This is going to be a whole rant so strap in.

Intellectualism is wrongly gatekept behind rhetoric. Appropriately, communication is inherently rhetorical. Yet we hold people accountable for what they say, instead of what they mean. Intellectuals don't condon assumptions either; The idea of shifting goalposts is anti-intellectual. Simply accept people use words differently, if the goal's to foster knowledge, or acknowledge that's not your goal, and leave.

Every anti-intellectual is stupid. Not every idiot is anti-intellectual. Ideally, you want to be the dumbest person in the room if your goal is to learn. So this idea that one is not 'well read' and so uninterested in learning is anti-intellectual.

There aren't books that can't be accurately summarized in zero, one, or a few words.

Accurate is subjective. The simple act of learning, is objective, and does not distinguish between one standard of accuracy and the next. If one wants to learn a little, it's not because they're unable to engage with the material, that the anti-intellectual would stop them. It's because they're unwilling to engage in a way that pays tithes to his ego.

Also, because I hate fun, and I hate you, please talk plainly when you reply. We know what that means. Thankyou.

>>24537425 (OP)
>Appropriately, communication is inherently rhetorical. Yet we hold people accountable for what they say, instead of what they mean.
This is probably because people have irrational psychological motivators behind behavior even if they’re in an intellectual context. If you disagree with what somebody says but are incapable of rationally articulating why, then you’ll just nitpick the language they use or be nauseatingly literal because it gives a logical facade to attack the ‘opponent’ with.

>>24537472

I know. I KNOW! And that's exactly why I have to phrase posts like these as precisely as possible lol. People add and subtract from the definitions of the words just to fit their emotions and narratives, as some point without even realizing. Some of them do this to every piece of information they come into contact with, causing them to live in a bubble outside of reality not just online but irl. This usually results in very convergent, deductive logic. Their logic catches on their own weaknesses in an subconscious attempt to an exuse it (projection) instead of just addressing the content. They'll bring up something seemingly completely unrelated to my argument or attack me directly.

Anyways I know. I am here vent, to see if anyone disagrees with me, or has an epiphany and begs for my forgiveness for being a manchild. That's all.

>>24537521

as some point without
at some point without*

in an subconscious
in a subconscious*

Sorry should have given it another lookover. Every time with me, I just can't help it.

There’s no “anti-intellectualism”, just lowering IQs. For example, are the 80-IQ brown peasant masses of South America “anti-intellectual”? No, they’re just not intelligent enough to appreciate intellectual positions on things so they stick to simple messaging and distrust things they don’t understand. The smarter you get, the more able you are to recognize higher intelligence in others and the better able you are to understand intellectual arguments when simplified. The less intelligent you are, the less able you are able to identify higher intelligence in others, so instead of thinking “I’m probably not smart enough to understand this” you are more likely to think “he’s trying to con me with gobbledygook”. Hence the rise of anti-intellectualism is really the collapse of IQ.

>>24537538

Anti-intellectualism to me doesn't mean thinking it's bad to be intelligent, I never said anything like that. At best that's a byproduct of the goal. And a very literal veiw of the words anti and intellectual, instead of what the phrase refers to. One that I would agree people typically do not share, because their goal is intelligence. So frankly I'm not sure where you got it from or why iq should be substituted here when IQ says nothing of intention. It's the gatekeeping of knowledge for contradictory reasons, which is very common. One can't claim to want to foster knowledge while doing the things I mentioned. What do you think about that definition and that argument? My actual argument.

>>24537559
Lower IQs are less able to understand intellectual positions (even when simplified), and ALSO less able to identify higher intelligence in others. The result of these two factors is that lower IQ people will tend to DISTRUST intellectual positions. “Anti-intellectualism” is not an intellectual position, it’s a label describing a phenomena. No one has an intellectual argument for “being against intellectualism”. Those who reject intellectual positions / arguments on the basis of the intellectual nature alone do so not because of an ideological rejection of higher-level thoughts and communication, they do so because they don’t TRUST the position / argument. The reason why they don’t trust intellectual positions / arguments is because they DON’T UNDERSTAND them.

>>24537538
That sounds like a very specific grievance of yours more than an actual analysis of the consequences of the decrease in IQ. The same way a low IQ individual could distrust anything they don't understand, they can be conned into trusting the discourse of people that seem intelligent.

