lets compile a list of things pseudo-intellectuals cant stop talking about and constantly oversimplify in order to look smart:
schrödingers cat
sisyphus
everything nietzsche said ever
gnosticism
solipsism for secondary-tier pseuds
Determinism, definitely
Freud! Definitely Freud! But only the basic shit of him!
>>7711843
Freud is Nietzsche on cocaine.
Anything to do with postmodern deconstructionism.
the greeks, the enlightenment in general
science
Sooo if this all are things pseudo-intellectuals talk about, what are the topics real intellectuals talk about? I mean someone would judge all of you and would call you a pseudo-intellectual just because of the shit you talk about all day!
>>7711862
there is no set of "topics only intellectuals talk about", only topics that pseudo-intellectuals often use to make themselves appear smarter by talking about them. real intellectuals discuss nietzsche and freud and determinism as well, but they do so in a genuine way - which may or may not be open for secondary discussion whether actually exists or not - but this is presupposed in the compilation of a "list of things pseudo-intellectuals talk about"
>>7711862
they talk about the same topics, but have read widely in them and understand them
evolution theory, evolutionary psychology, basically anything in that area they can rape into a horrible reductionist teleological misunderstanding
>dude the goal of life is to reproduce
gender
race
class
sexuality
>>7711916
It is
Entry level moral dilemmas like The Runaway Trolley, The Baby or The Townspeople, etc..
>>7711925
Kill yourself.
>>7711916
how is it not?
>>7711942
How is it?
Double slit experiment/quantum physics
Consciousness
Global warming (not climate change)
>>7711917
All of these
Politics
Literature
"""""""""""" philosophy """""""""""""
>>7711953
We feel biological compulsions to bear and raise children?
>>7711817
godels incompleteness theorem
maths in general
napolean
>>7711968
i seldom if ever hear anyone talk about napoleon. where are you from
>>7711968
I, for one, abuse the fuck out of the incompleteness thm. Perhaps in a year or two I'll have a more solid high-level understanding of math and its contextsbecause God knows the math major I'm graduating with hasn't given me that.
>>7711817
Quantum Physics.
Is there any more over used, misunderstood pseudo-intellectual bullshit signifier? I don't think so. Quantum Physics isn't even overly complex, it's just a new way to view the world on a very small scale.
>"Smart Guy" Starter pack.
>I totally love Quantum Physics. I'm just weird like that.
>Schrodinger's cat...something, something...multiple universes!
>I'm an Athiest with my own morality. God, it's like sooo many people need to really READ Nietzsche.
>There is no greater poet than Poe. (I haven't actually read anything but the Raven, but he's so dark and tragic.)
>>7712042
>Quantum Physics isn't even overly complex
t. Doenst know jackshit about quantum physics
Explain the CERN
>>7712059
The theories that explain the underlying concepts of our physical existence are not and should not be overly complex.
The mathematics are taxing, yes, but the theory is simple. Quantum Physics isn't space magic, it's mankind groping for answers in the dark. Judging from your reaction though, I've likely struck a nerve. I would suggest reading some Poe and nice glass of port. That should smooth this out.
dfw
>>7712073
>it's not complex because I believe so
Choke on a bag of dicks, cumrag
Seas of ink have been written about quantum physics in the last century.
>>7711843
This.
>>7711962
>i feel compelled to pick my nose, thus nosepicking is the goal of life
religion is for stupid sheeple
modern art is garbage - here pseuds usually give abstract expressionism as an example
having a problem with the second definition of the word 'literally'
chaos thoery, fractals
if they are a new age pseud they'll eventually tell you about 'energy'
+1 on evo pscyh and quantumn physics. usually they will use quantumn physics to defend the concept of free will.
>>7711817
no no, they drop nietzche's name a lot. they dont actually ever discuss nietzche. its beyond a normie to understand the will to power.
cultural marxism
third wave feminism
>thinking that mention 'it's relative' is interesting
>thinking 'it's objective' is valid
Evo Psyc
>>7712073
>should not be overly complex
I know you're trolling, but I'm rustled.
Ill grant that it's pretty incredible that we can comprehend the physical world on the lever like that we do, but there's no reason the world should be simple.
