone who loves to explore new ideas and an irritating pseud, at least on the surface, is that someone who loves ideas will explain those ideas in a way that other people can relate to and join in with, but a pseud uses dense, confusing sounding information (such as names) that no one understands, because his/her intention is that other people are impressed not engaged.

  I profoundly agree with this, but there are a couple of interesting rejoiners to it.

  Firstly, it's interesting how the media NEVER portrays that kind of intellectual.  The only intellectual who is ever clearly excited about ideas that I can think of is Bragg who seems genuinely fascinated by each and every topic he covers on Radio 4.  What's far more common is the media portraying "the life of the mind" (to quote Barton Fink) as being all about memorising huge chunks of information.

  There's an episode of the West Wing like this that drives me completely bonkers as Josh starts quoting Kant from memory.  I studied philosophy at university level for 6 years and I can't quote ANYONE verbatim.  We didn't get extra marks for memorising words or dropping names, just for properly engaging with the ideas.  I think that's stood me in excellent stead really because as an A-level student I was a terrible Pseud obsessed with knowing who thought what as opposed to what kind of ideas are out there.

 
  The other interesting side to this idea is that different cultures have different conceptions of the intellectual.  In Britain, there is no intellectual class.  In truth, the kind of people who class themselves as "intellectuals" tend to be snobbish prats or patronising pseudish cunts on a par with Barton Fink.  The concept is really a french one as in France you can essentially declare yourself "an intellectual" and people will fully accept this in the same manner as if you described yourself as a plumber or a waiter. 

  In Britain we tend to have "experts" who are the type of talking heads that appear on the news generally to parrot the government line on terrorism.

  The closest Britain has ever had to an intellectual class is the Boffin but that's disappeared in the wake of the government selling off all of its technical facilities from the BBC sound department through to the weapons designers.  Now Britain takes a very Americanised view of researchers which is that they're either academics or they're in business.  It's not a class thing or a social role.

 

the ruffian on the stair

Oh and Sam: show off, swank your book reading, proclaim yourself king, write your name across the sky. It don't bother me. It's the dull who make the hours drag. 


Has Firefox got a built-in typo maker!

Utter Shit

Quote from: Funcrusher on July 15, 2007, 07:21:17 PM
Ye gods. That just seemed like a bit of pretty harmless self deprecating whimsy and gentle ribbing of Sam to me. If there's one thing worse than that, it's cunts like you. You're even worse than RJD2's latest album, and that's saying something.

I'm not a cunt, I'm just stating the obvious. And RJD2 is rubbish. To be honest I don't really like hip-hop any more, Immortal Technique's the only person who still interests me.

Utter Shit

Quote from: the ruffian on the stair on July 15, 2007, 07:31:19 PM

As I said to the little girl who lives next door to me: take everything I say with a pinch of salt; unfortunately three weeks later she died of salt poisoning.   

What a nice person you are! And you have the temerity to point me out as a wanker!

Of course I show off. And fuckin' good at it too I am! If my posts are annoying you, don't read them. There's no science involved!
I didn't point you out as a wanker...I just said I dislike that posting style. The fact that you're posting 'in character' so to speak surely prevents me from judging your personality. I just dislike it when people 'perform' in their posts, it's a bit rubbish - especially when it isn't done well.

the ruffian on the stair

Quote from: Simon O'Brien on July 15, 2007, 08:22:46 PM
I didn't point you out as a wanker...I just said I dislike that posting style. The fact that you're posting 'in character' so to speak surely prevents me from judging your personality. I just dislike it when people 'perform' in their posts, it's a bit rubbish - especially when it isn't done well.

There really is no "character" stuff going on. This actually is what I'm like. I can't turn it off. Product of manic depression.

Moreover if I'm making myself look like an arsehole - why on earth would you want to stop me?  I bet you're right bleeding boring at parties. Someone gets pissed up and starts pulling down their trousers and pants and you're straight over to pull them up and stop the performance. 

Of course you didn't say arsehole (or wanker) but it's what you're implying.


Just to recap: there IS no off switch and this isn't a performance.