On Intellectualism
When I was in my late teens, as well as many others in my demographic (white, cishet, young adult males), looked up to Jordan Peterson. If I were to show my younger self Peterson today, it would be like throwing a bucket of ice-cold water at him. Peterson went from a relatively-well respected clinical psychologist to an absolute loon who seems to ask for definitions for everything and using really convoluted speech to ultimately say nothing.
I make no claims of being an intellectual, I don't really feel it is up to me to have such a label. However, you also don't have to be a five-star chef to know when that the food tastes/looks like shit or know Taco Bell isn't going to get a Michelin Star anytime soon.
I saw a video talking about the rise of pseudo-intellectualism; which spurred my inspiration for writing this.
What is pseudo-intellectualism? There isn't really a consensus on what makes someone an pseudo-intellectual. It mostly just seems to come down to vibes. The person who is trying to seem like a brainiac by talking about how they are studying quantum physics (seriously, why do they always go with quantum physics?) I think I like the following definition:
A fake intellectual. Someone who feigns knowledge of subject(s) and will mask their ignorance behind complex language and unintuitive extrapolation whilst claiming some level of authority.
In other words, Jordan Peterson in his Psychology lectures, intellectual. Peterson circa Jubilee video, pseudo-intellectual.
Do bare in mind to not conflate a pseudo-intellectual with an intellectual who either overestimated their abilities in a given subject, or who admit their lack of expertise in a given subject. (i.e., a philosopher who admits he has a lack of knowledge in contemporary history).
I made the unfortunate discovery of the "Intellectual Dark Web", after making the mistake of viewing the comment section. The comment that introduced this concept to me made a partially good point in that intellectuals starting bowing to the dollar, and charged exorbitant amounts of money. The comment took a left turn after saying:
it shouldn't be a surprise people turned to the Intellectual Dark Web
Which, just made me chuckle. I mean c'mon "Intellectual Dark Web"? What, are people going on the TOR relay to read Kierkegaard? No, of course not. The "community" the commenter was referring to is basically just redditors with unwashed asses who think that being an intellectual means being a surface-level contrarian to anything that is "woke" and using archaic forms of speech.
I saw one post in their subreddit talking about Martin Luther King in a sad attempt to defend Charlie Kirk's quote of saying MLK was a terrible person with just "one good quote". The poster sited that MLK was a hypocrite because he didn't actually want a "colorblind society". Which leads me to believe the only thing the poster understands about MLK was the one line from his "I have a dream" speech.
For context in case you may not understand what I'm saying. MLK did, in-fact, NOT want a "colorblind" society. It's a white-washed of his quote, (paraphrasing) "[..]judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character". MLK was not advocating for being "colorblind". To be "colorblind" is also to be blind to the struggles and disenfranchisement of black Americans which is still alive today.
It's ironic really. You have these people who claim to be, in some form, an intellectual. But only ever seem to get surface deep. The whole subreddit really is just a place for fart-sniffing right wingers to have a safe space to chuckle to themselves talking about "huhuh, DEI bad amirite guys?" It's home to the most ignorant of jackasses who's depth of understanding is a pool so shallow only a newborn could drown in it. Pseudo-intellectualism at it's finest.
Leftists aren't much better in this regard. You have Latte Leftists who will spout skin-deep Marxist ideas (or outright misinformation), and when you inevitably hit the end of their knowledge they get angry and tell you to "read a book". Or people who throw around buzzwords with zero regard for if the definition fits (very hyperbolic example: calling Cheesecake factory fascist because they have a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" policy).
Going back to the comment that posted that full digression. The part I did agree with was intellectualism, or the barrier to entry to knowledge is locked behind a hefty price tag. I do not think you have to be college-educated to be an intellectual. If that was the case, then we are to insinuate that thinkers of the likes of Socrates are not intellectuals.
I also saw way too many comments brushing away the contributions/thoughts of classical intellectuals because of character flaws. Intellectuals are not omnipotent gods, and certainly had their blind spots or outright immorality. Camus was against Algerian independence, which is a whole mess of a conversation because it doesn't just exist in a vacuum. Chomsky was buddy-buddy with Epstein... post-conviction. Sartre supported lowering the age of consent. So on, and so forth. But these character flaws don't devalue their ideas.
I think this goes similar to the "separate art from artist" conversation I had with my Bear Blog friends on discord. The point got brought up of how the underlying character of the individual can influence their ideas. To which I argued "if Brittney spears drove a car into an orphanage and wrote some manifesto to justify it, does that have any impact on "Hit Me Baby, One More Time" (poor song choice I know).
With philosophical ideas, it basically is an ad hominem, because you are defaulting to rejecting the idea based on the questionable character of the individual, not the point being made.1
This engagement with the ideas, rather than just resting on a default position based on the poor reputation of the one presenting them, can help us avoid the "this is wrong because X person likes it" pitfall.
What actually makes someone an intellectual? I think at it's core, it is someone who remains unrelenting in their search for truth and knowledge. Someone who engages with ideas and frequently challenges their own. They are not content with just taking TikTok video explanations at face value. They may see a video from a pop philosophy channel (which are incredibly useful for people getting into the subject) and then go read the source. They continue to use their skill in analysis for either professional, personal, or public use. Of course, they are human and self-awareness can only get you so far (human psychology can be a bitch sometimes), but I hope you understand my point.
I may have skipped over something, or maybe missed something. So if you would like to point it out, or mention something you disagree with, feel free to email me (details below).
Pirate is wearing all-black converse, jeans, black shirt, red flannel.
Pirate is feeling hungry.
Pirate is listening to a Frutiger Aero vibes playlist.
Pirate is playing Halo 3 Beta tonight.
Previous |
Reply via email: me@absurdpirate.com
I see the possible hypocrisy in my own statement in context to my rip on the internet dark web. I just do not have the time, energy, nor crayons to go into an in-depth challenge on these ideas that I haven't already touched on in my previous article at this moment).↩