>>7711862
real intellectuals talk about sports and the weather
>>7712330
Shit man, I've read most of Nietzsche and many lectures on him by Heidegger and others, and I don't even think I "get" wtp, only people who haven't read much would claim that they "get" it. Same goes for eternal recurrence. Nietzsche seems simple until you actually start digging into things.
Atheist that try to argue against Kalam
Rational as without emotions
Logical fallacies
Objective/subjective as dichotomy
Americans on Marxism
Americans on Socialism
Language puritist in general oversimplify language
Witch hunt
Galileo case
Freedom as a goal
>>7712400
look up dunning-kruger, you know just enough to understand how little you know
this is the first step
>>7712400
care to elaborate how the two concepts are so complex? eternal recurrence just seemed like a simple exisential thought exercise. will to power seems also self explanatory. conscious beings want to accumulate power.
>>7712405
Not him but I yet to find someone who "truly know" and outside the so called Dunning-Krugger effect
>>7712408
>conscious beings want to accumulate power.
Will to power is the wish and act of put into practice your capacity and competence. You dominate over the slaves because you can, there is no other motor of your actions than the will of power, i guess.
>>7712416
well, i don't know nietzsche well enough to pretend to comment and 'truly know' is fairly vague
all i'm suggesting is that after the peak of idiocy early on in the dunning-kruger effect is the beginning of the road to actually being an 'intellectual', though i hope nobody would actually define themselves as that
>>7712036
how do you abuse the incompleteness theorem
They belong to the cult of science
>>7712404
really hit the nail on the head there
>>7712268
kek, this is the most retarded post I've read this year.
>Marxism
>Socialism/Communism
>Capitalism
>Free Market
Whether for it or against it, most opinions spouted on these topics make me want to kill myself and take my liberal arts wing with me.
>>7712425
No, I mean it is, but that's not all it is.
>>7712408
As a working definition that's fine, but that doesn't encompass the whole thing. That'd be like saying physics is just the study of objects in motion, to a certain degree, it's correct, but it isn't exhaustive and doesn't tell you much at all about the particulars.
As for eternal recurrence, maybe it's just a thought experiment when it comes up the The Gay Science, but he develops it a lot more into ametaphysicslater on, in WTP especially. (Though it's debatable whether we should trust anything from WTP, but I digress)
>>7712408
>conscious beings want to accumulate power.
oh shit, should have read more carefully.
This is actually plain wrong. It's not just conscious beings, it's all of life, maybe all of the material world.
>>7712425
I think it's simpler than that, and it's not just conscious beings.
Substance seeks to exert itself on the universe. The will to power is not something just in the heads of men, but in all life, all matter, every molecule, each atom. Everything is exerts itself not merely to exist, but to grow, to influence, to impress itself upon the void around it. The rock does not let your hand's touch pass through it, the very atoms which compose the rock, through their bonds, push back at you, they bar you entry to their realm just as humans guard the gates to their cities, as wolves or chimpanzees guard their hunting grounds. Atoms react with one another, they combine to form molecules, molecules react to form other forms.
The will to power is sort of a trumping of the will to live, Nietzsche does here what he does with a lot of Schopenhauer To be is not merely to be, to be is to struggle, to be is to grow and to flourish. To be is to evolve. This is also the core of the Ubermensch, the Ubermensch is not really a person, it's not simply a superior human being. It's ultimately a process, a process for arriving at a being that is not just a superior human, but is superior TO humans. The Ubermensch is not the superman, but the overman. Not the overman in the sense that he is an overlord, but in the teenage girl sense of the word 'over'. He is 'so over' humanity. He is past humanity. He operates apart from humanity, rejecting human's morality and instead using his own.
Disclaimer: He doesn't claim that atoms and whatnot have consciousness, only that they have a will. This is hard to interpret, but I view it as something like Spinoza's god. Some vast unidentifiable force, some underlying universal will which is ever present. Whether it's the laws of physics or the godhead doesn't matter really.
People think Nietzsche was a hardline Atheist but he really wasn't. He didn't deny the possibility that God or Truth could exist, he only denied that humans could observe them, and as such that we shouldn't concern ourselves with them. He just argues like an atheist because he's edgy.but this is just my perspective cuz there's no one universally true interpretation of Nietzsche ;^)
>>7712451
>damagecontrol.jpg
All math and sciences see pleb shit like Pynchon.