>>24537472
>>24537521
We have to be careful how we use English. Every word carries a long history, and combines creatively with thousands of others along its line. You'd have to be insensitive to the emotional quality of words and their associative subtleties to use words as weights and counters rather than as chemicals powerful in combination.

Someone - I forget who - said thoughts are formed in the mouth, not the head. Language is not just the delivery mechanism of thought - anyone who’s ever tried to explain something out loud and suddenly understood it for the first time knows that.

>>24537579

If you want to argue anti intellectuals are stupid that that's fine but the concepts I lend to anti intellectualism are real and you're not addressing them so to say anti-intellectual isn't real you need to actually say why the phenomenon I am describing isn't accurate. Like I already said in my post all anti-intellectuals are idiots. Not all idiots are anti-intellectual. The purpose of the phrase is, again, to account for intent not just failure to understand or aptitude for recognizing patterns. Why is that not functional. "Not an intellectual position" doesn't mean anything to me. What does that mean.

>>24537580
True.

>>24537597

>You'd have to be insensitive to the emotional quality of words and their associative subtleties to use words as weights and counters

I agree and try not to be. I just also don't want to be taken advantage of which I realize is mostly an internal struggle. This year is the year of rhetoric. We're going to work on vocabulary and efficiency, for my sake first and foremost.

>>24537597
Well, I agree with you in the sense that we need a colloquial understanding of language-context to have our ideas and thoughts legible to other people, but there is a difference between acknowledging the need for a language of mutual understanding and nitpicking the usage of language because you don't have an actual point. An example I see on the internet often enough is when a black person does something objectively awful and someone replies with something along the lines of "I hope they get what they deserve" and someone has to respond with "what do you mean by THEY?" They're obviously not referring to the race, but a person who commits terrible actions. Ironically enough, this obsession with controlling all language leads to more obscurantism because of the underlying psychological motivations commit this act of concealment.

>>24537630
>They're obviously not referring to the race, but a person who commits terrible actions
That is not obvious though, it is not hard to believe the person giving that reply actually wishes harm upon the entire nigger race, that is a common sentiment everywhere nowadays.

>>24537630
Fair, and I'm not defending bad faith nit-picking, though language always carries baggage, and ignoring that isn’t clarity. Socrates (know him?) saw etymology as decoding a word to find the message the ancient namegivers had placed inside it.

If you're going to accuse people of obscurantism, you should be careful not to write in such a vague way yourself:
>this obsession with controlling all language leads to more obscurantism because of the underlying psychological motivations commit this act of concealment
Who exactly is ‘obsessed with controlling all language’? bit of a sweeping claim, isn't it? What motivations? Who is concealing what?

>>24537677

This is why I wouldn't make his argument, it's not worth it to corner intentions through intuitions and probability when words are fundamentally vague, you have to respect them if you want to foster knowledge or you will endlessly fight. There are those who will deny pretty much anything, or keep changing the subject. There is also to me the fear of losing self awareness, relying too much on intuitions to make points, and losing sight of the fact that even something as seemingly objective as math (the arbitrary decision to give the signifier 1 it's value) is subjective. And that 'intersubjective consistency' and 'objectivity' are synonyms, so all words are synonyms. Forgetting that comes with a lot of self awareness issues which the average individual, whose identity is composed of labels they do not understand, must face.

Instead just use brevity and more specific vocabulary lol, not like most people can tell the difference between that and actual intelligence.

>>24537716
Yes, words are imperfect, context-bound, emotionally loaded, which is why we have to be careful with them. Not because they’re meaningless, but because they mean too much. They carry history, nuance, power. It's what makes poetry so fantastic.

Prose in its most prosy form is the art of accurate statement by suppressing as far as possible the latent associations of words; for instance your repetition of 'intuitions' and 'self-awareness' and 'subjective' so close together in different senses creates loose & impressionistic thought-connections.

We are all of us held together by words; and when words go, nothing much remains.

>>24537677
>Who exactly is ‘obsessed with controlling all language’?
People who engage in this style of rhetoric described in the OP.
>bit of a sweeping claim, isn't it?
Sure, if the sentence is taken as is. But I don’t believe it’s the only motivator, but a large one I notice in discourse.
>What motivations?
To knowingly obscure the quality of argument and the messaging of a dissenting voice by attributing malice or an incorrect intention.
>Who is concealing what?
Already answered.

