[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 27 KB, 563x637, 1388612540081.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5085993 No.5085993[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Is it possible to be both an intellectual and not smug and pretentious? How does one go about this?

>> No.5086000

>>5085993
>Is it possible to be both an intellectual and not smug and pretentious?
Yes.
>How does one go about this?
Be neither smug nor pretentious

>> No.5086002

/thread

>> No.5086004

>calling yourself an intellectual

nope

>> No.5086005

⇒Is it possible to be both an intellectual and not smug and pretentious?

Nope and the fact that you had to ask shows us how you're far away from being a true intellectual like myself.

>> No.5086006

>>5085993
It is possible to be both.
You do so by reading Notes From Underground.

>> No.5086015

>>5085993
Simply put, of course. Smugness and pretension are more often than not signs someone has a pretty limited base of knowledge and doesn't realize how little they know.

>> No.5086019

>>5085993

REGARDING THE QUALITY OF BEING INTELLECTUAL AS A STATE OF BEING, AND AS SOCIAL STATUS, PRESUPPOSES A TENDENCY TO DISPLAY SUPERCILIOUS BEHAVIORS, AND THE FACT THAT YOU ARE ASKING THAT QUESTION IS INDICATIVE OF YOUR OWN SUPERCILIOUS TENDENCIES.

THE QUALITY OF BEING INTELLECTUAL IS NOT A STATE OF BEING, NOR A SOCIAL STATUS, BUT THE COGNITIVE MODE IN WHICH INTELLECT –LOGICAL REASON– PREPONDERATES OVER OTHER COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS.

>> No.5086022

>>5085993
I thought half the fun of being an intellectual was the ability to smugly sneer at lesser beings in order to mask your overwhelming sense of loneliness and alienation.

>> No.5086028

>>5086005
Please adopt a name or trip so I can filter you. Thank you in advance.

>> No.5086031

>>5086019
This. REI does it again.

>> No.5086108

>>5086022
>half the fun
>not all of it

gtfo plen

>> No.5086129

>>5086108
Well the other half is actually having deep and meaningful conversations about topics that matter.

Of course in order to do that you actually have to encounter someone who isn't borderline retarded, which is admittedly very rare.

>> No.5086142

>>5086019
YOU ARE RIGHT YET ANGRY ALL THE TIME, ASSHOLE.

>> No.5086143

>>5085993
How the fuck is this even a question? One is a question of intelligence and one is a question of attitude. The two are entirely independent

>> No.5086160

>>5086143
As an intelligent person who has spent a lot of time with other intelligent people, let me tell you we're almost invariably all morbidly depressed snobbish assholes.

>> No.5086167

>>5086160
>As an intelligent person
Stopped reading right there.

>> No.5086172

>>5086167
See? Clearly you're intelligent too.

>> No.5086204

>>5086160
>As an

stopped reading right there

>> No.5086214 [DELETED] 

yeah op if you're smart you just got to play it cool. I'm smarter and better than most everyone know but I would NEVER let them know. I'm not an asshole. ;-)

>> No.5086220

yeah op if you're smart you just got to play it cool. I'm smarter and better than most everyone I know but I would NEVER let them know. I'm not an asshole. ;-)

>> No.5086227

If you're worrying about it, you likely are smug and pretentious. Fancying yourself an intellectual is a giveaway.

>> No.5086229

>>5086160
I'm willing to bet you're absolutely insufferable in real life. Not because you're smart, but because you desperately want to be.

In my real life experience, people of actual intelligence rarely make a big deal out of it.

>> No.5086236

Some people will always think you are smug and pretentious if you are better than them at something.

>> No.5086255

>>5085993

Listen to the Bookworm podcast. At first I thought the host, Michael Silverblatt, was pretentious by virtue of his erudition, but he's actually very open and humble.

>> No.5086257

>>5086229
>In my real life experience, people of actual intelligence rarely make a big deal out of it.

Yet that doesn't apply to a lot of veryintelligent writers and thinkers, as well as quite a few scientists. I'd say having to read and think a lot on yourself means that you will spend a lot of time alone, discussing with yourself, thus becoming one of your most common frequentation (as you will get more and more conscious of yourself). This can foster a sense of isolation, of uniqueness, and eventually, of aloofness and smugness toward other people.

