|
Well I actually made a friend that I was comfortable talking to about more abstract and fascinating things than mundane stuff like school work and whatnot. I usually like to talk about the vast and majestic universe, current affairs, and literature. Granted that I'am not as well versed in all these topics as much as him, I thought that whenever he would reply to me he was simply sharing his knowledge with me. He seemed pretty sincere about all our conversations IRL (school) and online, and is a year older than me.
Yesterday I asked him what I thought about this on Facebook, "The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable.", something that someone wrote on one of my previous blogs. + Show Spoiler +
Then I got this reply today
|
Well, that sucks. Don't worry, theres better people out there!
|
Ya, that really sucks man, if this is completely out of nowhere, I would just try and make sure all is well with his personal life. Otherwise, I don't know what to say, as time goes on people change.
|
Everything is fine with his personal life, but I know that he tends to be very harsh to people he doesn't consider to be 'intellectuals' like him.
|
yah, what a dick right there Reminds me when I still felt like speaking to people. 50% acted like they didn't understand what I said and the other 50% were just downright dickish. In the end most contact to other humangs is depressing and boring.
|
could it be an april fools joke? I don't think I could write something more pompous than that if I tried.
|
No, he always types like that and he sent it today, April 2nd.
|
well that sucks. I guess people like him have some intellect and talent (or they think they have) and let it get into their head. At the end of the day, he's the idiot if he cannot be humble and chill about it. Don't let it bother you too much. Think it through, and then forget it and move on, not everyone is like him even if they have similar interest when discussing these matters.
|
On April 02 2012 16:47 Azera wrote:Everything is fine with his personal life, but I know that he tends to be very harsh to people he doesn't consider to be 'intellectuals' like him.
if you look closely, the upper lip is playing ping pong with his nose.
|
I have tried to type up several different responses to this post in order to ensure that you understand exactly what I am about to tell you. In this endeavor I have given up.
He is not saying that you are not intellectual. That is not what is at stake in his response. What he is saying is that the ways in which you are communicating with him focus on a personal identity of self as "intellectual" as *more important* than actual intellectual development.
Quite frankly, having looked at the quote that you talked about, it is ridiculous. There is nothing about that quote which is clear or succeeds in communicating meaning. It is literally nothing but touch-stones of "hey look I'm smart".
Seek to develop yourself as an intellectual through simple ideas, clear statements, and precise concepts. The mind works, fundamentally, by breaking things up into categories. Thus you should focus on stating things and ideas as precisely possible - in ways that are clear and understood. You think quickly by using assumptions; not everyone accepts your assumptions; thus you must identify, explain, and justify these assumptions.
When someone tells you, "I know what I want to say but I can't think of the words for it," they are wrong. All knowledge exists on top of words and symbols. If you cannot speak with clarity or precision then you do not *know* what you are trying to say. Therefore you are either using the words to fulfill a sense of self and a specific identity, or you simply do not understand what you are saying. It is obviously the former.
Always and only, be humble. --- Edit: I just looked at your signature. Did you take your quote from Joyce by any chance? Not many people your age are familiar with his work. Shit if you're 15 then again I'd say be humble and make your focus communication. The only known condition that facilitates consciousness is a certain count of synapses. The human organism can thus, through interaction, be expanded. Imagine that you, your mind, are just one synapse in a much larger organism of communication, thought, and learning. In some sense we do not use thoughts, thoughts and information use us. Make yourself the servant of this system and I promise you, you will be an intellectual.
|
Hong Kong9136 Posts
If it isn't an April Fools joke that he or she is trying to play on you, that post is laden with enough pompous malice combined with pitiful self-defeating elements that it marks this person as probably not being worthy of the kinds of meaningful conversations you are trying to have with others.
|
Well from YOUR perspective it seems that the guy really spoke out like a real asshole - it's never a pleasant experience to have someone you respect treat you any worse than you have treated them. It's a piercing feeling really, and your "friend" lacked the empathy and maturity to treat others how he would want to be treated. Like, reading that reply, there is literally 0 constructive criticism or thought to develop yourself from - he's essentially telling you to stfu and that your talks were more or less worthless to him.
Tell him to go fuck himself. Seriously. Friends aren't pompous fuckwads to friends. Neither are colleagues. There IS a respectful and cordial way to tell someone that you don't agree with their ideas, that you have a deeper understanding of a concept than they do (which you should clarify with in your rebuttal), or that you simply don't wish to talk about it. However eloquently he put it, he still showed his hand - he's a grade A asshole.
But again, this is what I derive from YOUR perspective.
EDIT - Precipice's post sums up the other guy's perspective completely.
|
On April 02 2012 17:14 Golgotha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 16:47 Azera wrote:Everything is fine with his personal life, but I know that he tends to be very harsh to people he doesn't consider to be 'intellectuals' like him. if you look closely, the upper lip is playing ping pong with his nose.
Haha
On April 02 2012 17:15 Precipice wrote: I have tried to type up several different responses to this post in order to ensure that you understand exactly what I am about to tell you. In this endeavor I have given up.
He is not saying that you are not intellectual. That is not what is at stake in his response. What he is saying is that the ways in which you are communicating with him focus on a personal identity of self as "intellectual" as *more important* than actual intellectual development.
Quite frankly, having looked at the quote that you talked about, it is ridiculous. There is nothing about that quote which is clear or succeeds in communicating meaning. It is literally nothing but touch-stones of "hey look I'm smart".
Seek to develop yourself as an intellectual through simple ideas, clear statements, and precise concepts. The mind works, fundamentally, by breaking things up into categories. Thus you should focus on stating things and ideas as precisely possible - in ways that are clear and understood. You think quickly by using assumptions; not everyone accepts your assumptions; thus you must identify, explain, and justify these assumptions.
When someone tells you, "I know what I want to say but I can't think of the words for it," they are wrong. All knowledge exists on top of words and symbols. If you cannot speak with clarity or precision then you do not *know* what you are trying to say. Therefore you are either using the words to fulfill a sense of self and a specific identity, or you simply do not understand what you are saying. It is obviously the former.
Always and only, be humble. --- Edit: I just looked at your signature. Did you take your quote from Joyce by any chance? Not many people your age are familiar with his work. Shit if you're 15 then again I'd say be humble and make your focus communication. The only known condition that facilitates consciousness is a certain count of synapses. The human organism can thus, through interaction, be expanded. Imagine that you, your mind, are just one synapse in a much larger organism of communication, thought, and learning. In some sense we do not use thoughts, thoughts and information use us. Make yourself the servant of this system and I promise you, you will be an intellectual.
I always approach him with a want-to-learn attitude, trying my best to be "humble".