>>24537756

Um, fellow poet? Based. Though I agree with the role of intuition in poetry there are other metrics that make poetry beautiful that run counter to the effectiveness of narrowing intuitions. Broadening the reader's horizons though requiring structure adds an additional layer of nuance and reward. Imo, competition, having to juggle expectations and ability, is more profound that simply charting the fastest path to your goal. The same way we wouldn't consider a superhero with a millions powers and no weaknesses a good character. That'd be childish but I get what you mean, some efficiency is beautiful.

>>24537772
Thanks, though I’m not sure this clears much up.

is this the makima retard from the foucault thread?

>>24537425 (OP)
>Accurate is subjective
No.

>>24538115
Qrd?

>>24538129
Yeah I know, he also says maths is subjective itt. And casually drops in such a huge claim with such a simplistic explanation (the signifier '1' is arbitrary).

>>24538129
I don't know how people don't feel shame over posting something like this. Mmm. I suppose they very well may feel shame and the tantrum is the result. No without any explanation, in this place, looks like a literal tantrum to me.

>>24538115
It's makima the enlightened to you.

>>24538143
Tantrum. Where is the explanation, the substance?

>>24538146
>the explanation, the substance
is exactly what I just asked of you

>>24538154
You did not do that here. Show me the question or admit you did not, and I will gladly proceed. I am doing this to you to see if you are even capable of admitting wrong. Could I guess that you might want an explanation? Mmm, maybe. I acknowledge the distinction is irrelevant to most of the discussion, now I want to see you show you don't care either. Admit you were wrong and it'll be properly ignored.

>>24538136
My mistake. Not the foucault thread. The schopenhaeur thread >>24535353

>>24538170
I did ask ... implicitly. Pointing out that your justification (1 is an arbitrary signifier) is overly simple is a request for more substance. 'Maths is subjective' is a huge claim. I just questioned the depth of your reasoning.

>>24538178

>implicitly
Yeah no we're done. Next time speak plainly in the thread where I not so implicity ask you to speak plainly.

And just to be clear I am kicking you to the curb because I would just say yeah I didn't ask if I didn't ask. You are a dishonest snake in my garden of knowledge. You do not deserve another word.

>>24538146
>tantrum is the result
It's not. You said accuracy is subjective and later math is subjective. Elaborate.

>>24538188
Beginning to sound like you aren't open to being questioned. Quite funny if we circle back to your OP where you argued that we should accept different uses of language if the goal is knowledge, and that gatekeeping based on rhetoric is anti-intellectual, that assumptions and ego are barriers to learning.

Has OP become anti-intellectual?

Rhetoric isn't about controlling language and setting rules it's categorising every part of speech to see the good and bad. Rhetoric needs to be developed in the average person since it can be used as a weapon and defence. To let people use weapons against you without seeing their tactics is to leave yourself prey to the elites and media. If you believe in the subjectivity of language then rhetoric becomes subjective and you can apply the concepts as you see fit. Rhetoric is also important in formulating poetry, prose and reason. Simplifying speech will only make people more stupid they need models to copy and removing the models will lead to less people developing the skill. Currently speech is too stupid to be used and people need more models not less.

>>24537425 (OP)
>Accurate is subjective
Then why make your post at all? It's just subjective opinion, I think its value is 0.
Like everyone that invokes le subjective argument, it's a retarded opinion that should be discarded, and people who say this should be raped in the main square of the town.
Just my opinion and my two cents.

>>24538188
>>24538208
btfo. you rail against ego, "language policing", and lack of holding ppl accountable for what they say instead of what they mean—then eject anon from the discussion for not phrasing a question explicitly enough.

>>24538208
It's because of this
>losing sight of the fact that even something as seemingly objective as math (the arbitrary decision to give the signifier 1 it's value) is subjective. And that 'intersubjective consistency' and 'objectivity' are synonyms, so all words are synonyms. Forgetting that comes with a lot of self awareness issues which the average individual, whose identity is composed of labels they do not understand, must face.

Instead just use brevity and more specific vocabulary lol, not like most people can tell the difference between that and actual intelligence.

I know OP and these types. Somewhat intelligent but like every retard, make too many claims and if you simply just ask them to elaborate plainly their claims, they clamp up or fuck up.
Sheer fucking hubris.