Note that this reasoning doesn't apply too well with extremely sociable people, no matter how intelligent they may be, and that intelligent people constantly surrounded with a lot of people of similar intelligence, with whom they can discuss, will also be less prone to that behaviour.

So intelligence merely intensifies and justifies, a posteriori, in a way, whatever sense of superiority you got from your own vanity and your own character.

>> No.5086259

>>5086255
>Bookworm
>Intellectual, accessible, and provocative literary conversations.
sounds horrible

>> No.5086260

Never assume you're the smartest person in a room because you probably aren't. There are brilliant people walking around who you would never guess are capable of so much.

Try to be like those people.

>> No.5086261

>>5086257
>a posteriori
Kill yourself

>> No.5086266

>>5086257
>all this damage control

>> No.5086275

>>5086259
>Intellectual, accessible, and provocative literary conversations.
>sounds horrible
That explains your presence here on /lit/ no doubt.

>> No.5086281

>>5086275
>intellectual

>> No.5086294

>>5086260
This.
I realised that the smartest are those who hide their powerlevels.

>> No.5086310

It's possible to be intellectually curious without being smug and pretentious. But being an "intellectual" means you actually consider yourself part of some class of higher beings who are smarter than the general population only because they think the shit they read is important.

>> No.5086312

>>5086261
ok dude. Thanks for contributing I guess.

>>5086266
Did I offend you somehow ?

>> No.5086316

>>5086310
you could be an intellectual and not know it. some people are just studious when it comes to shit they're into and they probably don't think about being an intellectual or not. like a few of my fave painters or guitar players aren't interested in the "art" aspect of what they're doing. they just do it the best they can as often as they because they love it and that's all.

>> No.5086325

>>5086310
>>5086316

When we say "intellectual" we generally mean a class of dedicated thinkers/readers/writers who spend most of their time reading/writing/thinking on general issues.
It's interesting that the world "intellectual" is never used so often for mathematicians or physicists as it is for writers or sociologists.

>> No.5086326

>>5085993
Realize that you did not give yourself intelligence, but that it is a gift from God, to be used accordingly.

From he who is given much, more is expected.

>> No.5086344

yes

but then you suffer the side-effect of lameness and dullness

>> No.5086354

>>5085993
An intellectual would know how not to be pretentious

>> No.5086422

Intellectuals wouldn't have pretensions.

>> No.5086484

I once saw an interview with the great John Searle in which he said that, in high school, he and his friends were very 'self-consciously intellectual' and they would despise pop music (Sinatra etc.) and only listen to Beethoven and things like that. He said it was very healthy and I agree.

If you want to be really good at something which demands great intellectual power, you have to discuss this with friends, wife etc. until all of your world is surrounded by it. So, if you're a writer, all you think about is literature and you talk about it with friends etc. Naturally, when you meet someone who doesn't know anything about lit and reads only shitty books, your tendency is to think of this person as an inferior creature: it's so obvious to you that DFW is better than Harry Potter that only a stupid person could ever prefer the later. If it weren't so obviously obvious, you wouldn't have the passion to become an intellectual in the first place.

So, I think a sense of superiority is, to some perhaps limited extent, almost necessary for you to become a good intellectual. You gotta think that what you're doing makes you better than others, otherwise you won't have the willpower to do it, because it sure is difficult.

>> No.5086499

>>5086000
Trips confirm

>> No.5086510

Just act like a regular wigger or redneck or whatever your country/area's equivalent is

>> No.5086523

>>5086510
Easier said than done. Most "normal" people in my experience like to talk about TV shows. As someone who doesn't even own a TV, I cannot make conversation with them.

>> No.5086539

>>5085993
What, like Slaboj Zizek?

>> No.5086541

>>5086484
>and they would despise pop music (Sinatra etc.) and only listen to Beethoven and things like that
Sounds like a guy you'd enjoy hanging around with. Not.

>> No.5086542

>>5086539
More like SLOBoj Zizek. Am I right?!

>> No.5086548

>>5086539
>Žižek
>intellectual

>> No.5086567

>>5086523

You can't find TV shows online?