>>7712451
>literally doesn't get it
Poor lad.
>>7712535
I do get it, but it's retarded. Just plain retarded.
There is a slight difference between what your instinct urges you to do and random conditional impulses of your nervous system do.
Please say you were baiting all along, nobody on /lit/ can be this stupid, even in 2016
>>7712553
You're missing the point.
The point is that "X does Y, therefore Y is the purpose of X" is not sound reasoning, whether Y is reproduction or nose picking or anything else.
You have no business calling people retarded if you can't into basic logic.
>>7712561
no, you just used a strawman and then gleefully scratched your ass thinking you were pulling one over him. that was never the argument.
>>7712502
Nietzsche wanted to replace the "ancient" morality which was inherited from the israelite slaves, and proposed the Will to power.
I think you described what is vitalism.
Will to power applies to conscious and not conscious beings, I agree, but it's not that simple.
The main characteristics of Will to power:
Irracionality
Unconsciousness
Lack of end (finality)
Impersonality(Dionysus and Apollo)
I had to check some class notes and conclusions, it was truly interesting when I was on highschool.
>but this is just my perspective cuz there's no one universally true interpretation of Nietzsche ;^)
;^)
>>7712570
It was the argument.
Also, differentiating between 'instinctive' and 'random' behaviour according to your ideological agenda is questionable as fuck.
>>7711817
How much more intellectual they are than Reddit.
>>7712570
how is it a straw man? Life reproduces, the kinds of life that do that the most/best become most common over time, none of that implies life has a 'purpose/goal' and that is to reproduce. In other words "X does Y"=/=>"Y is what X is 'supposed' to do"
>>7711817
Claiming religion in general and christianism in particular are bad and evil whereas they try to push over you christian morals without even acknowledging it.
Disdaining disciplines like economics, politics or philosophy because all that shit "is common sense" and only suitable for bar chats.
Thinking reading long books makes you a "big boy".
Trying to endorse that "art is subjective" only to validate their lowest appeals for expendable pop culture and consumerist habits towards art and culture, yet still mocking people who they consider more plebeian that them just attending to their tastes.
Pretending to read in public.
Claiming they're well read after their reading a couple of High School tier novels.
Disregarding the classics because "they're boring".
Everything related to the School of Resentment.
Posting unironically on /lit/.
>>7712561
Jesus Christ. You actually were NOT baiting?
>>7712584
yeah, the sad thing about the will to power is that he never truly finished the project, after BGE he stops talking about it as a truly metaphysical concept in his published work, he keeps it in his notes. But I think it's clear that he wanted to work on it, it was a fundamental part of his transvaluation process.
Ecce Homo was one of his pieces where, like in the final part of Zarathustra, he committed to a spring cleaning of his consciousness, exorcising the scraps and preparing for a new burst of creativity preceeding his proposed transvaluation of all values. Der Antichrist was only one of four pieces he intended to write.
>>7712584
Also I didn't describe vitalism because the thing with vitalism is it was used to make a distinction between living and nonliving matter, that life is matter+soul and as such cannot be understood through purely chemical processes.
Will to power does not make this distinction. It doesn't care which processes lead to life nor does it care for the spiritual, here's a passage from his notes that summarizes the will to power as a metaphysical concept.
"My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (--its will to power:) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on--"
And another passage from his notes further clarifies that, actually, a 'process' isn't a fully accurate way to describe what it is:
"The will to power is not a being, not a becoming, but a pathos --the most elemental fact from which a becoming and effecting first emerge--"
>>7711953
>calls out pseuds
>is too, isn't, is too, isn't
Cult of Reason nonsense, and Liberalism/The Enlightenment in general.
The biggest shitstain in history. It just about resulted in an intellectual dead-end that would have never been escaped.
>>7712389
>we comprehend the physical world
There is no physical world
>>7711862
but /lit/ is the most ridiculously cringy pseudo intellectual place. mostly because it's populated largely by kiddies under the age of let's say 21.