On April 02 2012 17:23 itsjustatank wrote: If it isn't an April Fools joke that he or she is trying to play on you, that post is laden with enough pompous malice combined with pitiful self-defeating elements that it marks this person as probably not being worthy of the kinds of meaningful conversations you are trying to have with others.
What's a self-defeating element?
|
On April 02 2012 17:33 SwizzY wrote: Well from YOUR perspective it seems that the guy really spoke out like a real asshole - it's never a pleasant experience to have someone you respect treat you any worse than you have treated them. It's a piercing feeling really, and your "friend" lacked the empathy and maturity to treat others how he would want to be treated. Like, reading that reply, there is literally 0 constructive criticism or thought to develop yourself from - he's essentially telling you to stfu and that your talks were more or less worthless to him.
Tell him to go fuck himself. Seriously. Friends aren't pompous fuckwads to friends. Neither are colleagues. There IS a respectful and cordial way to tell someone that you don't agree with their ideas, that you have a deeper understanding of a concept than they do (which you should clarify with in your rebuttal), or that you simply don't wish to talk about it. However eloquently he put it, he still showed his hand - he's a grade A asshole.
But again, this is what I derive from YOUR perspective.
What is the respectful and cordial way?
|
On April 02 2012 17:15 Precipice wrote: I have tried to type up several different responses to this post in order to ensure that you understand exactly what I am about to tell you. In this endeavor I have given up.
He is not saying that you are not intellectual. That is not what is at stake in his response. What he is saying is that the ways in which you are communicating with him focus on a personal identity of self as "intellectual" as *more important* than actual intellectual development.
Quite frankly, having looked at the quote that you talked about, it is ridiculous. There is nothing about that quote which is clear or succeeds in communicating meaning. It is literally nothing but touch-stones of "hey look I'm smart".
Seek to develop yourself as an intellectual through simple ideas, clear statements, and precise concepts. The mind works, fundamentally, by breaking things up into categories. Thus you should focus on stating things and ideas as precisely possible - in ways that are clear and understood. You think quickly by using assumptions; not everyone accepts your assumptions; thus you must identify, explain, and justify these assumptions.
When someone tells you, "I know what I want to say but I can't think of the words for it," they are wrong. All knowledge exists on top of words and symbols. If you cannot speak with clarity or precision then you do not *know* what you are trying to say. Therefore you are either using the words to fulfill a sense of self and a specific identity, or you simply do not understand what you are saying. It is obviously the former.
Always and only, be humble. --- Edit: I just looked at your signature. Did you take your quote from Joyce by any chance? Not many people your age are familiar with his work. Shit if you're 15 then again I'd say be humble and make your focus communication. The only known condition that facilitates consciousness is a certain count of synapses. The human organism can thus, through interaction, be expanded. Imagine that you, your mind, are just one synapse in a much larger organism of communication, thought, and learning. In some sense we do not use thoughts, thoughts and information use us. Make yourself the servant of this system and I promise you, you will be an intellectual.
I have to more or less agree with the intent of this post. Thanks for working on several predecessors, giving up, and still contributing what remained of your thoughts. XD
However I think it's way wrong to assert that possession of knowledge is under sanction of language. With symbols I have no problem because you can come up with a precise and complete meaning in the abstract. I would call this naming an idea. Pi means the ratio of a circle's area to its radius. It's nice to have something solid like this. Dog doesn't mean anything, at least not the same thing to two different people. It's impossible to define rigidly. But we all know what a dog is, at least to us. How can this word be necessary to know what a dog is if it doesn't mean anything really? (Like all words, at some level, in multiple ways.)
Nevertheless it's good adivce: pretentious language can put people off and there's no good reason to risk it if you can say the same thing in simple terms. The most brilliant person can explain complex ideas to anyone using simpler familiar things. You should practice both though: fancy words will serve you admirably if you know how to wield them, and you might as well practice as soon as possible because making mistakes in youth doesn't cost you much. Same goes for speaking plainly. Intertwining the two is another layer of intellectual skill altogether. ;D
|
Hong Kong9136 Posts
On April 02 2012 16:47 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 17:23 itsjustatank wrote: If it isn't an April Fools joke that he or she is trying to play on you, that post is laden with enough pompous malice combined with pitiful self-defeating elements that it marks this person as probably not being worthy of the kinds of meaningful conversations you are trying to have with others. What's a self-defeating element?
If anything sounds of being 'nincompoopery' and is 'faux[ly]-intellectual,' it's his pompous word choice. Feels like he is the kind of person who writes a deficient paper in Microsoft Word and tries to make up for it by right-clicking in certain places to bring up the thesaurus function in order to pick the longest word provided without regard to actual meaning simply because it sounds smart.
Doing that is, by the way, being 'false[ly] sophisticat[ed].'
Either this person is trying to be funny and failing miserably at it, or they are just pompously vacuous.
Edit: To be clear, this person is a tool.
|
To be honest, your "friend" is a tool. He also is probably not as intellectual as you believe him to be(and even to a greater degree how intellectual he believes himself to be).
|
he sounds like a tool.
If this guy kid legit he would just responded with "Im done talking about so and so etc"
instead (and I think its pretty clear to everyone who has read his post) he is "trying too hard" to sound like an intellectual superior for the sake of validation from people around him.
|
Well, looks like he was spot on.
Besides not-copy-pasting stuff people post on the internet (especially if it's faux intellectualism!), you can read and apply this when having written conversations with people: http://www.amazon.com/Style-Lessons-Clarity-Grace-Edition/dp/0205747469/ .
The demystification of the present (nonsense) is the precondition of praxis, which (ambiguous) is necessarily future-oriented (unsubstantiated claim) and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable (double negative, unsubstantiated claim).
This is not something you can discuss, it's nonsense. If you genuinely want to make a point, or steal someone else's point, you present a case and an argument.
1) Define an actor ("We need to" - by using 'need to' you also replace the useless "precondition" with a useful construction). 2) Define what you mean by "demystifying the present". 3) Replace "praxis" with an action that can be performed by the actor, because as it stands, this is meaningless. 4) Resolve the ambiguity. It is rarely a good idea to use "which" after having introduced several nouns. 5) Present arguments ("since...", "because...") for every claim you make. 6) Use affirmatives instead of multiple negatives, otherwise...
"Except when expenses do not exceed $250, the Insured may not refuse to provide the Insurer with receipts, checks or other evidence of costs." (example taken from Style)
|
I don't think that he had a kind or tactful response, but I think I identify with what he is trying to say. (Or at least with what I think he is trying to say.)
You said: "I was comfortable talking to about more abstract and fascinating things than mundane stuff like school work and whatnot. I usually like to talk about the vast and majestic universe, current affairs, and literature. "
From this statement I get the feeling that you place value and your idea of wisdom and intelligence around these certain abstract deep ideas, while finding your studies a necessary but intellectually 'lower' thing. While you might be quite sincere in your efforts to explore these topics, if that is indeed your attitude, it can be a very obnoxious one to other people.