>> No.5086572

>>5086541
>le party argument

>> No.5086581

I have no idea because I'm not an intellectual or smug or pretentious, but if I wanted to find out I'd start by using brilliant, modest people who have achieved fame as role models.

>> No.5086615

>>5086541
Yes, I would. Why not? I love Beethoven and, as for parties, have you ever heard of waltz and traditional dance music?

>> No.5086621

>>5086615
19th century called, they want their values back

>> No.5086624

>>5086523
I don't call myself an intellectual because I have no page on Wikipedia, but I don't watch TV or see movies EVER (also don't really listen to Rap except socially at parties or in the car with friends) and I fit in better with wiggers and rednecks than I do with college people.

Just act like a dumb dick with bravado instead of a stuck up wiener with disdain

>> No.5086660

>>5086004
>implying
He said is it possible not Can I be both. Learn to read. For fucks sake you're on a literature board

>> No.5086684

>>5086567
I should've clarified the implication. I don't own a television because a vast majority of TV is unmitigated crap. When TV shows come up in conversation, I usually just tell people I don't own a TV because it sounds less pretentious than saying "TV is for brain-dead losers". However, the effect is the same. I can't participate in the conversation.

I also like to say that I like movies when people try to talk to me about TV, because I do, and it's sort of a similar experience. However, I tend not to give a shit about the latest Michael Bay blockbuster or Iron Man 13 or whatever number they're up to now, so again, this usually ends up a short conversation.

Basically what I'm saying is I'm not equipped with the knowledge to pretend I'm a regular jack-off.

>> No.5086689

>>5086624
>listens to Rap with friends
>doesn't watch Tarkovsky and Bergman

God, you're such an idiot.

>> No.5086699

>>5086257
I'd say having to read and think a lot on yourself means that you will spend a lot of time alone, discussing with yourself, thus becoming one of your most common frequentation (as you will get more and more conscious of yourself). This can foster a sense of isolation, of uniqueness, and eventually, of aloofness and smugness toward other people.

Sure man, you can develop your intellect in any setting. OP was asking if it's possible to be both an intellectual and not smug and pretentious. Which it is. Your reasoning doesn't address this. It merely illustrates an excuse for a solitary person who thinks by him/herself and may or may not be an intellectual

>> No.5086708

samefag >>5086699 here

>the first paragraph was suppose to be greentext

>> No.5086715

>>5086499
Dubs confirm trips

>> No.5086721

>>5086684
Are you the OP? Because you don't sound like an intellectual.

>> No.5086724

>>5086715
more dubs here

>> No.5086729

>>5086699
I was specifically answering to another poster ITT, not directly to OP.

>> No.5086731

>>5086721
What in those few brief paragraph precludes me from intellectualism?

>> No.5086734

>>5086257
umm writers/thinkers/scientists don't make up the bulk of intelligent people

>> No.5086735

>>5085993
Yes.

The problem is that being an intellectual does not mean being wise.

A wise person has no need to be pretentious nor belittle others for their ignorance.

>> No.5086740

Social experiment.

>> No.5086748

>>5086731
The manner in which you write, i.e. the generalisations, the thesaurus-bashing, the dismissive attitude, detestation of contemporary culture, etc.

>> No.5086757

>>5086734
No butthey make the bulk of the intellectuals we know. I have little idea of how intelligent people behave in general, the best account I have that's not entirely relying on my own personal experience is writers/thinkers/scientists.

Note that i'm talking about people who are considered intellectuals and how they relate to their own intelligence.

A problem here is that smugness is rather open (you're not being smug if you're not being smug in front of someone) while concern for one's intelligence can be intimate and well-hidden. Another is that OP asked about intellectual while the other anon was referring to "actual intelligence", which is probably different (whatever it is). That's why the post I answered to fits oddly in the thread and, as a consequence, mine too.

>> No.5086760

>>5086129
>meaningful conversations about topics that matter.

matter to what?

>> No.5086777

>>5086748
Hello, pot. I am indeed the kettle.

>> No.5086785

>>5086684
There are many TV shows very rich as far as aesthetics, ideas and plots/story-telling go. If you have an appreciation for literature, you should be able to acknowledge this. You're either a hipster or ignorant to tv series.