>>7712216
>Seas of ink
jesus lol, kill yourself. this is why /lit/ is the most douche bag place on the entire internet.
>>7711862
Real intellectuals spend all of their time mocking pseudointellectuals, because gatekeeping is the most patrician human impulse.
>>7712321
How can you defend free will with quantum physics? I want to see thar.
I hate whats been done to Nietzsche at a street level. He's been made out to be some kind of back alley monster. Seriously, I feel bad for him.
>>7712914
You can't. I study physics and it's a cringy explanation to hear because the people who try to go on about it never actually grasp qm. They're vaguely aware of uncertainty and think this means their minds are free of determinism, as if by some magical force their soul determines the outcomes of the dice rolls going on with chemicals in their brains. It's nonsense.
>>7712959
his sister caused this
goddamn anti-semites
>>7712831
Burden on proof is on the lad who thinks he knows what life is 'about', friend.
>>7712851
Why yes, idealism is a pseud philosophy.
greek statute avatars
>>7711817
>lets compile a list of things pseudo-intellectuals cant stop talking about and constantly oversimplify in order to look smart
pseudo-intellectuals.
>>7712434
Invoking it as an explanation for all types of emergent behaviors (up to and including consciousness as an emergent result of human's abnormally large associative cortices). If you accept this (which is the foundational part I can't actually justify), then depending on whether math is created by humans or discovered by humans, you have a solid argument for either the existence of God or the capacity for conscious humans to be their own gods, respectively.I was a spergy highschooler
>>7711930
/thread
if i hear the runaway trolley one more time i'm gonna go full camus and shoot a bitch
>>7712321
>religion is for stupid sheeple
>using "sheeple"
Is this bait? Or is this unironic?
>>7711953
We're animals, there are other animals on this planet. Their (us too) entire livelihood, from how they grow biologically to their social dynamics can all be treated back to survival. We fear death. We have people that believe in God and an afterlife and still fear death. Death=no more life=no more survival
Goal of Survival= to live as long as possible to,hopefully, reproduce as many times possible.
>>7713516
neither. its common attitude pseudo-intellectuals have, if not the literal words they use. i have actually heard someone say sheeple unironically, but they were referring to people voting for either of the major two party presidential candidates in the last US election
>>7713543
>we're animals
Top pseudo-intellectual post right here.
>>7713554
>I can't into elementary biology
Holy shit, at least TRY to make the bait realistic.
>>7713547
This word has to be like the term "selfie." It just HAPPENED.
>>7713543
but man, the irony is, how can you survive while thinking like this
>>7712268
One of the worst cases of straw man I've seen recently. Cringed visibly.
>>7713564
>le science
Yup, pseud.
>>7711817
>pseudo-atheists who talk about christianism
"Satan is a good guy because he punishes the bad people"
This makes me rage on so many levels i'm holding myself not to press caps and look like a retard
Are quantum mechanics and newtonian mechanics mutually exclusive?
>>7713669
desu satan sounds pretty cool
all we've hear about satan is god talking shit about him in his books.
what if he's a cool dude?
>>7713690
I'm not saying that, take a look at the Karamazov Brothers, satan is a cool guy.
What I don't like is people who think Satan actually "punishes" people, like he'll stay in hell for all eternity having fun with his demons by spiking peoples backs. It's written in almost every bible book that satan doesn't punish anyone. When the judgement day comes and he's thrown in hell, he wants to take as much people as possible with him
>>7712908
Thank you for this post.
To be more specific on Nietzsche
>People who think Nietzsche didnt believe in / rejected morality
>People who think his philosophy was "The strong rule the weak"
>People who hear the word aesthetic and say "oh, you mean like grunge?"
>People who think Nietzsche was a misogynist
>People who think he promoted Nihilism
>People who think Nihilism is in any way good, or even its own branch of philosophy
>>7712408
The will to power is not a desire.
>>7713690
dont say this even ironically
>>7711846
Nice simplification pleb
>>7712036
http://www.amazon.com/G%C3%B6dels-Theorem-Incomplete-Guide-Abuse/dp/1568812388
This one I found good.
Anti-scientism
In other words, people who think that just because logical positivism is dead, science is complete trash and basically useless. Usually do not know what the word "Pragmatism" means, and have never heard of Dewey, Peirce or Quine.