One reason this can be obnoxious is because of what Precipice writes about communication. It often appears (to others) that needlessly large words are chosen for the benefit of your own ego, and that similarly, needlessly 'intellectual' topics are also chosen-- purely for egotistical and self-image reasons. This impedes any real learning.
A second reason this can be annoying, is that your attitude can convey to other people that the ideas that they are passionate about and their studies and intellectual work are not valuable to you, or that you consider it 'lesser', and by association that you consider them less intelligent as well.
Finally, I question your attitude towards your friend-- you have put him in a unfortunate position. You expect answers and wisdom from him (apparently very frequently from his statement). Yet if he is at all wise, he will know that he is probably not equipped to give you these answers, and that it is better to find them through self-reflection or equal peer discussion rather than a student-teacher type of relationship. He may feel frustrated by your desire for an answer because he doesn't know the answers.
His response, as I mentioned before, is not kind or tactful. It seems like an explosion of pent up frustration (probably let out by some little thing that tipped the scale). However, if you value him as a friend, you should recognize that everyone has moments like this and attempt to discuss it with him. Before you do this, make sure you consider the points I raised before very honesty. If you have in any way been doing it to pump up your own ego, apologize. If not, let him know that you are very sincere about it, and talked to him because you honestly thought he enjoyed discussing these things with you. Ask him why this is not the case, and listen to what he has to tell you carefully.
|
On April 02 2012 17:36 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 17:33 SwizzY wrote: Well from YOUR perspective it seems that the guy really spoke out like a real asshole - it's never a pleasant experience to have someone you respect treat you any worse than you have treated them. It's a piercing feeling really, and your "friend" lacked the empathy and maturity to treat others how he would want to be treated. Like, reading that reply, there is literally 0 constructive criticism or thought to develop yourself from - he's essentially telling you to stfu and that your talks were more or less worthless to him.
Tell him to go fuck himself. Seriously. Friends aren't pompous fuckwads to friends. Neither are colleagues. There IS a respectful and cordial way to tell someone that you don't agree with their ideas, that you have a deeper understanding of a concept than they do (which you should clarify with in your rebuttal), or that you simply don't wish to talk about it. However eloquently he put it, he still showed his hand - he's a grade A asshole.
But again, this is what I derive from YOUR perspective. What is the respectful and cordial way?
[Azera] This is just one response he could have chosen:
My personal opinion of all the topics you insist on bringing up is that they are quite vapid, and under close scrutiny hold no intellectual value. In all honesty, they frustrate me. Not in their "complexity" mind you, but instead, in their leading me to presume that you are some faux-intellectual merely wishing to score brownie points with me. I hope this is not the case.
- Sure, this is written in my voice. But it says exactly what he said. But it doesn't disrespect, it illustrates the viewpoint of your friend completely, and it still leaves the avenue for future discussion wide open. Which is why I am lead to the conclusion that your friend meant to disrespect you simply because of the fact that words on a page cannot teach empathy or maturity. Oh and his condescending tone, particularly at the end of his response, is a mark of his pretentiousness and over-inflated ego.
|
I think you two would be better off if you learned to more naturally express yourselves. I take Wing Chun for this reason. If you learn Wing Chun you will be able to express yourself better.
|
daaaaam yall niggas smart why u gots to flaunt it for
|
On April 02 2012 17:40 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 16:47 Azera wrote:On April 02 2012 17:23 itsjustatank wrote: If it isn't an April Fools joke that he or she is trying to play on you, that post is laden with enough pompous malice combined with pitiful self-defeating elements that it marks this person as probably not being worthy of the kinds of meaningful conversations you are trying to have with others. What's a self-defeating element? If anything sounds of being 'nincompoopery' and is 'faux[ly]-intellectual,' it's his pompous word choice. Feels like he is the kind of person who writes a deficient paper in Microsoft Word and tries to make up for it by right-clicking in certain places to bring up the thesaurus function in order to pick the longest word provided without regard to actual meaning simply because it sounds smart. Doing that is, by the way, being 'false[ly] sophisticat[ed].' Either this person is trying to be funny and failing miserably at it, or they are just pompously vacuous. Edit: To be clear, this person is a tool.
Thanks for the explanation!
On April 02 2012 17:56 Dagobert wrote:Well, looks like he was spot on. Besides not-copy-pasting stuff people post on the internet (especially if it's faux intellectualism!), you can read and apply this when having written conversations with people: http://www.amazon.com/Style-Lessons-Clarity-Grace-Edition/dp/0205747469/ . Show nested quote +The demystification of the present (nonsense) is the precondition of praxis, which (ambiguous) is necessarily future-oriented (unsubstantiated claim) and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable (double negative, unsubstantiated claim). This is not something you can discuss, it's nonsense. If you genuinely want to make a point, or steal someone else's point, you present a case and an argument. 1) Define an actor (" We need to" - by using 'need to' you also replace the useless "precondition" with a useful construction). 2) Define what you mean by "demystifying the present". 3) Replace "praxis" with an action that can be performed by the actor, because as it stands, this is meaningless. 4) Resolve the ambiguity. It is rarely a good idea to use "which" after having introduced several nouns. 5) Present arguments ("since...", "because...") for every claim you make. 6) Use affirmatives instead of multiple negatives, otherwise... "Except when expenses do not exceed $250, the Insured may not refuse to provide the Insurer with receipts, checks or other evidence of costs." (example taken from Style)
I didn't just copy and paste it randomly from the Internet.
1 2
On April 02 2012 17:56 RedJustice wrote: I don't think that he had a kind or tactful response, but I think I identify with what he is trying to say. (Or at least with what I think he is trying to say.)
You said: "I was comfortable talking to about more abstract and fascinating things than mundane stuff like school work and whatnot. I usually like to talk about the vast and majestic universe, current affairs, and literature. "
From this statement I get the feeling that you place value and your idea of wisdom and intelligence around these certain abstract deep ideas, while finding your studies a necessary but intellectually 'lower' thing. While you might be quite sincere in your efforts to explore these topics, if that is indeed your attitude, it can be a very obnoxious one to other people.
One reason this can be obnoxious is because of what Precipice writes about communication. It often appears (to others) that needlessly large words are chosen for the benefit of your own ego, and that similarly, needlessly 'intellectual' topics are also chosen-- purely for egotistical and self-image reasons. This impedes any real learning.
A second reason this can be annoying, is that your attitude can convey to other people that the ideas that they are passionate about and their studies and intellectual work are not valuable to you, or that you consider it 'lesser', and by association that you consider them less intelligent as well.