>> No.5086787

>>5086760
>psuedo-intellectualism the post

Clearly conversations about the nature of being matter more than who had the best performance on X-Factor.

>> No.5086790

>>5086019
I can't escape from these tendencies. How do I stop being a cunt?

>> No.5086792

>>5086785
And those shows are amongst the least popular. Who the fuck watches Twin Peaks these days?

>> No.5086797

>>5086787
You are pretty deluded if you think so
Spoiler: nothing you can discuss matters

>> No.5086806

>>5086787
not really - i was just interested in what you thought 'mattered' since it's such an empty term

what do you mean 'clearly' and how do they 'matter more'? can you actually engage in this discussion?

>> No.5086808

>>5086797
If you truly believed that, you wouldn't be arguing with me. Unless, of course, you're such a blowhard you just love the sight of your own typed comments.

>> No.5086812

>>5086790
Find open-minded people you consider genuinely more intelligent than yourself. Stop caring about what people you don't respect think of you. Enjoy what you're doing.

>>5086792
It's an old series. TV show age faster than books.

>> No.5086824

>>5086806
When I say "matters more" I mean has a greater significance to human experience. The phenomenon of being is universal to all living humans. Thus is matters more.

I believe it is clear because the phenomenon of being is obviously and indisputably something universal.

>> No.5086835

>>5086812
>It's an old series. TV show age faster than books.

That isn't even a response. The point is that a vast majority of people don't watch aesthetically rich television. They watch easy moronic bullshit.

>> No.5086837

>>5086824
>The phenomenon of being is universal to all living humans.

so is living in a cultural and social milieu rofl

>> No.5086846

>>5086835
*Tips fedora*

>> No.5086848

>>5086824
Pretty good advice. Now if only I were an intellectual...

>> No.5086851

>>5086837
But what that culture is, isn't. And pieces of that culture are even less universal.

>>5086846
Thanks for admitting I'm pretentious. That was my point the whole time. Next time maybe you'll do so in a way that doesn't make you sound like a /b/tard. Assuming you're capable.

>> No.5086853

>>5086792
sure, most are shit. same with most literature. same with most everything. it doesn't warrant a de facto rejection of TV shows, as you've suggested before..

just relax. also, if you become more tolerant of cultural products on the idea front and put more weight on aesthetics and story-telling, you'll have an easier time getting into all sorts of shit.

captcha: eggymen Interface

>> No.5086859

>>5086851
>But what that culture is, isn't.

?? lmao wtf

man you're boring as hell to talk to. i'm out

>> No.5086871

>>5086851
I have an idea -- maybe you should talk to people about why the things they enjoy are shit.

>> No.5086879

Yes it is.

As you grow you will have more humbling experiences.

>> No.5086883

>>5086859
I'm saying while being embedded in a culture is a universal human experience, what culture you're embedded in isn't universal, and what parts of the culture you gravitate towards or experience (subcultural experience) is even less universal. Ergo, a TV show no matter what it is, is less of a universal experience than existential phenomenology.

>>5086853
No shit. You aren't telling me anything I don't know. It doesn't change the fact that I'm utterly alienated do to my intolerance of the boring bullshit that passes for entertainment. I've had just as many short-stopped conversations about books when someone talks about Stephen King being their favorite author. My point, as it has been consistently, is I like the knowledge to talk to twats, because they are boring and have shit taste in anything. If that makes me an asshole, so be it. If that makes me pretentious, so be it. It might mean living a life of loneliness. I'm working on living with that likely reality.

>> No.5086887

>>5086871
I already do that. Why else would I be on 4chan?

>> No.5086890

>>5086883
>is less of a universal experience than European philosophy.

Tell me more.

>> No.5086895

>>5086887
In real life.

>> No.5086900

>>5086890
I'm using that as a catch all term, not in a technical way. Phenomenology meaning investigating phenomenon, existential meaning pertaining to existence. In other words, BEING. And that's as universal as it gets.

>> No.5086905

>>5086895
Great advice. I'm sure it'll make me a hit at parties.