Theres quite a few on this board, and are just as bad as the idiots they mock.
>>7713751
pragmatism was killed decades ago though
>>7713751
Anti-scientism doesn't mean anti-science though and this is the error you're making.
Sure some aren't very nuanced with their view about it but still..
>>7713751
I think what you just described would be an anti-science stance
Anti-scientism is okay
>>7713687
No. Quantum physics are more of an expansion, or perhaps correction, of Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics are largely correct, just ever so slightly inaccurate because there is variables they dont account for. On quantum scaled these inaccuracies are more profound, and hence Einstein set the groundwork for replacing Newtonian physics.
Also, whats funny to mention is that Liebniz argued endlessly with Newton about space and time. Liebniz thought they were merely faculties of the mind and therefore relative, while Newton believed them to be concrete. Newton's ideas were widely accepted until Einstein proved Liebniz right.
>>7713757
By who and how exactly?
Its one of the only significantly growing fields of philosophy today.
>>7713751
>pragmaticism is good
>>7713585
With food and water? Just because life sucks doesn't mean we have to lie about it sucking.
>>7713776
Growing thanks to the retarded.
>>7713627
Humans, objectively speaking, are animals. You are arguing against this basic fact because the word "animal" to you carries negative connotations which in this context don't exist.
>>7713773
Texts on the funny thing you mentioned?
>>7713786
>humans are animals
Why?
>inb4 LE SCIENCE?!?!!?!?
Also, nice presumptions there, pseud.
>>7712908
Preach it.
>>7713791
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2708561?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
>>7713797
Are you a woman? I'm not trying to start anything, it's just that every time this debate comes up it's women who want to go against it. It's hypocritical considering they reject Puritan concepts of "virginity" on the grounds of it not being concrete and then come and reject this concept on it being "too concrete."
>>7713802
Thank you brother.
>>7713782
how can you explain that your mind, will and soul grows weaker if you believe certain things, and become stronger if you believe other things?
they usually don't go with hand with believing that you have just to reproduce and survive
>>7713687
No, relativity does not excludes newton nor quantum mechanics exclude anything else as some anon pointed out.
>>7713743
Hmm, that looks like a worthwhile investment.
>>7713839
Will and soul are parts of the mind, not exclusive. I'm no neurologist but I imagine chemicals in the brain released during these moments are your answer.
Name dropping Ulysses, but when pressed, the only thing they can say about it is some non-specific babbling about stream of consciousness.
>>7712430
The point you can't really know when you are out of the zone.
Dk checked it on a test in university if i remember correctly and even then i find it hard to argue we have one shared objective truth value
>>7712914
Person A: There is no such thing as randomness, everything is cause and effect and if you know every possible variable you can predict with absolute certainty the outcome of an action and therefore there is no free will
Person B: There is randomness in quantum physics, therefore it is possible to know every variable and we do have free will
Person A: Randomness is just a pattern we don't understand yet
>>7714477
Also on the thread when people invoke Dunning-Kruger on particular case
If you want to call someone idiot its fine just don't bring explnation on big arching generality when you do it
>>7714494
>Anti-scientism doesn't mean anti-science though and this is the error you're making.
Has this been demonstrated? No, it hasn't and never will be demonstrate 100% dumbass.
>>7712908
My patrician nigga.
>>7712330
It's actually one of the infallible ways to spot a pseudo: when they think Nietzsche is a nihilist or invoke his name as if to say "lol nothing matters, god is dead, amirite?".
>>7713543
The reason most living beings can be observed to busy themselves with survival is simply that the ones that didn't do so simply did not survive.
This in no way implies that reproduction is the 'goal of life', it just means that whichever life tends to stick around has the tendency to reproduce.
>>7713404
You are ignoring the possibility that math itself is an emergent property of existence, not created by humans or God
>>7712321
hmmmm? most of this post is great and dandy, but the top two are a bit ambiguous to parse. are you saying psueds think them or that you do and they think otherwise?
>>7712405
>dunning-kruger
here's one OP
>>7715079
ehh
>>7711817
antinatalism
>>7711817
This entire board fits your topic description.
