Thanks!
Soon to be updated, please leave your suggestions below and I will review them.
This guy. I really don't understand how many people can believe shits like this, " when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it." hahaha
>>8128691
Will be considered!
You should add Cornel West to the pic
>>8129277
Second this.
>>8128611
Pic related
>>8128611
>Daily reminder
repetition is a rhetorical technique
so ok i will ignore you from now on
>>8128611
Haven't you had enough yet? Why not go spam this on other boards now?
>Brother Nathanael
LOL
literally everyone is a rhetorician on some level.
>>8129316
>>8128611
So, who should we listen to? Preferably someone still living.
>>8129353
Listen to your heart.
>>8129359
When there's nothing else I can do?
>>8128611
Looks like you removed Ethan Klein and Filthy Frank from the list. Which, if this is a serious list, is a good start. If it's a troll list it'd probably be funnier if you left them in there.
Either way, anyone wanna fingerblast some Cherokee chicks on the trail of beers?
>>8128611
I myself am a debater and i very much view rhetoric as the dark side of the force.
Lindybeige, Alain de Botton, Eliezer Yudkowsky
Laughed at by most experts.
>>8128611
i dunno what the h3h3 guy is doing there, isn't he more of an entertainer than a rhetorician?
I still can't believe that sargon of akkad got an actual audience over time. Truly baffling.
>>8128611
What is the point of having ideas if you cannot defend them? I am not defending pseuds, I am defending rhetoric.
>>8129413
more of a certified faggot than anything
this bitch
>>8128691
"The moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforseen incidents and meetings and material assistance which no man could have dreamed would have come his way." (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
>>8128611
Stefan Molyneux is the greatest living philosopher
>>8129508
>>8128611
Bonus points for having TYT on there. The most lop-sided "news source" there is
>>8129538
that's not Glenn Beck's rotting corpse.
>>8129508
absolute fucking lol
>who is Richard Rorty?
>who is John Sallis?
>>8129277
Seconded. The picture already has a decent mix of conservative/liberal/ "I'm a speical snowflake" contrarians, but another leftist would be helpful.
>>8128611
Ta-Nehisi Coates
Bob Boilen
Peter Thiel
Deray Mckesson
Kanye West
>>8129277
Strongly agreed
>>8128611
I guess I don't get the concept of Rhetoricians. If their primary purpose is to persuade or entertain, what is a non-rhetorician? Some wholly unbiased who speaks nothing but sage advice delivered from God?
>>8129567
Properly speaking, Kanye West doesn't even register as a pseudo intellectual. He's another tier or two below most of these people, many of whom actually do write books (perhaps with assistance), however interminable. Bill O'Reilly's very quietly stated co-author(s) on his "Killling" books come to mind.
Chomsky, Hitchens, Coulter and Zizek are in the upper crust of this pseud-menagerie insofar as they write books seriously, on multiple occasions, and usually without co-authors (I assume). Of course, that doesn't account for editorial processes. The bottom of the group are the less-serious youtubers and minor television/media personalities who don't actually write, e.g. quinn/sarkeezee/that late show host guy/joe rogan?
>>8129559
Well, their ok I guess. but it's not like they solved the Entire Field of Ethics forever.
>>8129519
Wait, what's Jodorowsky doing here?
>>8129380
if you're not a policy debater you should kill yourself
>>8129710
It's a thread about pseudo-intellectuals. Al is right at home here.
>>8128611
Putting Chomsky and Zizek, both actual philosophers, in with all that drek is unfair.
Other than that, I'm down with this image.
>>8129427
I can believe it. A lot of people agree with him.me included
>>8129882
Why ignore the reminder?
>>8129893
I don't listen to him, I just happen to agree.
>>8129788
Bloom, Self, Vidal and Hedges should probably be removed too. SOmeone will probably call me a libtard for saying this, but they're pretty important figures in their respective fields (literary criticism, fiction, journalism)
What makes someone a pseud?
>>8129934
Opining on things that are outside your field of expertise
it's worth distinguishing between classical rhetoric and psuedo-intellectual rhetoric - if classical rhetoric were still taught to students and practiced as a civil art, there wouldn't be a demand for any of this
>>8129939
Wouldn't everyone qualify?
Varg needs to be added
>>8129968
Maybe to some extent (e.g. everyone has political opinions), but some people are much more egregious than others, particularly those who influence public opinion.
