[ 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.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 57 KB, 247x248, Mr. Orange eating a FADS fun stick.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4746715 No.4746715 [Reply] [Original]

What's the difference between an intellectual and pseudo-intellectual?

>> No.4746717

One is preceded by an indefinite article, the other isn't.

>> No.4746719

A Pseudointellectual is a person who affects proficiency in scholarly and artistic pursuits whilst lacking any in-depth knowledge or critical understanding of such topics.

BOOM

An intellectual is a person who primarily uses intelligence in either a professional or an individual capacity. As a substantive or adjective, it refers to the work product of such persons, to the so-called "life of the mind" generally, or to an aspect of something where learning, erudition, and informed and critical thinking are the focus, as in "the intellectual level of the discourse on the matter was not high".

>> No.4746720

An intellectual is someone who doesn't always act smart but is smart (say: a physicist, chemist, mathematician, even some biologists) whereas a pseudo-intellectual is someone who is not smart but acts it anyway (say: art historians, artists, basically most people with a degree in the humanities, as well as geologists).

>> No.4746722

The latter talks out his ass all day and is much more verbal about his opinions in public (ie. among people who have no idea what he's talking about) so that he can show everyone just how interrigent he trury is.

>> No.4746724

>>4746715
They're two fundamentally empty terms.
So >>4746717

>> No.4746729

Intellectuals: /lit/
Pseudo-intellectuals: /sci/

>> No.4746735 [DELETED] 

>>4746729
>social science
>intellectual
Pick 1

>> No.4746740

Philosophy and the humanities - Pretentious pseudointellectuals

Science and math - where the true knowledge is

>> No.4746748

>>4746729

Nope. Butthurt English majors need to fuck off.

>> No.4746752

Pseudo-intellectuals are those who believe their fields of study make them better people without any further effort; they cannot appreciate art and literature because they are not "real" pursuits. For example.
>>4746735
>>4746720
>>4746740

A true intellectual recognizes that art and science both have their places and do not place arbitrary notions of superiority on either.

>> No.4746757

>>4746752

It isn't arbitrary. Postmodernism and other movements have stagnated the humanities for the last century. The humanities have now become pretentious pseudointellectual playgrounds.

>> No.4746761

>What's the difference between an intellectual and pseudo-intellectual?

Well, only a pseudo-intellectual would ask a question like that

>> No.4746762

>>4746729
>>4746729
>>4746729
>>4746748
>>4746748
FIXED:
Intellectuals: /b/
Pseudo-intellectuals: /sci/ /lit/ /x/ /v/ /pol/ /soc/

>> No.4746763
File: 9 KB, 179x281, 454645.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4746763

>>4746757
>inb4 this gets linked to /lit/ and much anal devastation ensues

>> No.4746765

>>4746740
So take someone who invests all their time into studying literature, but has an incredible capacity for abstract thinking and problem solving, the ability to apply what they do learn in unique and creative ways, can absorb/remember information incredibly well and understand any concept put before them provided they have had time to study its pre-requisites.

You would say he is less of an intellectual then some faggot who just got a math degree by memorising formulas but struggles to understand basic concepts intuitively?

The different goes beyond their pursuits in my opinion. An intellectual takes in and understands what is put before them, a pseudointellectual knows but can barely use it. It has nothing to do with their field. Correlation, maybe, since it'd be easier to pass a humanities subject then a hard science, but not causal relationship.

>> No.4746770

>>4746740
>>4746740
>>4746740
implying philosophy did not invented all of the other studies like math

>> No.4746773

>>4746770

It didn't.

>> No.4746774

>>4746757

/sci/ kid's afraid to leave his /sci/

>> No.4746776

pseudointellectuals: people who use pseudointellectual seriously

intellectuals: the rest

>> No.4746778

>>4746773

well check what PhD stands for kiddo.

Science is a method and a branch of epistemology.

>> No.4746779
File: 62 KB, 376x554, Wake up.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4746779

>>4746757
>Implying capitalism isn't to blame for lousy books/culture

>> No.4746780

>>4746774
instantly confirmed for linked

>> No.4746781

>>4746752
This.

most intellectuals read from science to arts to history to whatever tickled their rains at the moment.

>> No.4746784

>>4746778

Prove the earliest counting systems in Babylon or anywhere else were invented by any philosopher. Prove the earliest forms of astronomy had anything to do with a philosopher.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

>> No.4746786

>>4746740
>Science and math - where the true knowledge is
autism detected

>> No.4746788

>>4746779
>implying it is

Everything came from capitalism. Good and bad.

Socialism produced nothing at all.

>> No.4746790

>>4746784
>implying you can prove anything

>> No.4746791

>>4746784
>earliest counting systems in Babylon
Invented by bureaucrats to catalog farming yields and taxes. Modern-day accountants.

>earliest forms of astronomy
Discovered/figured out by priests.

>> No.4746792
File: 69 KB, 429x409, 1330295394469.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4746792

>>4746788
>mfw he believes this
>mfw capitalist ideology supersedes the superego

>> No.4746793

>>4746791

No "philosopher" in there. You basically supported my point. Or were you on my side the whole time?

>> No.4746795

>>>/lit/2691907

>> No.4746796
File: 333 KB, 500x2498, USSR_773f7b_1759840.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4746796

>>4746788
pic related

jokes aside
>being so dumb that you think both can't successfully co-exist
>seeing everything in black or white

>> No.4746797

an intellectual speaks wisdom and acts intelligently

a pseudo-intellectual speaks in catch phrases and acts like an idiot

>> No.4746798

I really cannot stand people who disregard philosophy/ethics. Together they create some of the most important questions ever. You just don't study PURE philosophy; you pair it up with something.

