'Montaigne speaks of “an abecedarian ignorance that precedes knowledge, and a doctoral ignorance that comes after it.” The first is the ignorance of those who, not knowing their ABC’s, cannot read at all. The second is the ignorance of those who have misread many books. They are, as Alexander Pope rightly calls them, bookful blockheads, ignorantly read. There have always been literate ignoramuses who have read too widely and not well. The Greeks had a name for such a mixture of learning and folly which might be applied to the bookish but poorly read of all ages. They are all sophomores.'
Its something I noticed when I first discovered Yea Forums: most of the people here seem to read a lot and talk about complex themes and yet make an impression of absolute retards when it comes to behaving in an intelligent way.
Sebastian Taylor
Yeah, I know how to read a book.
Jack Sullivan
Yeah the luster of Yea Forums is gone after you've gone past a certain point.
Christian Bailey
Literary and social intelligence can be a tough balance. I think university is sort of the other problem. Most of the students don't have much to say but they word-vomit to meet the social expectation of a discussion and the professor does not correct them due to the social expectation of respecting diverse perspectives.
Doesn't help that Yea Forums has been on a downward spiral since that Christmas where a few of the popular charts were posted on reddit.
Jonathan Bell
I'm a chaos magician. I make reading wrong look awesome.
Cameron Kelly
I don't know whether or not I'm an ignorantly read bookish blockhead but I do know that my own private disdain for a class of educated persons is directed towards those who blandly eat up information and regurgitate it on command without ever seeming to develop thoughts of their own, without ever really thinking as opposed to repeating. These creatures are common in even higher academia, but are especially apparent in undergraduate schooling, being good students but poor scholars, laboring after a grade without ever evincing passion for a topic, and worse, being totally creatively sterile, utterly lacking in spontaneity. These persons are intelligent and yet unintellectual, and typically appear to lack any faculty for abstraction or interrelation of ideas, seeing only trees and never forests.
Jayden Rodriguez
most people read about the books they talk about instead of actually reading them. it's pure pose.
I can't objectively evaluate my own level of knowledge. I read plenty of books, but I don't do anything else. I don't write, and I don't interact with other people or discuss literature.
Zachary Scott
First, I’d have to know what “abecedarian” means in that context.
We're past that point. We're at the point those sophomores have started writing nonsense books and forcing students to read those nonsense books. Then, anyone with a conscience drops out and does something else with their lives, leaving behind the detritus who bullshit their way to a PhD.
I don't know what you call that level of sophistry, but it's far beyond whatever existed prior to current year
Noah Wilson
No, I don't. The only books I have read well enough are math books. I use any other books mostly as inspiration for my own thought process, so I don't feel a necessity to read them really well.
Joseph Hughes
no.
Aiden Long
How to read two books is clearly the superior book
Isaiah Bailey
Someone who reads much but does little falls into lazy habits of thinking or something
- Einstein
Henry Rogers
Any good book is mis-read. It's never fully read. That's the joy or tedium of reading. Reading is present-tense; it's never "finished."
Dominic Peterson
What you have described is the difference between one who is educated, and one that has merely been trained. The educated ones develop their own thoughts, expand upon what has been given them, and explore new ideas. Those that have been "trained" have never developed any logic, reason, or critical thinking skills. They can only repeat, or reproduce, that which they have been trained. Creativity and curiosity is absent. I suppose it's due to the abilities one is born with, the opportunities one has available, and the natural drive and thirst for learning that makes a difference. In the past, schools tested students to determine abilities, sending certain students on an academic path, others to a vocational/technical venue, more suited to their abilities. Over the past 20-30 years, the "every kid needs to go to college" meme has degraded the academic levels, while, at the same time, doing a great disservice to those not truly adapted to the rigors of advanced study. Pic related.