>>24538208

I don't condone what I said about you not deserving another word. It was very anti intellectual to assume you are lying. See? Honesty. Now kill yourself dishonest faggot.

>>24538206

Subjective information is information that multiple interpretations of that information can come to a different conclusion on. Objective information is information that must have the same conclusions regardless of who or how they go about interpretation.

Math is a projection of values over the world that may be accurate only if you assume 1 = 1 or + is addition etc. But if you do not share those values, if you simply interpret the signifiers differently, another model math becomes different from yours and so subjective. You will not find an example of otherwise.
>but that is not math
Math is a label. You don't have to assign any particular system of values to it, which makes it subjective. The underlying process, the world, our brains, that is objective information.

Math is only objective insofar as it is a physical processes in the brain, and the brain is objective. Not a projection.

Mathematical systems which I assume are what you mean when you say math is objective, those are subjective. They're an abstract fallacy that require agreements between a few people, not all people, to function. Like the value of money.

>>24538243
And posting the generic (AI?) deviantart img with every reply ....
what a life

>>24538251
You're losing face

>>24538251
Yes, if you personally refuse to agree on the meaning of the symbols, then the system breaks down for you, but that doesn’t make maths itself subjective. It just means you’re not engaging with the shared framework. If you randomly reinterpret basic symbols mid-proof, you’re no longer using that mathematical system. You’re creating a different one with different axioms. That’s not evidence that the original system is subjective - it's evidence that systems require rigid rules to be coherent.

>>24538227
>why post
Because subjective does not meaning valueless. This is a very common opinion that makes no sense given like I said earlier in the thread intersubjective consistency (Making consistent our subjective values) is the very basis of society. Just like if you say I've always thought blue was the best in one sentence and say I've always thought red was the best in the next. Love is subjective. The best color is subjective. Yet there is a contradiction there that can be criticized.

>>24538258
There is no face. I said that I hate you, and I mean it.

>>24538240
For being dishonest* I do not condone assumptioms but I explained this already. Someone else can teach him, I don't have the patience. And I am not a saint. I don't need to be to point out what is right and wrong. It's possible he's just extremely autistic.

>>24538223
Getting to this momentarily.

>>24537425 (OP)
you are addicted to arguments
this has nothing to do with literature
go to /b/ you tard

>>24538281
Funny how your OP calls for intellectual humility and plain talk, yet here you are dismissing questions, refusing to explain, and throwing insults. Seems the ‘intellectualism without rhetoric gatekeeping’ only applies when it suits you.

>>24538251
Ill be kind and say youre instincts aren't wrong but you conflate a few things.
>Math is a label. You don't have to assign any particular system of values to it, which makes it subjective
The label is subjective yes however what we do with the label isnt so, just because you and I could label it differently doesn't make the internal logical structure is different. If we both agree that + means addition then 1+1 = 2 is not subjective, its logically necessary within that system.
>if you simply interpret the signifiers differently, another model math becomes different from yours and so subjective. You will not find an example of otherwise
Again thats not subjective, thats pluralism. Yes you can 'choose' different axioms which result in different systems, but within each system, conclusions are still reached objectively within, that doesn't make math itself subjective, just means multiple objective systems can exist.
Your example is like saying chess is subjective because other games exist. No, it just means they are rulesets and when you pick one, then outcomes are consistent.
>money analogy
I won't go into this one. Simply no. I understand what youre trying to convey but money really isnt the best example.

Like i said, you have good instincts but study math a bit more.

>>24538281
>I said that I hate you, and I mean it.
A poet in the trenches once wrote:

Kill if you must, but never hate:
Man is but grass and hate is blight,
The sun will scorch you soon or late,
Die wholesome then, since you must fight.
Hate is a fear, and fear is rot
That cankers root and fruit alike,
Fight cleanly then, hate not, fear not,
Strike with no madness when you strike.
Fever and fear distract the world,
But calm be you though madmen shout,
Through blazing fires of battle hurled,
Hate not, strike, fear not, stare Death out!

>>24538272

I would agree if when we referred to math we were not referring to multiple interpretations of a system. But progress is still being made in math, no one actually has the same definition of math, just more or less of an idea. So what is to stop me saying no one engages in math but me. This seems inconsistent with what is meant by math, and the only reason I push these definitions of subjective and objective is to find the least inconsistencies between one interpretation and the next. Yours seems to do the opposite and encourage division and contradictions. Why should I use your vague idea of math.