>>8129788
keep chomsky for sure, that guy went from "libertarian socialist" to a full on bernie shill
Chomsky, Dawkins, and to a lesser extent Kaku don't deserve to be there. They have serious academic accomplishments, regardless of how terrible their public personas perhaps are.
>>8129911
nah, keep bloom on. fuck bloom.
>>8128611
>That Orthodox priest on the bottom right.
>>8130064
Lol you clearly belong in the pic more than he does
>>8129934
It's a fraud. The personification of poshlost.
>>8130058
That's also true for Krauss, Tyson and even Thunderf00t.
>>8130086
Yes, but all of those people haven't had accomplishments that are comparable.
At least in Chomsky's case he advanced linguistics as we know it.
>>8130055
There's nothing about his support for Bernie Sanders which is surprising at all from his past writings. It's not realistic at all to think that you could expect someone to run for president successfully on an anarcho-syndicalist platform. And it's not like Chomsky's been silent on the fact that Bernie isn't a socialist or that his foreign policy record is tainted. But Bernie is so much closer to Chomsky than anyone who has ever run for president that you don't really know much about either if you think Chomsky has changed his views at all in supporting Bernie.
By the way, when you use the word shill like that it doesn't mean anything. If you actually think Bernie is handing Chomsky a big fat check for the endorsement you're deluded.
>>8130095
>Yes, but all of those people haven't had accomplishments that are comparable.
And you're qualified to say this, why? I doubt you're a scientist in any of their fields. All of these people do legitimate academic research.
>>8130113
>And you're qualified to say this, why?
Because Thunderf00t hasn't had accomplishments comparable to Noam Chomsky. I do not qualified to see what's there. I am simply telling facts.
>>8130105
Alright, now it's just obvious bait. Maybe it was originally. Put on Shakespeare or Plato if you just want to be ridiculous.
>>8130113
From 1972 to 1992, Professor Chomsky was cited 7,449 times in the Social Science Citation Index-likely the greatest number of times for a living person there as well, although the research into those numbers isn't complete. In addition, from 1974 to 1992 he was cited 1,619 times in the Science Citation Index.
Not to suck his dick, but come on.
>>8130124
>>8130137
>moving the goalposts
Chomsky is the only one where you might have some semblance of a point in that he's like the Darwin or Einstein of linguistics, but I doubt you're in any position to say that Michio Kaku's contributions to physics are more important to Lawrence Krauss' or whoever
>>8130144
Yeah, I guess if Kaku's on then perhaps Krauss and Thunderf00t should be on. And as much as I hate to say it probably Tyson too.
That's trickier though. I guess Dawkins and Chomsky are the only ones you I'm sure shouldn't be there, though.
>>8130128
Please don't think that image has any validity.
Only images posted under my tripcode are the official charts.
Some people you should add to your pic include Hegel, Bergson, Heidegger, Benjamin, Gadamer, Lacan, Adorno, Sartre, Levinas, Arendt, Merleau-Ponty, Levi-Strauss, Beauvoir, Ricoeur, Lyotard, Deleuze, Foucault, Derrida, Irigaray, Badiou, Nancy, Rancière, Kristeva, Agamben, Latour, Zizek, Butler.
>>8130168
>Hegel, Bergson, Heidegger, Benjamin, Merleau-Ponty
Nope.
>>8130167
Don't be pseud and take the real scientists and Chomsky off, then.
>>8128611
Where's that bonafide-intellectual thread I'm always seeing?
>>8130105
>Anno and Miyazaki
Congrats anon, you succeeded in triggering me.
>>8130191
fuck anno
>>8130191
>Anno is not a Pseudo-intellectual
/lit/ has sunk so low.
>>8128611
I'm happy to say I know maybe 50% of those people, almost none of them the people who I assume are Youtubers (except Badthony Tastetano).
>>8129567
Does Thiel have pretensions to intellectualism though?
>>8129633
Buckley and Bloom are also clearly in that upper crust. Honestly, it's a bit unfair to even put Bloom where he is. Chomsky is crazy smart, but he pontificates on stuff he's not an expert on, so he's a pseud, I get it. But Buckley is actually an extremely well-trained professor of literature. The man is practically the quintessential academic, even if he is also kind of a crusty reactionary in some ways.