>> No.5086906

>>5086883
Whatever works dude, whatever works. It just makes someone who I personally wouldn't like very much. I'm quite sure that your tastes aren't even that patrician. You could also be socially confined to a institution for the mentally retarded or something along those lines.

Also how old are you? Yeah, it's relevant in this case.

>> No.5086912

>>5086906
I'm sure I wouldn't like you very much either. In fact, I already don't.

>> No.5086914

>>5086883
>when someone talks about Stephen King being their favorite author.

I guess they didn't have access to /lit/ recommendation charts on which to construct their identity.

The problem isn't that you're an intellectual and everyone else is a moron; the problem is that you don't know how to talk to people or relate to them on any more than a superficial level. You put too much emphasis on taste like it isn't just what a person has been exposed to in various situations throughout their life. It honestly sounds like you're rejecting people before they get the chance to reject you.

>> No.5086919

>>5086914
No, I quite do, I just find it tiresome and boring, and prefer not to.

>> No.5086923

>>5086905
Who cares if it does or doesn't? At least you get to experience interacting with different people and their perspectives. Maybe you'll learn something?

>> No.5086932

>>5086919
>I just find it tiresome and boring

Because you put too much emphasis on taste. Taste doesn't matter.

>> No.5086940

>>5086923
I highly doubt I'll learn anything that way. Maybe if instead I asked people why they like the things they like instead of tearing their shit tastes apart I'd gain perspective, but you're setting up a recipe for getting called an asshole or a drink thrown in my face.

>> No.5086946

>>5086932
Taste matters plenty. If you think King is worth reading, you probably aren't much of a thinker. Like it or not, people build an identity around the things they consume. So taste matters a lot. Read some Bourdieu.

>> No.5086952

>>5086940
>I highly doubt I'll learn anything that way.

What makes you doubt it?

>> No.5086959

>>5086952
Because attacking people's taste in things makes them defensive.

>> No.5086968

>>5086912
Your problems might stem from the fact that you developed a cultural taste, before developing a strong personality. I used to be like that, that's why I asked how old you were?

>> No.5086971

>>5086946
>Read some Bourdieu.

Is your intellectualism just listing things you've read or are you actually going to qualify your arguments beyond making broad statements?

>> No.5086974

>>5086946
Not in a 'greater scheme of things' it doesn't.

>> No.5086976

>>5086835
No, the point is that you don't care enough about contemporary TV to even have an idea of what could be considered brilliant. You quoting only Twin Peaks as an example of good series is a further indication of that.

>> No.5086978
File: 3 KB, 259x195, 1304129673584.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5086978

100 replies and there's not a single image

it doesn't get more pretentious than that

>> No.5086980

>>5086959
Why does it matter if they're defensive or not?

>> No.5086981

>>5086968
I know you asked that. I intentionally didn't answer, and I don't plan on it. I'm not interested in your platitudes and unsolicited advice.

>> No.5086983

>>5086824
>being
>phenomenon

You are now informed that the ghost of Heidegger will descended upon you and repeatedly cockslap you while shouting abuse in Church Latin.

And I wouldn't get cocky if I were you because Chuch Latin hurts really hard.

>> No.5086993

>>5086689
Doing any kind of stuff like seeing plays or going to movies with friends is shit. They fucking talk or chew popcorn or go to the bathroom then come back and ask you what happened, or just generally ask "hurr why is this happening", or if they're theatre/acting people it's even fucking worse with jokes and references about other movies or plays or any other plethora of inane shit that ruins my 1 and a half of escapism

Just listening to rap with people is fine because I know I'm not missing anything exciting, it's all just trying to think of new puns about sex and having more money than other people have.

>> No.5087001

>>5086974
Well, nothing matters in the "greater scheme of things", so I suppose I should value nothing, right? Fuck off.

>>5086976
Well, I know that Dr. Who is considered brilliant, and I think it's for twats, based on my own viewing of it. Got any recommendations for me? Because most of what has been recommended has been boring and stupid.

>>5086980
Because defensive people aren't interested in making good conversation, they're interested in protecting their feelings. So I won't learn something that way, which I believe was the point.