>> No.4746801

>>4746797
those are some nice catch phrases there

>> No.4746802

>>4746798

Smart guy. Philosophy without science is intellectual masturbation. Russell and the analytics knew this.

>> No.4746799
File: 13 KB, 220x324, sigmund_freud.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4746799

>>4746793
>/sci/ can't figure out who "Anonymous" is

>> No.4746803
File: 56 KB, 300x410, bertrand-russell1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4746803

>>4746802
You think Russel was a serious philosopher?

>> No.4746804

>>4746780

impyling i'm not a /sci/ poster first and foremost

>> No.4746806

>>4746803

You think Derrida and Foucault are?

>> No.4746809

>>4746803
Not him, but yes.

>> No.4746872

>>4746803
>serious philosopher

>> No.4746877

>>4746806
Derrida, eh, Foucault, yes. Foucault also argued that the hard sciences had autonomy-- his problem was with the extrapolation and "study of man," which had problematic tendencies from its beginnings.
Anti-rationalist does not mean "lol math don't mean nothin'"

>> No.4746885

>>4746877

The answer is no.

>> No.4746892

>>4746885
The biggest sign of a pseudo-intellectual is the unwillingness or incapability to consider matters with subtlety and nuance.

>> No.4746895

>>4746892

On who's authority?

>> No.4746901

Intellectual, IMO, indicates an individual approaches novel questions in a logical, scientific method-type process, seeking answers to those novel. Pseudo-intellectuals recite the thought processes of others before them, to no new innovation, just as a recitation.
Hate to turn on my own people here, but the terms physics and physicist now describe what was before termed "natural philosophy". To think that philosophical thought experiments didn't proceed most mathematics that we, as scientists use, is ignorant. Or were Einstein's thought experiments which resulted in our now well conceived notion of relativity a purely scientific, non-philosophical thought "experiment". In fact, our scientific method itself is the result of philosophy.
That said, butthurt /lit/fags will be butthurt.
The majority of pseudo-intellectual endeavors are undertaken in the humanities. The majority of intellectual endeavors are undertaken in the pure sciences. There are of course exceptions to the rule.

>> No.4746929

>>4746895
Authority would be a paradox to my statement, I was just pointing out that subtlety and nuance are intrinsic traits of intellectual pursuit.

>> No.4746952
File: 59 KB, 780x585, 1337749198294.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4746952

The intellectual pursues self-indulgence.

The pseudo-intellectual pursues self-interest.

>> No.4746953

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intellectual

"1. An intelligent person, someone interested in intellectual matters.
2. (archaic) The intellect or understanding; mental powers or faculties."

(1) is the relevant one.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pseudointellectual
"Usage notes

Usage is fraught, and pseudointellectual may be used as a general term of abuse for intellectuals one dislikes or disagrees with. Nevertheless, in more careful use a rather clear distinction is drawn:[1] a pseudointellectual is someone dishonestly or insincerely using the language, style, or topics of an intellectual, but who lacks the goals, morals, or ability of a “genuine” intellectual. It is someone who acts pretentiously and wishes to win an argument or impress, rather than modestly trying to find the truth – a focus on surface and rhetoric over content. These often involve a superficial understanding of a subject and condescension to the audience, as well as possible self-delusion (not being consciously dishonest, but rather genuinely thinking themself to be behaving as a genuine intellectual despite their incompetence)."

>> No.4746963

>>4746778

Piled higher and deeper?

...zing

>> No.4746967

In my opinion,

Intellectuals: those who are actively pursuing innovative and cognitively challenging pursuits, for example: in a laboratory fervently making discoveries/scientific publications from the ground-up. They are successful academically because they're driven by sheer passion rather than forced motivation. They are creative and innovative in their research.

Pseudo-intellectual: those who failed at intellectual pursuits (or never attempted) so they try to mimic intellectualism. They consume themselves with simple minded and/or visceral activities and ambitions in an attempt to detract from their obvious shortcomings. "Creative" hobbyist activities consume them because that is all their feeble minds can handle

>> No.4746968

>>4746762

"Intellectuals: /b/
Pseudo-intellectuals: /sci/ /lit/ /x/ /v/ /pol/ /soc/"

Can I failbook-style "like" this post"?
Better yet, can I /b/ style just rub up against it until either it calls the cops or we exchange numbers?

Pic related; their is no pic dumbass

>> No.4746970

>>4746968
Tyger Tyger burning bright, in the forest of the night.
What immortal hand or eye could FRAME thy fearful symmetry?.

>> No.4746976

An intellectual is someone who can't manage to live outside of his own head. He never starts living befor "examining", "reflecting", getting first a "critical perspective on things".

You will hear that the classical definition of intellectual is that of a thinker who is actively involved in the life of the community, blah blah blah, but that's just an extension of the first one I mentioned. In this case, the "intellectual" is butthurt he isn't getting the recognition of his status, so he does the community "the favour" of becoming its ideologue.

A pseudo-intellectual is a guy who takes intellectuals most seriously, but can't rise even to the performance of being as ridiculous as a real one, so he has to pretend he shares the same type of advanced butthurt as a real one.

>> No.4746981

I am so happy to not see a bunch of people typing intellectualism to schooling. Everyone seems to do this, a girl i used to date even went to far as to bluntly claim that a college education gives you more right to call yourself an intellectual, which was somewhat... still not sure what the word is for it.

>> No.4746982

>>4746740
>implying there is no use to the humanities
>implying most countries today weren't shaped by the ideas of a political philosopher
>implying most economies weren't shaped by the ideas of an economist
>implying science gives humanity shit if they cannot into ethics (hitler used human experiments as 'science'