>>7713713
Help me out here. There's this guy I know who's like "I am a nihilist –because I am fine with nihilism; I have accepted that there's no meaning and I'm okay with that."
I tried to suggest that perhaps he's into existentialism or absurdism, but he (angrily) denies and demands that he is a nihilist. Is he right?
>>7714494
Even true randomness does not allow the absurdity that is spontaneously generating the ultimate event in a chain of causality at an arbitrary and insignificant moment in time and space, thus creating a schism in the fabric of time.
>>7715174
>>7714494
This conversation is Pseudo-intellectual. You as a human being will never have the intellectual capabilities which are required to learn the real truth behind human existence. You need to realize that countless before you have asked these questions and never found an answer. My two cents on this is that we as a species just can't know and lack the insight required to know the truth.
>>7715181
I am not saying its impossible but it appears to be very silly once you put it to the test of working within the framework of a material universe.
>>7715192
It is silly. I understand why people spend so much time thinking about why we exist and whether or not everything is random or calculated but these are thoughts that should be pushed away to make room for better thoughts.
>>7715203
I mean the idea of "Free Will" is silly. Guy pours cheerios into a bowl and this creates an upset in the very modality of the universe. Something seems wrong with that picture.
>>7715205
When you frame it like that it really does seem ridiculous.
M A R X
A
R
X
>le if I can identify something and then frame it ironically, then it is beneath me
absolutely classic 4chan chat
evangelion, it really isn't as deep as everyone wants it to be
>>7715161
he just edgy
Kubrick.
Impressionism.
Picasso.
Caravaggio.
Now that I think of it, just most of the classical art/literature/culture.
Classical music. "Omg i love beethoven furelise and the fifth symphony are great!"
Mc Curry.
Andy Warhole.
Pop music of the 60'-90'.
So many things fuck
Fucking postmodernism. Holy shit give it a rest and learn the difference between something being self-referential and "postmodern."
>>7714494
>Person A: Randomness is just a pattern we don't understand yet
Fits right in this thread. Only plebs would believe in hidden globabl variables.
fucking occam's razor
ITT: kids arguing about their pathetic abstract identities
Nihilism
Artificial intelligence
Parallel universes
Anything with the word 'quantum'
Literally all the well known philosophers have basically been reduced to a bunch of out of context quotes normies can recite easily or put on some gay motivational poster
>>7714494
>Person B: There is randomness in quantum physics, therefore it is possible to know every variable and we do have free will
How does that follow?
>>7716128
Maybe muh hidden variable
>>7716093
Its funny because thats all Joe Rogan talks about in his podcasts
>>7713457
here's the real question
if you don't pull the lever, the trolley will kill 1 person
if you do pull the lever, the trolley will do a sick loop de loop and then kill 2 people
do you pull the lever?
>>7716132
If it is truly random, we are slaves to randomness and there is no free will.
If there is a hidden variable we cannot detect, it will only prove determinism.
Is there even a scenario where free will is proven?
>>7712791
>It doesn't care which processes lead to life nor does it care for the spiritual, here's a passage from his notes that summarizes the will to power as a metaphysical concept.
Yeah. He was against the "uthopical" end of science.
He criticized the basis of science, leading his ideology to a rejection to the human language and the reason itself.
It's truly interesting knowing that, a philologist like him, would deepen that much, killing almost definitely the anterior philosophical movements.
Do you know what does rustle my jimmies? Most Nietzsche "criticizers" skip the entire content of his work, and repeat the same thing: he was [insert adjective and substantive]...
>>7713750
>Nietzsche was very similar to a vitalist though.
Many experts portray him as a vitalist.
I'll only speak of my area of study
>believing in free market tautologies
>"crony capitalism and oligopolies are only possible because of government intervention"
>anything about Austrian "economics"
>thinking that slashing taxes increases investment rates
>thinking the free rider effect would disappear in Ancapistan
>believing in the efficient markets hypothesis/Great Moderation/trickle down economics/expansionary austerity
>>7713869
and try and read the proof. the original uses odd notation and has a couple mistakes in it though
use:
http://www.research.
ibm.
com/
people/
h/
hirzel/
papers/
canon00-goedel.
everything written on this board is by pseudo-intellectuals, don't kid yourselves
>>7716176
Randomness doesn't necessarily mean that "You will always simply choose a random option" in this context, obviously.