>>5086971
I made a very glossed over version of part of his argument in Distinction. Read it, if you'd like the detailed version. It's like 1000 pages, so obviously I can't do it here. Is your intellectualism simply making knee-jerk reactions to statements that make you feel like perhaps you aren't as smart as you'd like to think you are?

>> No.5087004

>>5086993
>Doing any kind of stuff like seeing plays or going to movies with friends is shit. They fucking talk or chew popcorn or go to the bathroom then come back and ask you what happened, or just generally ask "hurr why is this happening"


My friends don't do that. Find better friends anon.

>> No.5087006

>>5086983
Yes, I'm sure you're the resident expert on Heidegger. I told you I'm not using them in a technical way, so I'm not really concerned with who said what. The entire point was that statement WASN'T based on European philosophy, so if it makes that Nazi bastard roll in his grave, all the better.

>> No.5087008

>>5087001
>Read it, if you'd like the detailed version.

Not the point. Qualify your arguments if you want meaningful conversation.

>Is your intellectualism

I never claimed to be intellectual. Please learn to read.

>> No.5087012

>>5086684
This is hilarious.

>> No.5087014

>>5087001
Taste doesn't matter that much in interactions with people.

>> No.5087018

>>5087001
>So I won't learn something that way

You can learn from situations without having 'good conversation' and you're saying that everyone is going to be defensive, which is not true.

>> No.5087019

>>5087001
>Well, I know that Dr. Who is considered brilliant

Ahah, no. A lot of people are fans because it's quirky and cheesy and some see it as some form of parody. That doesn't mean it's considered brilliant, it's simply well-liked.

> Got any recommendations for me?

Depend on what you like. Arrested Development, Sopranos, the Wire, House of Cards, Mad Men are known for having more thought-through plots and dealing with themes. And that's only the few I've heard of. Now you probably won't like all of those, but I you can't bring yourself to like any, I'd wager that TV simply is not your thing. Which is fine. As comprehensive an aesthete he was, Goethe wrote rather little on music, and even said "music was long out of my sphere".

>> No.5087023

>>5087008
I don't want a meaningful conversation. I made a statement that apparently got everyone's panties in a twist and now I feel compelled to defend myself. I'm going to do so in the way that expends the least amount of energy possible, considering I have like three or four people attempting to pick my statements apart.

>I never claimed to be intellectual.
Then come back to the big kids table when you can claim as much.

>> No.5087025

>>5086981
>equates having taste and being critical of peers'(who are most likely lower than plebs as he mentions X-factor, Michael Bay, etc as the sort of shit he doesn't subscribe to) taste based on his own hierarchy of values with being-intellectual;
>clearly has a yearning to find people with similar taste and is visibly upset;
>asks why this is and wishes to discuss it
>someone reaches out and offers a possible explanation - calls it 'unsolicited advice'
>asks him how old he is, as it age related to personality - hurr durr 'age, platitude, adhominem'

you might be a pubecent, pseudo-intellectual, narcissistic cunt. a boring one for that matter.

>> No.5087029

>>5087001
You're intellectually lazy. That's why you're smug and pretentious (and by extension, boring). It's like everyone has to prove themselves to you while you do absolutely nothing to prove yourself to others.

>> No.5087037

>>5087014
idiot.

>> No.5087038

>>5087023
>Well the other half is actually having deep and meaningful conversations about topics that matter.
>I don't want a meaningful conversation

Ah, ok.

>Then come back to the big kids table when you can claim as much.

I don't need to claim it.

>> No.5087046

>>5087037
You have bad taste in insults.

>> No.5087048

>>5087004
People that don't do that are usually nerds, though
I just want a middleground between people that are interested in learning about and understanding history and the world around them, and stupid dipshits that get into fistfights over "a nigga talkin like he's shit when he a bitch"

I mean, it seems around me there's either total dweebs that at least know a few things but only sit around talking about adventure time or Game of Thrones, or complete fucking retards whose knowledge includes lyrics to gangsta rap, the history of particular rappers and their lives, with a few guys that know gangsta rap [I]and[/I] MMA fighters

I only know one other guy that's into learning whilst not being a fag, but he's some Sam Harris capitalism dude or something.

>> No.5087050

>>5087006
No need to get so riled up I simply wanted to make a silly joke on Heidegger (and Church latin).

