/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17350217]

How come when intellectuals intellectualize everything they end up missing the point?

[Anonymous No.17350226]

>>17350217
What do you mean? An example, anon.

[Anonymous No.17350227]

>>17350217
>how come when cooks cook things they only cook what they cook?
What's up it's your boy faggot op right back at it again w the retard takes

[Anonymous No.17350278]

>>17350226
Many posts on /lit/

[Anonymous No.17350303]

>>17350217
True intellectuals don't get recognized as such. They just come off as "correct." The being you know as an intellectual is trying to prove how POWERFUL their brain is and DIFFICULT they can be to understand. In this they succeed, but only this. See: Adorno

[Anonymous No.17350310]

>>17350227
Fax. Also weaboo trash

[Anonymous No.17350322]

>>17350310
>fax
>weaboo
alright nigger go back to r*ddit

[Anonymous No.17350323]

>>17350278
Oh, people aren't that bright, anon. Everyone miss the point eventually, we are human. It is not a /lit/ only thing, you would notice the same on goodreads and everywhere else. And as things get complicated gets easier to take wrong turns.

[Anonymous No.17350366]

>>17350217
Because when you're judging or reasoning about something what you're actually working with is a kind of pre-verbal intuition ("thought-feelings") that language only latches onto 1/10th of a second after the fact in order to crystallize it and allow you to bring it to the fore later (otherwise your cognition would just be a soupy mix of ephemeral impulses, like animals). The problem is that when you do this too much the language kind of takes on a life of its own and instead of properly functioning as a little hyperlink shortcut to the original thought-feeling, it acquires all this post-processing baggage from your own mind palace meta-reasoning about the thing in question and so you end up with this conceptualization of the thing which is overwrought and verbose such that even though you think you've acquired a clearer impression of the original thought-feeling, you've actually acquired a highly distorted version of it

[Numen !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17350567]

>>17350217
Because they go from revolving around the point to drifting away from it, instead of resolving it, thus precluding revolutionization of the potential ideatic seed.

[Numen !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17350627]

>>17350217
>>17350567
Addendum: You mean: "intellectualists"/"sophists", not: "intellectuals"; if one possesses intellect, and virtuously uses it, one is an intellectual (person); if one possesses intellect, and viciously misuses it, one is an intellectualist/sophist, otherwise known as a: "dickhead".

[Anonymous No.17350635]

If you get paid to bullshit, you’re going to bullshit. You’re not going to present the simplest solution, because your peers will attack you for being ‘simplistic’, even though in most fields, simple stuff that works is preferred over complex stuff that doesn’t

[Anonymous No.17350674]

>>17350217
>>17350366

Weeb garbage. Fuck yourself subhuman, you are unwanted. Cease to exist bitch

[Anonymous No.17350699]

>>17350674
Someone seems a little angry desu senpai

[Anonymous No.17350700]

KEK triggered

[Anonymous No.17350850]

Intellectuals are incentivised only to get the approval of their like-minded peers and say shit outrageous enough to get them public attention
There's no incentive for them to say the truth, not that there is any to empirically validate what they say

[Anonymous No.17351117]

>>17350217
yes, therefore do not use your critical faculties even once!

[Anonymous No.17351182]

>>17350217
how come your boipucci is so tight?

[Anonymous No.17352020]

Arguing with most people is pointless. After all people just want to be right. Who cares about points, they just take mediocre political flow and base their entire mediocre identities around it. Works for them, no matter how far or close they are to the actual point. They just want to use fancy words and look cool.

[Anonymous No.17352277]

>>17350217
Because abstractions are illusions and depictions necessary for us to understand anything beyond what we sense at face-value, but the more layers of abstraction you add and the more you judge and extrapolate from it, the more it becomes detached from any semblance to reality. Without abstract perception we can’t have thought and language, but without suspension of judgement for perception we can’t have reality as it is.