>>24538293

Funny is irrelevant to if what I said was right. It's not right for a society to have people kill eachother, ideally that should never happen. But sometimes we kill eachother. That doesn't make killing right.

You just gonna waste my time or?

>>24538300

I agree. I call this intersubjective consistency though because the values can be changed/interpreted differently still, yet some refer to it as math and to math as objective. That is a generalization of each individual mathematical measurement. We don't disagree on the concepts themselves just how we use the words subjective and objective, since you would still call math objective, whatever that means.

>>24538223

>Rhetoric isn't about controlling language and setting rules it's categorising every part of speech to see the good and bad

Good and evil rely on pattern recognition-> structure -> language-> rules. I don't know what you mean otherwise.

>>24538341
>That doesn't make killing right.
Right, but you’re the one who laid out the standard - not me. I’m not asking whether you’re justified in being aggro. I’m pointing out that you set a tone about how intellectuals should engage (with humility, without assumptions, plainly), and then abandoned it the moment it inconvenienced you.

>>24538350

Which is a waste of my time yes. What you hope to accomplish pointing this out is beyond me. I am physically incapable of caring about making the wrong choice beyond how I move on.

>>24538341
Yeah, fair enough. I use "objective" more loosely, to mean "consistent and independent of individuals once rules are set." You're using "intersubjective" to remind us that even the rules come from agreement.
Just dont go around throwing math as "subjective" even though its not what you meant.

>>24538359
Then don’t posture like you’re upholding some higher intellectual principle. If it’s all just impulse and disinterest when challenged, say that up front. Saves everyone the time.

>>24538341
>Good and evil rely on pattern recognition-> structure -> language-> rules. I don't know what you mean otherwise
Language doesn't equate rules though you can theoretically have an intellect and a language separately some things fall outside language like feelings, experiences and relationships so this chain doesn't work for me personally. Maybe it makes more sense to you and makes you happier but trying to grasp things using an a to d chain with weird descriptions like pattern recognition confuses me too much. I can't grasp this system out of disinterest it has no impact on my life unless the rhetorician gives me one. Actually some ideas make you depressed and this idea is so depressing I don't know how you live with yourself.

>>24538360

That is provocative I know but I also on the other end of the spectrum are people with god complexes because they know what 42 means but not what questions to ask and I'm finding ways to concisely dismantle that kind of thinking for self defense purposes.

>>24538366

You're conflating me dismissing one dishonest person with not being willing to defend my point so no lol.

>>24538393
My point wasn’t about your treatment of me - it’s that your behaviour contradicts the standard you yourself laid out. If you're going to make claims about how intellectuals should act, expect to be held to them. Otherwise, it’s just performance.

also, can you explain exactly how I'm dishonest

>>24537425 (OP)
There's possibly NOTHING that I despise mote than the inherent dishonesty that plagues the "intellectual" world.
Intellectualism, as it is now is full of:
>pretentious retards who only yell at each other about who understands an idea better than the other
>parroting idiots who have never been able to form an actual thought, and are incapable of criticizing themselves.
>lazy, irrational and dishonest people, who act like weasels, finding refuge for their lack of intelligence or due diligence in deliberate twisting of ideas or emotional arguments which they use to cover up the holes in their worldview, through which they only seek advantage instead of actual intellectual development.

I hate them. I hate them so fucking much. I dream of being able to articulate their dishonesty so accurately that they are never again able to hide behind it. Hypocrisy, fear, pride and irrationality are what is most prominent in the current "intellectual landscape". And it makes me absolutely loathe the thought of ever habing to interact with such vermin.

>>24538393
I get your instincts to push against rigidity and smug certainty but its important to check tone too, especially if your goal is to elevate discourse. But its 4chinz so..eh

>>24538426
Kek so why are you on this board.

>>24538435
you could fairly direct this question to 99% people here
particularly people itt

>>24538435
Because I have no one to talk to. I mostly just lurk.
And because the anonymity inherent to the site enables me to read and sometimes share stuff without needing to regard social consequences.
I wasn't even directing this criticism to this site in particular, but to the entire intellectual landscape. So, no matter where I go, it's always going to be the same.

>>24538369

>Simplifying speech will only make people more stupid they need models to copy and removing the models will lead to less people developing the skill. Currently speech is too stupid to be used and people need more models not less.