Finally, I question your attitude towards your friend-- you have put him in a unfortunate position. You expect answers and wisdom from him (apparently very frequently from his statement). Yet if he is at all wise, he will know that he is probably not equipped to give you these answers, and that it is better to find them through self-reflection or equal peer discussion rather than a student-teacher type of relationship. He may feel frustrated by your desire for an answer because he doesn't know the answers.
His response, as I mentioned before, is not kind or tactful. It seems like an explosion of pent up frustration (probably let out by some little thing that tipped the scale). However, if you value him as a friend, you should recognize that everyone has moments like this and attempt to discuss it with him. Before you do this, make sure you consider the points I raised before very honesty. If you have in any way been doing it to pump up your own ego, apologize. If not, let him know that you are very sincere about it, and talked to him because you honestly thought he enjoyed discussing these things with you. Ask him why this is not the case, and listen to what he has to tell you carefully.
I never talk about these topics because I want to boost my ego or anything. As I said, I talk about these things to learn.
|
He's right but also a hypocrite
|
On April 02 2012 18:01 DeekZ wrote: daaaaam yall niggas smart why u gots to flaunt it for
Please don't use that word.
|
On April 02 2012 18:06 Scarecrow wrote: He's right but also a hypocrite
How is he a hypocrite?
|
Well if that's the truth you still haven't addressed the problem of how other people perceive it. That may be the real problem and the solutions are varied and not always available, depending on the person you are dealing with.
EDIT: If he has entirely misread your intentions, the best solution is to actually communicate with him about it. Similarly, you may have entirely misread his response, but no one in this blog is actually going to be able to provide you with an answer-- the best solution is again to actually communicate with him about it. The mature thing to do in these situations, which unfortunately always happen in relationships, is to extend the benefit of the doubt and clarify with the other person what the real problem is and what they were actually trying to say. If you two have an entirely different understanding of what's going on and what is meant in your conversation, all kinds of problems will happen.
|
Honestly he doesn't sound like someone who deserves your friendship and respect Azera. In fact, judging by his reply to you, I wouldn't be surprised if he has a greatly over-inflated sense of his own intelligence and knowledge.
@Precipice I have to disagree with this statement:
"When someone tells you, "I know what I want to say but I can't think of the words for it," they are wrong. All knowledge exists on top of words and symbols. If you cannot speak with clarity or precision then you do not *know* what you are trying to say."
Language is not knowledge, language is a vehicle for expressing knowledge. Knowledge is just electrical signals in our brain, and that is not something which necessarily has any connection with words and symbols. How do infants learn things before they know how to speak or identify symbols? Humans would never be able to develop if knowledge was reliant on communication.
|
On April 02 2012 18:08 RedJustice wrote: Well if that's the truth you still haven't addressed the problem of how other people perceive it. That may be the real problem and the solutions are varied and not always available, depending on the person you are dealing with.
How others perceive it? I only almost exclusively talk to him about these kinds of things because when we first met he displayed a remarkable amount of knowledge on these things. I just wanted to learn from him and be friends.
|
On April 02 2012 18:06 Azera wrote:I didn't just copy and paste it randomly from the Internet. 12I never talk about these topics because I want to boost my ego or anything. As I said, I talk about these things to learn. Well, why did you send him the quote instead of the 'translation'? If your goal is to discuss the matter with him, why would you want to obscure the meaning by going back to the antiquated quote? You can present the actual claim in everyday language and then attach the quote as a source.
|
On April 02 2012 18:12 Dagobert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 18:06 Azera wrote:I didn't just copy and paste it randomly from the Internet. 12I never talk about these topics because I want to boost my ego or anything. As I said, I talk about these things to learn. Well, why did you send him the quote instead of the 'translation'? If your goal is to discuss the matter with him, why would you want to obscure the meaning by going back to the antiquated quote? You can present the actual claim in everyday language and then attach the quote as a source.
So that he can learn what I learnt, and I thought that he might not even need the translation.
|
On April 02 2012 17:56 Dagobert wrote:Well, looks like he was spot on. Besides not-copy-pasting stuff people post on the internet (especially if it's faux intellectualism!), you can read and apply this when having written conversations with people: http://www.amazon.com/Style-Lessons-Clarity-Grace-Edition/dp/0205747469/ . Show nested quote +The demystification of the present (nonsense) is the precondition of praxis, which (ambiguous) is necessarily future-oriented (unsubstantiated claim) and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable (double negative, unsubstantiated claim). This is not something you can discuss, it's nonsense. If you genuinely want to make a point, or steal someone else's point, you present a case and an argument. 1) Define an actor (" We need to" - by using 'need to' you also replace the useless "precondition" with a useful construction). 2) Define what you mean by "demystifying the present". 3) Replace "praxis" with an action that can be performed by the actor, because as it stands, this is meaningless. 4) Resolve the ambiguity. It is rarely a good idea to use "which" after having introduced several nouns. 5) Present arguments ("since...", "because...") for every claim you make. 6) Use affirmatives instead of multiple negatives, otherwise... "Except when expenses do not exceed $250, the Insured may not refuse to provide the Insurer with receipts, checks or other evidence of costs." (example taken from Style)
I'd say your criticisms of the quote in question are kind of harsh. Yes, the quote is not efficient at delivering the message at all, but it is effective. The style is irrelevant. It's a legitimate quote to analyze and mull over - it was the friend that overreacted with a bitch fit over the fact that it APPEARS try-hard, when in actuality it really is not.
|
On April 02 2012 18:10 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 18:08 RedJustice wrote: Well if that's the truth you still haven't addressed the problem of how other people perceive it. That may be the real problem and the solutions are varied and not always available, depending on the person you are dealing with. How others perceive it? I only almost exclusively talk to him about these kinds of things because when we first met he displayed a remarkable amount of knowledge on these things. I just wanted to learn from him and be friends.