The ability for things to be unpredictable at such a base level is simply being used to demonstrate that knowing variables is not enough to purely predict an outcome. This doesn't mean that on a human level, we have no choices to make, and will always choose a random option.
Free will as a concept is honestly difficult to argue without a set definition, people see free will as being a lot of different things. Is it just the ability to make your own choices, regardless of what biological impulses dictate? Because we know that, people starve themselves to death, or purposefully remain celibate or any number of other things.
Is free will the ability to make choices without any influence? Because that to me is more just randomness than actual choice.
What is the actual definition being argued?
>>7716214
That you have complete control of you actions and that you are not controlled by an unknown 'third party'
>>7716224
But those are two different points. Complete control implies freedom from influences, which is obviously not true, we are influenced by things, though we aren't locked into choosing what our influences would dictate we should.
Not being controlled by a third party is more difficult to argue, you start getting into the purely hypothetical, when there's no real way to define or put traits on that third party, how do you prove its not influencing us? Though obviously not being able to prove something isn't influencing us isn't proof that it is, there's no real logic there.
>>7716213
I agree, though.
What is being an intellectual?
>>7716289
I'd assume that in reality, the true intellectuals are those working in academia, and regularly getting works published.
Pretty much everyone here is either pseudo-intellectual (the I read a few books, so I'm pretty much a philosopher types), or freely admits that they don't actually know shit, but either want to learn more or want to talk about it anyway.
>"It's all relative"
>"there is no consciousness or self, everything is just electric signals in the brain"
>"love is just le chemical reactions"
>"I am atheist, debate me, go on, I dare you."
>"can you show me evidence for God?"
>misinterpreting Nietzsche and conscripting him to multiculturalism, feminism, socialism, etc
>Waterstones Philosophers like Chomsky, Zizek, Foucault, Nietzsche. etc
>entry level pleb-economics like Piketty, Krugman, and other Keynesians
>unironically being a progressive, post-modernist, atheist, leftist, Marxist, etc
>>7716322
Name five "non-pleb" economists
>>7716355
polyani
>>7716360
lol
>>7711817
taking "God is dead" literally
Reducing Descartes to nothing but the meditations
Dismissing Christian philosophy/theology (Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Ockham etc.) on the basis of prejudice against organized religion
Claims of intimate understanding of an author/philosopher despite never having read any of their works (I'm looking at you, Wikipedia "scholars")
Hard Atheism
Hard Materialism
Attempts to elevate genre fiction to the level of literary fiction (I don't care if your copy of A Storm of Swords is leatherbound)
>>7715129
a pseud thing to do is to be so status-obsessed that you care more about what a statement signals than its veracity
confirmed woman
>>7716389
>not taking "God is dead" literally
"Dostoevsky is the best of the Russian realists"
>Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
>>7716389
>Hard Materialism
is the only thing that makes sense.
>>7716213
I'd say it's half full-on psuedo-intellectuals, and half striving-to-be-intellectuals. There's a difference.
>>7716322
>post-modernist
hey
>>7716405
digital watch cargo shorts limp-wristed hand job spergbeard fuck
>>7711817
pseudo-intellectuals
>>7717057
It may make dollars but it certainly doesn't make sense
>>7717086
this, lol
>>7717062
whats the difference? intent?
>>7717444
Not that guy but I'd say attitude is the biggest difference
A pseud just wants to amass knowledge and show it off, knowledge becomes social capital to be put on display like a peacock.
An aspiring intellectual is one who falls in love with the pursuit of knowledge, satisfaction is found in the act of learning and not in the act of displaying what you've learned.
I think the biggest hard-and-fast distinction between the two is that a pseud will become upset at being proved wrong whereas an aspiring intellectual will try and understand how they are wrong and what that implies.
>>7717682
This is put really well, and I agree completely.
Anyone who exclusively learns things to show them off, or only learns things he can show off with, is a pseud. Though more honestly, people who do that are just annoying cunts instead of any other term put on them, and should be treated as such.