Problem is, if you're not using it in a technical way, in which way are you using it ? Being is vague as fuck a word, it qualifies nothing in itself. If you talk about being insofar as it relates to everyone's experience without being contingent on cultural differences, that's a lot like Western ontology or phenomenology, depending on how you state the problem, and it is indeed rather technical.


One could also wonder why you think an universal issue (provided there is one) is more worthy of studying than a particular one. There is no such thing as a universal reader, so why wouldn't it be more appropriate to settle for more well-defined problems that actually relate to some people in a definite way, rather than dealing with ill-defined problem that could end up relating to no one ?

>> No.5087051

>>5087014
That's like, just your opinion, man.

>>5087018
In my experience, when you start attacking something someone likes, they get all upset and the conversation turns into an emotional argument.

>>5087019
I like Arrested Development. I'm aware of these other shows, but I just feel like sinking the hours required to watch the whole thing is sort of a waste of time compared to what else I'm going to be doing. The Sopranos for example is roughly 86 hours or so? I could watch over 40 films during that time, and I would prefer to do that. I think I'd get very bored with any TV drama. It's too much of the same thing.

>> No.5087056

easily, you have to live and act like a hermit, like Spinoza

>> No.5087059

>>5087038
You aren't someone I'm choosing to have a deep and meaningful conversation with. You're someone I'm choosing to sneer at. Sorry, kid. You didn't make the cut. Better luck next year.

>> No.5087063

>>5087050
I explained how I was using it in the same post you criticized.

>> No.5087068

>>5087059
I already embarrassed you anyway so not getting to talk to you about your shallow understanding of intellectualism is win-win.

>> No.5087073

>>5087048
>People that don't do that are usually nerds, though

Depends a lot where you live. I had quite a few stoner/drunkards/casual partygoers friends in highschool who were very sensitive about stage plays (some of them were amateur actors, and at least one of them was amazing onstage) and liked to read without being excessively bent toward intellectual pursuits.

But it was an highschool with a theater option, and plays have that thing for them that they require people to act on live, in front of a crowd, in a very visible and audible way. So it tends to attract people who can balance a "normal", exposed social life with an rich inner life.

My suggestion would be to seek for precisely those kinds of places: schools or neighborhood where by construction there is a high rate of expressive people with interest in literature (or science, or whatever brainy thing interests you).

>> No.5087079

>>5087006
>calling Heidegger a nazi
>20-14
2lacerating4ich

>> No.5087085

to all the other secret intellectuals lurking this thread, should we invite this guy to our secret intellectual hideout? i'm voting no

>> No.5087090

>>5087063
You merely called it "the phenomenon of being". That doesn't really say much. If I am to take your words literally, we're talking phenomenology, if I am not to take your words literally, they pretty much mean nothing.

You also didn't address my comment on your idea of the universal.

>> No.5087095

>>5087085
I don't understand what the guy is after. Is it the hideout?

>> No.5087096
File: 14 KB, 260x190, declarevictoryandgohome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5087096

>>5087068
Yes... you embarrassed me...

Oh look, I found your picture online.

>> No.5087099

>>5087085
ssssh ! Don't blow our cover.

>> No.5087106

>>5087085
He couldn't even figure out to use IRC.

>> No.5087107

>>5086325
in today's world there are so many that do it

is every blog poster or Twitter user an intellectual now?

What actually defines an intellectual?

>> No.5087120

>>5087051
> I think I'd get very bored with any TV drama. It's too much of the same thing.

That's probably just that tv is not your kind of thing. That's not really a problem since most people who are interested in something (and they are more than you would expect) are not only interest in tv.

If you think tv drama is too long-winded for too-little substance, one advice: try poetry. It doesn't get much more concentrated than that (depending on the poet).
Of course, this will require a lot of rereading, but you will pick up a lot of different things each time.

>> No.5087121

>>5087090
Whatever, dude. I'm wrong your right. Happy? I made one fucking comment about how TV sucks and everyone flips the fuck out. If I knew how vigorously I'd have to defend such a banal observation, I wouldn't have made it.

I just don't care. I've been doing this for about an hour, and I just don't care anymore.