That doesn't mean he doesn't perceive your intentions that way at all. In fact from what he said, I'd say he probably does. faux intelligence and nincompoopery? That sounds like a strong possibility of any of the perception issues I mentioned. Of course he could also just be a jerk and think poorly of you, but seriously you shouldn't make that assumption about him any more than he should make assumptions about your reasons for wanting to discuss these topics. (see my previous edit about communication and talking to him about the issue)
|
On April 02 2012 18:17 RedJustice wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 18:10 Azera wrote:On April 02 2012 18:08 RedJustice wrote: Well if that's the truth you still haven't addressed the problem of how other people perceive it. That may be the real problem and the solutions are varied and not always available, depending on the person you are dealing with. How others perceive it? I only almost exclusively talk to him about these kinds of things because when we first met he displayed a remarkable amount of knowledge on these things. I just wanted to learn from him and be friends. That doesn't mean he doesn't perceive your intentions that way at all. In fact from what he said, I'd say he probably does. faux intelligence and nincompoopery? That sounds like a strong possibility of any of the perception issues I mentioned. Of course he could also just be a jerk and think poorly of you, but seriously you shouldn't make that assumption about him any more than he should make assumptions about your reasons for wanting to discuss these topics. (see my previous edit about communication and talking to him about the issue)
I think some background knowledge would be helpful for you -
He is in a "better" class than me (when he was at my level). He takes 8 subjects and I take 7. He is in the Student Council (same as me) and some other student board and the school's Journalism club. He has a lot of Co-Curricular Activities. Smart as shit.
|
On April 02 2012 18:20 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 18:17 RedJustice wrote:On April 02 2012 18:10 Azera wrote:On April 02 2012 18:08 RedJustice wrote: Well if that's the truth you still haven't addressed the problem of how other people perceive it. That may be the real problem and the solutions are varied and not always available, depending on the person you are dealing with. How others perceive it? I only almost exclusively talk to him about these kinds of things because when we first met he displayed a remarkable amount of knowledge on these things. I just wanted to learn from him and be friends. That doesn't mean he doesn't perceive your intentions that way at all. In fact from what he said, I'd say he probably does. faux intelligence and nincompoopery? That sounds like a strong possibility of any of the perception issues I mentioned. Of course he could also just be a jerk and think poorly of you, but seriously you shouldn't make that assumption about him any more than he should make assumptions about your reasons for wanting to discuss these topics. (see my previous edit about communication and talking to him about the issue) I think some background knowledge would be helpful for you - He is in a "better" class than me (when he was at my level). He takes 8 subjects and I take 7. He is in the Student Council (same as me) and some other student board and the school's Journalism club. He has a lot of Co-Curricular Activities. Smart as shit.
Um.... these are completely irrelevant or maybe your brain has made some fantastic leap between his ability to be involved in co-curricular activities and not be mistaken in his perception of your intents? That also gives no support for him being a jerk. So I fail to understand your point.
|
@Makra (and the other guy who disagreed with me)
I'm only going to respond to this once since I do not wish to derail this thread. Infants acquire language and understanding through the establishment of heuristics (which translate into symbols). These symbols allow them to develop more knowledge etc etc. The rest is really just symbolic interactionism.
If you want to dive into a debate about the legitimacy of symbolic interactionism etc, sure, okay, I guess that's fine. But if you do so, please give me something from your quest. I have suggested a simple point. Writing and speaking are a display of one's ability to organize thoughts. Tell me: how can you understand a complex philosophical point or argument without organizing your thoughts? Further, how can you transmit this information to others without this ability. You cannot. Knowledge grows through interaction. How can you have a theory of knowledge which does not accept language - communication itself - as fundamental to its growth and continuation. If you want more to think about... go do some research on the human organism before the bicameral brain. Lastly, please do not try to rip this apart through some tautological debate over the word "language" - the counter-argument is flawed and I'm not going to respond to it anyways.
|
could it be that even before this answer he somehow tried to tell you that he doesn't want to talk about the stuff you bring up?
i can relate to him. some people "harass" me with their shit too. like super detailed battle reports of their latest gold 3v3, even though i already told him several times that i really do not care and that he should stop telling me.
that's what this sounds like to me.
|
On April 02 2012 18:23 RedJustice wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 18:20 Azera wrote:On April 02 2012 18:17 RedJustice wrote:On April 02 2012 18:10 Azera wrote:On April 02 2012 18:08 RedJustice wrote: Well if that's the truth you still haven't addressed the problem of how other people perceive it. That may be the real problem and the solutions are varied and not always available, depending on the person you are dealing with. How others perceive it? I only almost exclusively talk to him about these kinds of things because when we first met he displayed a remarkable amount of knowledge on these things. I just wanted to learn from him and be friends. That doesn't mean he doesn't perceive your intentions that way at all. In fact from what he said, I'd say he probably does. faux intelligence and nincompoopery? That sounds like a strong possibility of any of the perception issues I mentioned. Of course he could also just be a jerk and think poorly of you, but seriously you shouldn't make that assumption about him any more than he should make assumptions about your reasons for wanting to discuss these topics. (see my previous edit about communication and talking to him about the issue) I think some background knowledge would be helpful for you - He is in a "better" class than me (when he was at my level). He takes 8 subjects and I take 7. He is in the Student Council (same as me) and some other student board and the school's Journalism club. He has a lot of Co-Curricular Activities. Smart as shit. Um.... these are completely irrelevant or maybe your brain has made some fantastic leap between his ability to be involved in co-curricular activities and not be mistaken in his perception of your intents? That also gives no support for him being a jerk. So I fail to understand your point.
Ah , I guess the fact that we come from completely different cultures slipped my mind. The thing is, with all his involvement in all these co-curricular activities, it means that he is very capable (reason why he has so many). They don't let you get involved with so many things if they think you can handle it.
|
On April 02 2012 18:27 Precipice wrote: @Makra (and the other guy who disagreed with me)
I'm only going to respond to this once since I do not wish to derail this thread. Infants acquire language and understanding through the establishment of heuristics (which translate into symbols). These symbols allow them to develop more knowledge etc etc. The rest is really just symbolic interactionism.
If you want to dive into a debate about the legitimacy of symbolic interactionism etc, sure, okay, I guess that's fine. But if you do so, please give me something from your quest. I have suggested a simple point. Writing and speaking are a display of one's ability to organize thoughts. Tell me: how can you understand a complex philosophical point or argument without organizing your thoughts? Further, how can you transmit this information to others without this ability. You cannot. Knowledge grows through interaction. How can you have a theory of knowledge which does not accept language - communication itself - as fundamental to its growth and continuation. If you want more to think about... go do some research on the human organism before the bicameral brain. Lastly, please do not try to rip this apart through some tautological debate over the word "language" - the counter-argument is flawed and I'm not going to respond to it anyways.
Derail my blog with a debate? Hah. Please continue ^_^
On April 02 2012 18:28 beg wrote: could it be that even before this answer he somehow tried to tell you that he doesn't want to talk about the stuff you bring up?
i can relate to him. some people "harass" me with their shit too. like super detailed battle reports of their latest gold 3v3, even though i already told him several times that i really do not care and that he should stop telling me.
that's what this sounds like to me.
