How does one differentiate between psuedo-intellectual discourse and discourse actually worth paying attention to...

Poorly defined terms.

This is good advice

KYS Cuck

I Totally agree.

Unironically, you have to rely on appeal to authority inferences as a heuristic device. You trust scientists to know science, well it's the same with other intellectual disciplines like history, literature, art, philosophy, etc. Many people won't like that, but academic experts are, after all, experts. When the experts say something is pseud, then it more or less is, in fact, pseud. There's no non-arbitrary way of defining pseud otherwise. It's not a free-for-all grab. Pseuds are going to say that what I'm saying is shit, but they're at the bottom of the Dunning-Kruger curve: they don't know their own ignorance because it would take the very years of learning they lack to realize this, that's why no one can explain to them that they're pseuds either, it would take years too. One thing experts will teach you is intellectual humility and principle of charity, so actually if you see people being overly dogmatist and abusing rhetoric but thinking they are logic kings without having taken a single class on formal logic, that's a red flag that they're pseuds. Nobody goes into academia for years and walks out of it thinking, "Actually the people academia says are pseuds really aren't!", and if you think that's because of brainwash then you have an overly and conveniently negative/naive view of the intelligence of people who by any other metric must be intelligent enough to even do well in college and grad school and master an academic subject. But it's to be expected of pseuds.

Except that aspects of literature, art, and philosophy CANNOT be measured as important, practical, or meaningful the way aspects of science, math, and engineering can. Because of this shield from scrutiny, the humanities are overwhelmed with bias, propaganda, and manipulation.

You all need to stop believing this shit. If you have political problems with portions of academia, try and change it from within. There's some genuine academics who agree with you (surprise!), and the other academics (who hold the political views you hate) take those first academics seriously enough. Why? Because both sides are good at the same things: knowing the discipline well enough to defend their arguments appropriately. Pseuds, whatever their political views, suck at that.

>If you have political problems with portions of academia, try and change it from within.
Good idea, they sure don't censor anyone in academia.

Attached: Dr-Kevin-MacDonald.jpg (600x413, 138K)

Of course you go for /pol/ adjacent kooks. Look all i'm saying is you can learn aesthetic criticism or do research on historical events or do work on contemporary metaphysics in academia which requires a lot of expertise, and that you should listen to that. But of course fucking pseuds have to think of everything in terms of politics. It's all most pseuds care about. Maybe it's their limited interests that keep pseuds from advancing.

Attached: y3f31nlsb5n11.png (669x514, 25K)

>the overly politicized are pseuds
so, the majority of humanities academics?

>just try and change it from within goy!
>Oh but don't actually try to change things you crazy nazi xD

If you mean anthropology, sociology, and more importantly gender studies, race studies, and so forth, yeah they're pretty politicized by default. There's a reason the examples I gave were meant to be art, literature, history, philosophy. I'm just tired of people thinking they know ethics, or aesthetics, or metaphysics, or epistemology, better than people who have a lot more learning in these fields. Like I said, at least take a formal logic class if you want to get off from pseud life. Logic is as objective as things can get. Get as good at it as you can, and see how it helps you get past shitty pseud rhetoric. Literally how could formal logic be politically biased, manipulative, etc?

Idiot, the point is that it outs you as a pseud if your only reason to hate academia and dismiss baby with bathwater is your political views, which you developed without expertise. If you're an expert and come to the same views and want to defend them you have my respect, whereas if you're some pseud advancing the political views you /pol/ people hate, you're still going to suck. Pseuds are pseuds regardless of politics, but politics (regardless of alignment) is a major interest for pseuds that keeps them from going beyond. You should see how many leftist pseuds are just as anti-academia as you rightist pseuds are. You're all equally terrible.

It depends though. Usually the ideas I discuss are not fully developed, hence the purpose of the conversation is to develop them. So often when my ideas are challenged, I have to come up with a defense of my ideas on the spot, but for poorly developed ideas, I will often admit that I need to think it through more.

I think you can tell its pseudo intellectual when the aim of the conversation is to flaunt semantics and one-up one another. You can tell when people are so arrogant that they're really only there to hear themselves speak with an upturned nose. An intellectual conversation aims to develop ideas in an investigation. Ideas are thrown around to see what sticks and preconceived notions are all up for questioning. Most ideas dont get anywhere, but each is put under the microscope.

>historiography isn’t political
Ask EP.

I mean when someone is investigating Syro-Hittite petty kingdoms from the 8th century BC, or the history of Montanist Christianity, that's politicized too? Again, baby and bathwater.

Formal logic is fine but continental philosophy is pretty bankrupt at this point, Lyotard for example admitted he just made shit up for the Postmodern Condition, which is the definition of pseudointellectualism.

I too suspect that a lot of continental stuff is people making stuff up, partly because they say so. Deleuze also said something like that. The others undermine any notion of objective truth, like Derrida or Foucault, and it traces back to Nietzsche. It doesn't mean they're void of genuine insight but their insight tends to be cultural/social criticism. Academic philosophy is broader than just that. They're not the ones doing the work on ethics or epistemology on metaphysics these days, that's all analytics. Sure their ideas relate to those fields but they're not even participating in the dialogue.