>>8129939
Why are Zizek and Bloom on there then?
>>8130058
Are you kidding? Dawkins is probably on there most deservedly. It's not important what their academic accomplishments are, it's that they talk about shit that they know nothing about (that is, Dawkins and theology/philosophy, his work in that area is downright embarrassing regardless of his skill as a biologist).
>>8130168
ATTENTION /LIT/ PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL DOES NOT MEAN PEOPLE YOU DISAGREE WITH.
>>8130388
Yeah, it means peopel who write a bunch of pretentious garbage that doesn't mean anything.
Everyone who has ever written for any Gawker Media website should be in yoru pic, OP.
aight lads.
shes done
>>8130422
>marx
>hegel
>zizek
Done? please. where the fuck is this guy
Everything he says is bullshit.
>>8130712
Good point. The MythBusters guys definitely belong in the pic
>>8130422
I don't understand. Why don't you like all these people?
>>8130422
whats wrong with Fantano?
>>8130813
He doesn't know shit about music.
>>8130422
Just put everyone on there then, i think we can fit seven billion
>>8130719
Why? They're just entertainers, the most they claim to know is straightforward engineering, isn't it?
>>8130422
I disagree with Lacan being here
>>8128611
Varoufakis, Chomsky, Zizek and Bloom are serious academics.
What the fuck is your problem?
>>8130422
>Tesla
Not that I'm a fanboy but lmao did he ever even say anything?
>>8131463
Yes, Vidal is no light weight either, and is /lit/ to the core.
Only pseudo-intellectuals that have never informed themselves about rhetoric think that rhetoric is something to be frowned upon.
It kills me to say this but OP is sort of right, you should really be forming your own opinions by looking at the data instead of blindly trusting the charismatic and closed idea systems of these figures.
I don't think you need to "ignore them completely" to accomplish that though, that feels kind of sleight of hand, like you're somehow superior to them by blindly ignoring them all, which is an even worse type of not thinking for yourself
>>8131492
It's only for entertainment. If you want to find truth, you look to Logic.
>>8129788
>Chomsky
>Not a psuedo-intellectual rhetorician
>>8131512
I agree, and I also think it's potentially very harmful to discount ideas solely because they develop in non-academic spaces
>>8131515
It's only for entertainment. If you want to find truth, you look to Reason and Faith.
>>8131515
Logic, especially informal logic, is a part of the study of rhetoric. Don't trust that fucker Platon.
>brother nathanael
>being a tool of the neo-conservative zionist masonic lodge
l m a o suck a dick OP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGmUQ-VSbCQ
>>8131539
Are you serious? Logic is literally the foundation of the structure of entertainment. Anything beyond that comes through inspiration.
>>8131546
When did I say anything that contradicts that? Maybe you should learn a little about logic, yourself.
>>8131539
Logic requires reason, not the other way around. After all, logics aren't systems that can critique themselves, as you can see with the existence of all sorts of logics.
Also, formal logic, too, is part of the study of rhetoric.
>>8128611
You forgot to put /lit/ on there
>>8131555
No, you cannot have reason without logic as reason is logic applied to the world, but logical systems with no clear application can still be developed.
Rhetoric is about persuasion. That's not the sole purpose of formal logic. Formal logic is a field of mathematics.
>>8131522
You're exactly right, people outside of academia have a lot more freedom when forming their own ideas, they don't have all the obstacles that academia has like citations or grant money applications or systemized peer review. These help maintain a standard of quality but they aren't reactive at all, it takes years to get a theory out there.
"Rhetoricians" can propagate an idea out there as quickly as they can explain it, and even though there is no quality control, it doesn't make them all inherently wrong.
The good rhetoricians serve a very valuable purpose which is to get people with academic backgrounds asking good specific questions. They are good at giving other people ideas to begin thinking for themselves in a new way. It's a lot more abstract so it's easy to discount them but they are a very good starting point for thinking in new perspectives.
Yeh, Sam Harris should not be on this list.
>>8131571
Right you are.
>>8131560
>Rhetoric is about persuasion.
That's either incomplete or a (caricatured) sophistic view of rhetoric. Aristotle's definition of rhetoric as the "faculty of observing, in any given case, the available means of persuasion" is much better.