No, nothing.
|
Not worth keeping if he acts like that really.
|
On April 02 2012 18:29 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 18:23 RedJustice wrote:On April 02 2012 18:20 Azera wrote:On April 02 2012 18:17 RedJustice wrote:On April 02 2012 18:10 Azera wrote:On April 02 2012 18:08 RedJustice wrote: Well if that's the truth you still haven't addressed the problem of how other people perceive it. That may be the real problem and the solutions are varied and not always available, depending on the person you are dealing with. How others perceive it? I only almost exclusively talk to him about these kinds of things because when we first met he displayed a remarkable amount of knowledge on these things. I just wanted to learn from him and be friends. That doesn't mean he doesn't perceive your intentions that way at all. In fact from what he said, I'd say he probably does. faux intelligence and nincompoopery? That sounds like a strong possibility of any of the perception issues I mentioned. Of course he could also just be a jerk and think poorly of you, but seriously you shouldn't make that assumption about him any more than he should make assumptions about your reasons for wanting to discuss these topics. (see my previous edit about communication and talking to him about the issue) I think some background knowledge would be helpful for you - He is in a "better" class than me (when he was at my level). He takes 8 subjects and I take 7. He is in the Student Council (same as me) and some other student board and the school's Journalism club. He has a lot of Co-Curricular Activities. Smart as shit. Um.... these are completely irrelevant or maybe your brain has made some fantastic leap between his ability to be involved in co-curricular activities and not be mistaken in his perception of your intents? That also gives no support for him being a jerk. So I fail to understand your point. Ah , I guess the fact that we come from completely different cultures slipped my mind. The thing is, with all his involvement in all these co-curricular activities, it means that he is very capable (reason why he has so many). They don't let you get involved with so many things if they think you can handle it.
I don't disagree that these things probably mean he is very smart. He has good time management skills as well no doubt. I don't know if you are purposely avoiding my point that these abilities have no relevance to the fact that he may have misinterpreted your intentions, or if you honestly believe that these prove he is infallible and can't possibly have made a mistake? I am not following your train of thought here at all.
EDIT: I just want to reiterate, I am not trying to troll or be rude, I seriously don't understand the point you are trying to make.
|
On April 02 2012 18:31 RogerX wrote: Not worth keeping if he acts like that really.
Hi RogerX! Thanks
On April 02 2012 18:32 RedJustice wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 18:29 Azera wrote:On April 02 2012 18:23 RedJustice wrote:On April 02 2012 18:20 Azera wrote:On April 02 2012 18:17 RedJustice wrote:On April 02 2012 18:10 Azera wrote:On April 02 2012 18:08 RedJustice wrote: Well if that's the truth you still haven't addressed the problem of how other people perceive it. That may be the real problem and the solutions are varied and not always available, depending on the person you are dealing with. How others perceive it? I only almost exclusively talk to him about these kinds of things because when we first met he displayed a remarkable amount of knowledge on these things. I just wanted to learn from him and be friends. That doesn't mean he doesn't perceive your intentions that way at all. In fact from what he said, I'd say he probably does. faux intelligence and nincompoopery? That sounds like a strong possibility of any of the perception issues I mentioned. Of course he could also just be a jerk and think poorly of you, but seriously you shouldn't make that assumption about him any more than he should make assumptions about your reasons for wanting to discuss these topics. (see my previous edit about communication and talking to him about the issue) I think some background knowledge would be helpful for you - He is in a "better" class than me (when he was at my level). He takes 8 subjects and I take 7. He is in the Student Council (same as me) and some other student board and the school's Journalism club. He has a lot of Co-Curricular Activities. Smart as shit. Um.... these are completely irrelevant or maybe your brain has made some fantastic leap between his ability to be involved in co-curricular activities and not be mistaken in his perception of your intents? That also gives no support for him being a jerk. So I fail to understand your point. Ah , I guess the fact that we come from completely different cultures slipped my mind. The thing is, with all his involvement in all these co-curricular activities, it means that he is very capable (reason why he has so many). They don't let you get involved with so many things if they think you can handle it. I don't disagree that these things probably mean he is very smart. He has good time management skills as well no doubt. I don't know if you are purposely avoiding my point that these abilities have no relevance to the fact that he may have misinterpreted your intentions, or if you honestly believe that these prove he is infallible and can't possibly have made a mistake? I am not following your train of thought here at all.
Oh it seems like I mis-read/interpreted your post I highly doubt he would misinterpret my actions as a form of mockery. Sorry!
|
On April 02 2012 17:15 Precipice wrote: When someone tells you, "I know what I want to say but I can't think of the words for it," they are wrong. All knowledge exists on top of words and symbols. If you cannot speak with clarity or precision then you do not *know* what you are trying to say. Therefore you are either using the words to fulfill a sense of self and a specific identity, or you simply do not understand what you are saying. It is obviously the former.
No, if you limit your knowledge to your vocabulary then you are seriously maiming yourself intellectually. Words and symbols are not a part of your minds natural syntax. The translation of pictures, feelings and emotions into words and symbols isn't perfect. Often the meaning gets distorted or large parts are left out simply because our vocabularies aren't exhaustive enough to describe everything which goes on inside our minds.
But isn't it at least futile to try to communicate thoughts for which you can't find adequate translations? No, because that is a good way to expand your vocabulary and strengthening your ability to express yourself.
On April 02 2012 18:27 Precipice wrote: Writing and speaking are a display of one's ability to organize thoughts. Tell me: how can you understand a complex philosophical point or argument without organizing your thoughts? Further, how can you transmit this information to others without this ability. You cannot. Knowledge grows through interaction. How can you have a theory of knowledge which does not accept language - communication itself - as fundamental to its growth and continuation.
Knowledge thrives under communication, I agree, but that doesn't mean that all knowledge depends on it. A language doesn't help you think, it only helps in sharing knowledge. Said knowledge can help you think however.
|
Oh ok, lol. I didn't think you would try to make that argument, but I was pretty confused by what you were trying to say otherwise. That said-- it seems like you may be leaning towards ditching him, but if you really did respect him previously as much as you say you did, you should seriously consider double checking with him about why he said that to you. If it was just all a misunderstanding, great you get to keep a friend you really enjoy and respect. If he's just an ass, well then you'll never wonder. Imo though, there is just no downside to a clarification in any kind of relationship. As you get older, or already if you are observant and interested in the relationships that form around you, you will see that most problems and fights between people happen because of misunderstandings.
|
On April 02 2012 18:44 RedJustice wrote: Oh ok, lol. I didn't think you would try to make that argument, but I was pretty confused by what you were trying to say otherwise. That said-- it seems like you may be leaning towards ditching him, but if you really did respect him previously as much as you say you did, you should seriously consider double checking with him about why he said that to you. If it was just all a misunderstanding, great you get to keep a friend you really enjoy and respect. If he's just an ass, well then you'll never wonder. Imo though, there is just no downside to a clarification in any kind of relationship. As you get older, or already if you are observant and interested in the relationships that form around you, you will see that most problems and fights between people happen because of misunderstandings.
Ok, will try to clarify.
|
On April 02 2012 18:27 Precipice wrote: @Makra (and the other guy who disagreed with me)
I'm only going to respond to this once since I do not wish to derail this thread. Infants acquire language and understanding through the establishment of heuristics (which translate into symbols). These symbols allow them to develop more knowledge etc etc. The rest is really just symbolic interactionism.