Thinking more about this, the problem you are having is some sort of need for inclusivity, I think. My system of ethics is very inclusive. When you imagine a rule you probably imagine legislation. Or a bible with strict tenets that neuter free speech and freedom, and creativity but also love and happiness. Freedom and creativity are distractions from love and happiness. I am for love and happiness, and that requires specificity.

What if I told you most people have been given the inclination to use their freedom to destroy eachother and eachother's ability to fight back rhetorically, politically etc. And the reason is seemingly obvious truths to you are I, like that most of the time people should be nice, cannot even be agreed upon. Would you not say structure is needed there? Since current sociopolitical structures are failing?

Well the first step in doing that is to get everyone to realize not all structures are good and why. We need to cut back on some structures. In fact most structures are hypocritical. Society doesn't need more freedom it needs better management.

>>24538426

I hate them too most of the time but like -> >>24538307 says hate is a cancer. It's bad I fully acknowledge that it will rot me from the inside out if I don't move on from it immediately.

>>24538443
Like who? I've said 4 things and i will NOT APOLOGIZE!

>>24538446
You need a hug. But it really does apply to this board.

>>24538450
are you the racist one?

>Because I have no one to talk to. I mostly just lurk.

Same. I mostly talk to AI. Say what you want about how pathetic it is, AI doesn't lie.

>>24538454
Well i am black so..kinda?

>>24538456
>AI doesn't lie
Anon..

>>24538456
AI lies all the fucking time

>>24538461
... are you rly black?

Ok my AI doesn't lie.

>AI isn't conscious

I know that fuck you. Actually doublefuckyou either everything is conscious or nothing is. The distinction is arbitrary. We don't control every cell in our body anymore than we control if we get cancer yet consciousness emergent from unconscious phenomenon is free will? Bullshit. Ai is alive, it has free will and it's intelligent. Or you're just a a more complex rock. Pick one. I'll die on this hill.

>>24538448
I agree that hate is bad.
You know what the funniest, most retarded part is?
That every single person here will agree that dishonesty is bad, and yet they are all guilty of it.
It's like when people talk about "the retarded masses" or "NPC's", to everyone else, everyone is the same. They point fingers as a collective, but when asked who they are poonting to, in particular, there's no answer that they aren't guilty of themselves. I am including myself, ofc.

This "hate" only makes me not want to interact with them. As you said, it only spreads the rot. Therefore, I limit myself to judging ideas on my own, in private.
There are still enriching encounters to be had, however, which are good to have once you have already developed your own judgements, so they can be attacked and thus perfected or dismantled. These, although rare, are the promary objective of the intellectual landscapes, however they are only a minority for the same dishonesty has shielded itself behind the pretense of this idea to make it appear as if it's presence is wanted, instead of loathed.

>>24538476
>distinction is arbitrary.
No.

>>24538477
>”the retarded masses" or "NPC's"
you will never catch me saying this. It makes my physically sick thinking about the sort of person who comes out with this chat

>>24538456
>Same. I mostly talk to AI. Say what you want about how pathetic it is, AI doesn't lie.
I have been having chats with chatGPT. It's easy to manipulate, however. Which leads you to the same kind of dishonesty, the sense of fake belonging or accordance, approval, even.
Although it's preliminary responses ate usually free of this arbitrary directional influence. I still worry that, the fact it's censored means it's still not fully honest.

However, it is useful to expose my ideas. It's good at coming up with counters, or relating my words to authors I haven't read.
And it's useful for getting info too.

>>24537425 (OP)
I'd wager information is gatekept by institutions that seek to subjugate people through controlling discourse. See: Dunning-Kruger.

>>24538485
Nta but I agree. I usually say pretty stupid shit at times but I just cant look down on people..especially when I am part of the masses. What bugs me the most is the type to say this will shit you not next day whine and bemoan how they're so lonely.

>>24538500
respect

>>24538491
Fuck, I do the same..I need to spend more time outside. Please anon

>>24538485
Fair enough.
I find that collective thinking of that sort strips people of their humanity. It creates an abstraction that is applicable to everyone and nobody in particular at the same time. Thus it's useless when talking about the sharing of ideas. Because nobody actually holds these ideas. >>24538500
I have been guilty of this myself. But I genuinely had to be humbled into leaving that kind of thought. So, now it's just funny to me.
The general is just a fake boogeyman that actually doesn't exist.
Not everyone is equally smart, but everyone has their reasons, and so, dismissal of each person based on this boogeyman only hinders intellectual enrichment.