How are you ever going to discover the means of persuading someone in an argument about mathematics? Through formal logic, hence formal logic is a required part of rhetoric.
>reason is logic applied to the world
Why?
this fuckin guy
>>8131560
Are you going to validate logic through logic? No, you can't, but you can validate logic through reason and reason through reason.
>>8128611
Isn't this post rhetoric
>>8128611
>trump
why, because people on 4chan like him? this is some stupid shit made by a newfag prude loser. if a website full of pretentious college students likes him then it's not unlikely he'd have such large praise in this site. what a joke. what a demented picture. not psuedo-intellectual at all. so many better candidates for that spot. ugh. just reminds me what shitty company i have here on this site. seriously, step up your game. you're embarrassing. dumbshit failureface actually saved that picture on his hard drive to put it in his image because he actually finds it accurate in his narrow, miserable worldview. shitmouth.
>>8131637
w-what?
>>8128611
I understand why Scaruffi is on this list, but is there any better music critic than him?
>>8129788
>both actual philosophers
Yea man, they are like the only REAL philosophers who do REAL philosophy unlike those other people who are NOT REAL philosophers.
What is /lit/'s opinion of Ryan "Fringe Elements" Faulk?
Add RamZPaul
memes
>>8132887
Embarassing because he got me into libertarianism a while before Ron Paul's campaign.
I haven't seen what he has done for the past 2 or 3 years though. Last I saw, he was on the alt-right train into some form of fascism/nationalism. Even though I know even in his straight ancap phase he was advocating for the possibility of groups of people choosing to only let certain people participate in their markets. So I guess he was already there, just still principally concerned with trying to destroy the state.
>>8132949
oh shit waddup
>>8132949
Fuck this shitty meme
>>8128611
gavin mcinnes is too dumb to even qualify as a pseudo-intellectual even though i agree with him on some things.
>>8129911
I don't even like Bloom but he's nowhere near as bad as the rest. He should be removed.
>>8128611
Where are Laurie Penny and Alain de Botton?
>>8130422
Who's the blue-eyed, long-haired bloke beneath between Tyson and Hitchens?
>>8129542
Anyone that supports Bernie Sanders should be ignored.
>>8132949
fuck this shitty normalfag meme.
>>8130086
Tyson doesn't have any serious academic accomplishments.
Where is Tim wise?
>>8130813
He's hipster incarnate, has a shitty education and doesn't really know anything about music.
Reminder that there is literally nothing wrong with rhetoric
I don't get these lists. They always point out who to listen ti, but never someone who is credible. I'm new around here. I'm guessing these are supposed to be bait.
>>8131637
t. Trump
i like sam hyde
>>8130374
Him being a atheistic pundit doesn't erase the fact that he wrote the selfish gene, though. Plenty of people do great work only to go and do shit work afterwards. That's probably most of us.
>>8130168
somebody doesn't like analytics.
Just add YouTube and that's 99% of the list. You might as well make recommendations instead of who to avoid because the former is a much shorter list.
>>8133889
I don't understand why he is on this list when literally everything he says is in character.
rhetoricians? shouldn't you be tracking polemicists? all discourse is rhetorical, intellectual or psued
>>8129440
Justly ignored! Maybe that will teach you to try and start hollow conversations.
how many times will you redditors fail to understand these threads?
>>8134068
>I haven't seen kickstarter tv, needle drop interview, or his latest skits.
>>8129559
Rorty's dead.
And kind of sucked.
what about this pepe?
I dig some of his work in probability, but as a "thinker" he's kinda pseudo to me
pic related is his latest tweet
Did /lit/ make this originally? I'm surprised you guys know who Mehdi Hassan is.
Not sure why people like Bill Nye and Michio Kaku need to be here. They just teach dumb people established stuff.
I would really like something to reinforce the stupidity of the alt-right 4chan trump conservative meme. Probably the most toxic trend I've seen on the internet. It gives rise to assholes like Crowder and Milo.
>>8133322
REEE ANSWER MY QUESTION
Where's Bertrand Russell?
>>8134121
this, ops one is the best and the redditors that post old figures are retards
>>8131637
trump isnt on there
cringe
>>8130154
Their work as rhetoricians cannot possibly be devalued.
>>8131474
Vidal is completely lightweight. None of his work is worth preserving.
Chomsky, outside of his field, is a total pseud