If you want to dive into a debate about the legitimacy of symbolic interactionism etc, sure, okay, I guess that's fine. But if you do so, please give me something from your quest. I have suggested a simple point. Writing and speaking are a display of one's ability to organize thoughts. Tell me: how can you understand a complex philosophical point or argument without organizing your thoughts? Further, how can you transmit this information to others without this ability. You cannot. Knowledge grows through interaction. How can you have a theory of knowledge which does not accept language - communication itself - as fundamental to its growth and continuation. If you want more to think about... go do some research on the human organism before the bicameral brain. Lastly, please do not try to rip this apart through some tautological debate over the word "language" - the counter-argument is flawed and I'm not going to respond to it anyways.
As amenable to derailing the thread and threadgoers seem, I agree; but I just couldn't let it go unchallenged, and I know how you feel...
Maybe another time, or if you change your mind I'm sure I can make it worth your while.
+ Show Spoiler +I feel like we've argued before elsewhere, but I'm too tired to try and hunt it down. Eh.
redjustice is doing an excellent job presenting the alternate side, or the primary parts of it, and that is really valuable. It's worth more than just passing consideration even if you have the best of intentions.
Nonetheless, what is the ardent intellectual supposed to do? I hesitate to put it this way because it gets conflated with the misunderstood artist cliche, but: what if honest introspection leads you believe that what other people are passionate about are really lesser pursuits, to you? Do you try to hide that from them (which is implicit condescension)? Do you try to convert them? Do you ignore the divide and try to fake a connection?
I would suggest that you can always find a grain of interest in any person or pursuit, and it should be a personal challenge to make yourself compatible to these granules of purpose which you might otherwise pass by. Exercise your empathy and it will repay you.
|
On April 02 2012 18:07 Azera wrote:How is he a hypocrite? He's a high school kid calling you out for faux-intellectualism whilst writing like a pompous douche
|
Just saying that please continue the debate/argument, it's good reading and relevant.
On April 02 2012 18:49 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 18:07 Azera wrote:On April 02 2012 18:06 Scarecrow wrote: He's right but also a hypocrite How is he a hypocrite? He's a high school kid calling you out for faux-intellectualism whilst writing like a pompous douche
HAHA!
|
On April 02 2012 18:49 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 18:07 Azera wrote:On April 02 2012 18:06 Scarecrow wrote: He's right but also a hypocrite How is he a hypocrite? He's a high school kid calling you out for faux-intellectualism whilst writing like a pompous douche The difference is that his rambling were intelligible whilst the statement he responded to were not. Thus it is possible for him to have mastered the university lingo since we have no evidence to the contrary. As such he is not necessarily a hypocrite.
|
That looks like he right clicked on all his words in office and chose the synonym with the most syllables.
|
United Kingdom1658 Posts
Yup, the word "pompous" keeps cropping up here, for good reason. That reply looks like a self-serving attempt at intellectual superiority. I mean, really, what a complete arse. Tell him to stuff his attitude, and stuff his pointlessly long-winded sentences. They don't make him look clever, just like an absolute try hard, despite what he clearly thinks of himself. He also thinks people hate him for this kind of thing, because they're jealous of his "intellect". Also complete rubbish. What he has written is a clear sign of somebody who thinks they are far more clever, and more revered for it than they in fact are.
|
Oh btw, I was curious if English is his primary language and he just talks like that, or if he has learned it in an academic context. Unless there is a definition of entreat I am not aware of (there may be) or I am misreading it, he has used the word entirely incorrectly. That last sentence just seems off.
|
On April 02 2012 19:37 RedJustice wrote: Oh btw, I was curious if English is his primary language and he just talks like that, or if he has learned it in an academic context. Unless there is a definition of entreat I am not aware of (there may be) or I am misreading it, he has used the word entirely incorrectly. That last sentence just seems off.
Yes, English is his first language. Come to think of it, entreat was used wrongly. hehe.
|
On April 02 2012 19:37 RedJustice wrote: Oh btw, I was curious if English is his primary language and he just talks like that, or if he has learned it in an academic context. Unless there is a definition of entreat I am not aware of (there may be) or I am misreading it, he has used the word entirely incorrectly. That last sentence just seems off. I and probably most others tend to adjust the language according to the context. If these two tend to speak this way to each other it is nothing strange about it. Also, the fact that he used a word that wrongly means that he didn't put much thought into those sentences, he wouldn't have found that word by looking through synonyms and if he looked it up he would see that it didn't fit so he got to have misunderstood it all by himself. To me it looks like he meant to say "comply with" or "defer to".
On April 02 2012 19:20 ImbaTosS wrote: Yup, the word "pompous" keeps cropping up here, for good reason. That reply looks like a self-serving attempt at intellectual superiority. I mean, really, what a complete arse. Tell him to stuff his attitude, and stuff his pointlessly long-winded sentences. They don't make him look clever, just like an absolute try hard, despite what he clearly thinks of himself. He also thinks people hate him for this kind of thing, because they're jealous of his "intellect". Also complete rubbish. What he has written is a clear sign of somebody who thinks they are far more clever, and more revered for it than they in fact are. It is interesting how much you think that you can extract about someone just by looking at their choice of words.
|
Austin10831 Posts
This person doesn't hold a very high opinion of you, it would seem. It's important to realize that this could be through little to no fault of your own. I wouldn't worry about it, however. If this is how he conducts his interactions, you probably shouldn't have a particularly high opinion of him either.
|
On April 02 2012 17:56 Dagobert wrote: Well, looks like he was spot on. Besides not-copy-pasting stuff people post on the internet (especially if it's faux intellectualism!), you can read and apply this when having written conversations with people: http://www.amazon.com/Style-Lessons-Clarity-Grace-Edition/dp/0205747469/ . Hide nested quote - The demystification of the present (nonsense) is the precondition of praxis, which (ambiguous) is necessarily future-oriented (unsubstantiated claim) and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable (double negative, unsubstantiated claim). This is not something you can discuss, it's nonsense. If you genuinely want to make a point, or steal someone else's point, you present a case and an argument. 1) Define an actor ("We need to" - by using 'need to' you also replace the useless "precondition" with a useful construction). 2) Define what you mean by "demystifying the present". 3) Replace "praxis" with an action that can be performed by the actor, because as it stands, this is meaningless. 4) Resolve the ambiguity. It is rarely a good idea to use "which" after having introduced several nouns. 5) Present arguments ("since...", "because...") for every claim you make. 6) Use affirmatives instead of multiple negatives, otherwise... "Except when expenses do not exceed $250, the Insured may not refuse to provide the Insurer with receipts, checks or other evidence of costs." (example taken from Style) I'm quoting this because it is the best response so far in this thread. The quote you posted was complete nonsense, especially without context (and even in context, I would argue that whoever wrote it is terrible at writing). There's no defending just how bad of a sentence that is.