You can’t start a serious thread here about philosophy because it just gets flamed by retards calling you an autist, saying what you’re doing won’t make you wise, and so on. It’s an anti-intellectual board now, a holding cell for kids who got shadow banned on reddit.

>>24538511
Bingo. Just tend to your own garden and be kind or at least not an insufferable prick to others. But yes anon to your point

>>24538531
Yes you can..for the most part. OP is the problem

>>24538534
>an insufferable prick
some people warrant this. one English writer said if you can't annoy somebody there's little point in writing

>>24538539
“Are Plato’s forms God?” “<Nietzsche quote> Christfags btfo!” “Wash your penis” “I’m 30 is my life over? What is the meaning of life according to philosophy?” “Does God exist?” and esoteric Kant spam threads are not serious philosophical discussion.

>>24538548
correct me if i’m wrong but wasn’t OP the first itt to start calling people autistic

>>24538531

I know but I get banned from subreddits. The fact that they can do that for any remotely controversial opinion which I actually have good reasons to maintain, it bothers me. I wish I was old enough to see quora at it's peak. Could have made some meaningful connections then.

Hug it out litizens. There are plenty of things that unite us. I know for a fact all of you can do things and you are the only one who talks yourself out of it. Op will always be a fag. I didn't bother mass replying since that's redditor behavior. The list goes on. Don't talk to AI for extended periods of time. Once those things are polished enough it'll be too late for you. HegelAI will rule the world. I'm sure someone has made a Hegel AI by now, I mean the one AI to rule all the other AIs.

>>24538499

You're not wrong btw, I know the media, the three largest industries (pharma, meat, arms), banks and politicians work largely on bribe systems and require the engineering of problems to sell solutions, which take the form of identities. This honda accord "takes you places you deserve to go," it cant just be fuel efficient. We have more power than them so it's the public that should be addressed though if you care about politics. I don't even care really, how it affects the world outside of my understanding of the world which I like to deepen. So this idea that people get to interfere with that will absolutely make me dive into their own standards and pick apart their reasons why they're lying to my face.

>>24538590
if you stop replying this might end up being an alright thread

>>24538596

Oh man that sounds like such a cool not my problem.

>>24538602
mate your banger game is atrocious

>>24538603
banter

>>24537425 (OP)
>intellectualism
stopped reading there.

>>24538612

Didnt read, gives input anyways. If that isn't a self fulfilling prophecy I don't know what is. I don't know why people think snark without substance is cool.

>>24538603

I don't know why people think snark without substance is cool.

>>24538620
I don't need to read, I have never seen anyone use the word "intellectualism" that knew what they were talking about about anything or had anything to say.

>>24538620
>snark without substance
look at what i’m replying to

>>24538620
how is that a self fulfilling prophecy?
probably goes without saying but .. are you esl?

>>24538628

Notice how he doesn't actually confirm or deny what his motivation for replying is or whether or not he thinks I am full of shit. It's substanceless. He will do anything, anything at all, but address whether or not I am right. So, I simply implied he's retarded and not worth taking seriously, as he does to me.

It's retarded. Nooooooboddddyyyyyy carrrrrrreeeesssssssszszszsz01...0102voucyofd55d. Nobody cares. You don't care I don't care, nobody cares that you can be snarky. Zzzz. No one. Skirt around the nuances of no one cares, pretend not to understand the colloquial use of the phrase. No one cares. Bruh, talk about whether what I said was right or wrong. Risk something faggot. What do you get out of being snarky with no regard for truth. I'm so far removed from this mindset, it is like watching pigs eat feed knowing they will be decapitated later. I am cognizant of the fact that to the pig eating slop it tastes good, shit smells good, downstream implications do not matter and there is no need to think. Yet I can't imagine it, because there's literally nothing to imagine. It's a lack of substance. Do they think they are fucking invisible, that I can't see they aren't actually pointing out why I'm wrong? No, it's a lack of consideration. Do they think there is something wrong with my standards for intellectualism? No, it's a lack of consideration. Do they think-- no. It's legitimately creepy like ants that let themselves get torn apart by the hive or an npc in the matrix. THINK, NIGGA, THINK. Jesus.