So I'm totally wrong about everything, everyone here is much smarter than me, I'm an embarrassment to this board and humanity in general.

Still think TV sucks though.

>> No.5087128

>>5087120
>That's probably just that tv is not your kind of thing.

That's what I said in the first place. Fuck this thread and everyone in it.

>> No.5087131

good thread

>> No.5087133

>>5087131
seconded

>> No.5087136

>>5087121
>I'm an embarrassment to this board
that spot is taken by butterfly

>> No.5087146

>>5087121
>Whatever, dude. I'm wrong your right. Happy?

You entirely mistook the point of that conversation. I just wanted to have a more precise, outlayed vision of your ideas.

> If I knew how vigorously I'd have to defend such a banal observation

If you knew how to defend your view more thoroughly. You let yourself be clogged by the offensive idiots and in the process wasted a time that could have been employed thinking more precisely about your own idea, which is a great enrichment in itself. That's natural, we're on 4chan, an unforgiving place if there's one, and we all do it. But it still bad discipline. I for one think you had the potential to go further. Nevermind. This place is not fit for sustained discussion. I hope you get back to more clear-minded meditations now.

>> No.5087156

>>5087128
You said tv sucked. That's a rather daring generalization when you know for a fact that you have little taste for the medium. But you shouldn't be angered because some anon challenge you, that's how the mind gets sharp, when it cares to be.

>> No.5087297

>>5087073
>stoners/drunkards/casual partygoers
What about thugs and thug wannabes?

>> No.5087481

You mention that you're into rockclimbing by using metaphors from it for everything

>> No.5087508

>>5087156
TV sucks. But don't just take my word for it.

http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/topia/article/viewFile/81/75

http://jsomers.net/DFW_TV.pdf

>> No.5087514

>>5087508
Wait, that first one was a review. Check here instead:

http://bookalist.net/?p=582310

>> No.5089351

>>5086260
but i almost always am
like, someone in there is actually the smartest person in the room, and you can bet they fucking know it
i'm on 4chan, so i don't really have proof

but that's me

>> No.5089362

>>5086615
okay, but there's good music that's been made recently

and you can listen to that at parties

or you can sound like a rockist's grandpa

>> No.5089415

>>5087014
Not directly, but a sensitive person can have their feelings hurt when their taste is judged.

>> No.5089432

The trick is to speak less and listen more. Intelligence is something to use yourself, not to show off.

>> No.5089450

>>5089362
>okay, but there's good music that's been made recently
There is no good post-oasis music.

>> No.5089453

>>5089450

coldplay

>> No.5089454

It's hard to be an intellectual and a know-it-all.

>> No.5089474

>>5089453
Coldplay is Radiohead for Christians

>> No.5089640

There's nothing wrong with low brow contemporary popular culture. I mean, no need to get grey hairs over it.

>> No.5089646

>>5089640
Elitist reactionism against popular culture comes off as insecure imo

>> No.5089650

>>5085993
Well you can certainly not be smug and pretentious, but that won't keep other people from thinking you are. Especially in America, where intellectualism is viewed with disdain.

>> No.5089729

Intellectual people cant be pretentious. Only dumb people are pretentious.

Why would you need to put on airs if you were truly smart?

>> No.5090645

>>5085993

I spend a lot of time thinking about this, and repeat view those sensitive and enlightening lectures (the ones that make you tear up a little inside, or want to say, "oh the humanity") just to see if can feel any smug or pretension as much as I love what is being discussed. Someone can always interpret what you say smug pretenious however honest you feel you are coming across ....unless you

1. Approach all events, and information with a intense seriousness, that no matter what concepts are expressed in books, people, art etc.. none of these trump the totality and wierd phenmenom of your specific life/body, which is the only way you will experience the universe so far.

2. when speaking or attempting to express your personal thoughts and feelings, Signs of failure include;
- self-reflecting/critiquing upon statements as you make them
- any hint of doubt in the truth of what you are saying
- attempting to repackage your concept to appeal more to the audience you are addressing. (people are naturally masters at this)

To not sound pretentious one has to communicate out of innocence, being unapologetic, and not be hiding any facet of your life, its like having an important no BS convo with yourself.