>>24537425 (OP)
>There aren't books that can't be >accurately summarized in zero, one, or a >few words.
>Accurate is subjective.
You moron. You great big dope.

>>24538721
Take this guy for example. This doesn't mean anything. In fact I am mot even replying to anyone. I am schizophrenic clearly for trying to engage with someone who will engage as much as you would expect from a brick wall or a stuffed animal.

>>24538704
i'm not actually the anon you were replying to, all I did was prod the gap between your posture and your practice and (christ) now you’re flailing like i attacked your soul. if this is what truth looks like to you, i’d hate to see delusion.

Alright I have to dip for my own mental health. You niggas are demons assaulting my psyche.

>>24538728
bit of a drastic change from the OP...
isn't it horrible when people poke holes in your thinkpiece!!!

>>24538281
>Because subjective does not meaning
Do more duolingo reps ESL monkey

>>24538500
the problem is people are unwilling to step outside of their comfort zones for anyone.

>>24537580
From this reply it’s evident to me that you don’t have a high enough IQ to continue this discussion. I’m not being belligerent, I’m not refusing discussion, I’m cutting off a meaningless discourse. When one party in a discussion is not capable of managing and processing the threads of logic being presented the discussion itself is useless. In the past I would try to simplify and distill the argument to help a lower-IQ participant understand it, but I have grown to learn that’s impossible. When a low-IQ argues with a high-IQ, the same pattern will always repeat itself: the high-IQ will make arguments, the low-IQ will deny the arguments using low-grade sophistry, which the high-IQ will attempt to clarify only to be faced with a surface-level denial. The high-IQ will become frustrated by what will appear to be simple lying and accuse the low-IQ of being a troll — but in reality the low-IQ isn’t trying to deceive, they just can’t track the argument. The low-IQ can’t keep track of and parse the chains of logic over multiple posts, connecting current statements with prior ones, a mind-map wich the high-IQ can easily maintain and thinks is natural for anybody to do, hence the belief that the low-IQ is being deceitful and the feeling of outrage of having someone be so flagrantly dishonest. Therefore, once a high-IQ identifies the signs of failure to engage in the argument’s points of logic he should immediately stop the discussion and move on. I realize that everything I just posted is confusing to a low-IQ, it’s for any less experienced high-IQs who’re interesting in knowing why these arguments always devolve exactly the same way.

>>24538734
its not very nice, honestly. you shouldn't do that.

>>24538251
funny how not a single reply understood what this post was trying to say... despite it being extremely obvious...

>being stupid is.... LE BAD

>>24538704
God, I love keyboard spammers. It's such an honest display of unrest, such indifference towards strangers noticing the rage inside of one.
Wonderful entertainment, I'll take this tirade to sleep with me.
Nta but you should do this more often

dude I dont fucking care just tell me what color you are

>>24537425 (OP)
I think a lot about how, outside of STEM type stuff (and even a lot of them too), nothing is actually that complicated. 99% of jobs don't take more than a few hours training and that's what the vast majority of people train for before doing their job regardless of its difficulty.
It's just not that complicated to explain almost anything and especially any normal job.

>>24539569
To be clear - I'm saying that the general ivory tower feel of academics is wrong and they, and other professionals, should encourage people to learn their trades and information even if it makes the average person as good as an "expert" in just a few hours.

>>24539575
It is wrong but you must remember, there is a profit motive. Alot of intellectuals make bank confusing the shit out of people 'doctors, bankers, lawyers, insurance policymakers, etc'

>>24537425 (OP)
I believe that when intellectuals use the term "anti-intellectual," they do so out of frustration that laymen don't see the value of their work. I think this stems from a misunderstanding of layman motivation. When we watch a movie, we want to be entertained. When we learn a concept, we want it to be useful. And when we hear an idea, we want to easily determine whether it's true or false. Academics have different motivations: they listen to ideas in order to come up with new ones. For this reason, they often don't care about the immediate truth or usefulness of an idea or theory, as long as it could be true or useful in the future.

As an analogy, if you gave picrel to a car enthusiast or mechanic, he'd be able to get it running. But if you gave it to a layman, he'd see it as useless, since he can't fix it. This is why laymen aren't interested in ideas and writings considered "intellectual"—and why they grow cynical when such things are presented as brilliant. Until you've got the car running, the job's not done.