Whatever sam!zdat's excuses, that's not proper jargon and that's not how even experts talk to each other. Perhaps that's how pompous experts--calling themselves "postmodernists--talk to each other, but no one else considers them experts on anything, and for good reason.
More importantly, I think you should ask yourself why your 'friend' lashed out like that. He mentions that this isn't the first time he was bothered by your questions, so obviously you've asked him similar questions that he found annoying and you just never noticed how you were bothering. Instead of using everyone's "what a tool" comments to make yourself feel better, I suggest actually making an effort at improving your body and emotion readings on other people.
Clearly, you missed a lot of signs of annoyance from him and he felt he needed to make a pretty strong statement so that you would realize how much you were annoying him. That's probably your fault rather than his. Judging not only from this thread, but other blogs you've made, I get the strong impression that you don't have very good social skills. There's plenty of ways to improve your social skills: Learn about Body Language, Conversation/Interview methods, Social Dynamics, etc.
It might sound extreme, but look up some of the resources that people with Asparagus' Syndrome use to improve their social skills. Maybe taking a more 'logical' approach to understanding other people will be useful.
|
It was kind of an out of the blue response, this was his last message to me
|
On April 02 2012 20:39 TheKwas wrote: It might sound extreme, but look up some of the resources that people with Asparagus' Syndrome use to improve their social skills. Maybe taking a more 'logical' approach to understanding other people will be useful. Yeah, this is a good site: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Asparagus_Syndrome
Another good idea could be to look up Aspergers syndrome instead.
|
On April 02 2012 20:46 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 20:39 TheKwas wrote: It might sound extreme, but look up some of the resources that people with Asparagus' Syndrome use to improve their social skills. Maybe taking a more 'logical' approach to understanding other people will be useful. Yeah, this is a good site: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Asparagus_SyndromeAnother good idea could be to look up Aspergers syndrome instead.
LOL I just noticed that. LMAO
|
Not really possible to say if he's being a dick without knowing exactly what you asked.
If you didn't really explain your intention asking him (like: "Someone replied with this to a blog of mine and I don't get it, what do you make of it?") but just threw that phrase at him (like: "Hey, what do you think of this: 'The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable'?) it might have come of as you playing around with big words you don't really know the meaning of, which might have provoked a reaction like the one he delivered.
|
|
I asked, "What do you think of the statement ------- ?"
|
On April 02 2012 20:39 TheKwas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 17:56 Dagobert wrote: Well, looks like he was spot on. Besides not-copy-pasting stuff people post on the internet (especially if it's faux intellectualism!), you can read and apply this when having written conversations with people: http://www.amazon.com/Style-Lessons-Clarity-Grace-Edition/dp/0205747469/ . Hide nested quote - The demystification of the present (nonsense) is the precondition of praxis, which (ambiguous) is necessarily future-oriented (unsubstantiated claim) and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable (double negative, unsubstantiated claim). This is not something you can discuss, it's nonsense. If you genuinely want to make a point, or steal someone else's point, you present a case and an argument. 1) Define an actor ("We need to" - by using 'need to' you also replace the useless "precondition" with a useful construction). 2) Define what you mean by "demystifying the present". 3) Replace "praxis" with an action that can be performed by the actor, because as it stands, this is meaningless. 4) Resolve the ambiguity. It is rarely a good idea to use "which" after having introduced several nouns. 5) Present arguments ("since...", "because...") for every claim you make. 6) Use affirmatives instead of multiple negatives, otherwise... "Except when expenses do not exceed $250, the Insured may not refuse to provide the Insurer with receipts, checks or other evidence of costs." (example taken from Style) I'm quoting this because it is the best response so far in this thread. The quote you posted was complete nonsense, especially without context (and even in context, I would argue that whoever wrote it is terrible at writing). There's no defending just how bad of a sentence that is. Whatever sam!zdat's excuses, that's not proper jargon and that's not how even experts talk to each other. Perhaps that's how pompous experts--calling themselves "postmodernists--talk to each other, but no one else considers them experts on anything, and for good reason. I've seen those types of convulted questions/statements (w/e they are, they don't have a question mark but want a response) in that god damn English AP exam. So many "intellectual" words put into one sentence that you have to read the question like 10 times. It's like they're trying to flush out the ones that don't have an extensive vocabulary by using the most amibigous and rare words they could find. It might not be how experts talk to each other, but it's probably how they write each other.
Edit: I would have answered the OPs question/statement liek dis: "yes I guess, i mean, In order to figure what you in the present, you have to think of the future to figure out if the outcome is worth it or not." Who knows if i'm even on topic, but I gave it my best. I'd like to see how some other people would have tried to answer or what the OP thinks his friend should have answered like.
|
On April 02 2012 21:01 Azera wrote: I asked, "What do you think of the statement ------- ?"
So you didn't make your intention clear. For all he knew you could have made that statement yourself.
You should begin your discussions with a clear statement of your own state of mind, so that your friend sees you as an equivalent part of the discussion.
Even if your state of mind is just a quick outline of the context ("Someone on my blog wrote x") plus your first thought of it ("and I don't really know what to make of it") and then your question ("what do you think of it?"). I think this might have resulted in a much less offensive statement. The way you did it, it was just "Tell me what you know about x" and then that cryptic message with as much elaborated words as possible.
Really, whoever wrote you should start working on communication rather than knowledge was probably right
|
maybe he can teach you about the intellectual stuff, while you teach him basic social interaction. he seems to be lacking somewhat...
|
While thinking about it, I tried looking in the OP if you actually were looking for an advice of some sort and I didn't find anything so I will assume you were asking for advice on what to do or how to react (see: that's the same kind of communication problem I was outlining earlier).
My advice, as simple as it sounds, is talking to him about. I'm guessing since he's mostly annoyed by your overly elaborated behaviour that he's still open for normal communication, so you could just explain the situation to him and see where that leads.
|
Maybe he likes Fairy tail, send him a poster of Erza and you'll be fine.
|
Man that's a lot of blogs written over the past few months. This is not intended to offend you, but it just seems that you are a typical teenager in the wild - you seem quite insecure
|
On April 02 2012 23:40 Elegance wrote: Man that's a lot of blogs written over the past few months. This is not intended to offend you, but it just seems that you are a typical teenager in the wild - you seem quite insecure
Yup. I don't think I'm a typical teenager though.
|
On April 02 2012 23:46 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 23:40 Elegance wrote: Man that's a lot of blogs written over the past few months. This is not intended to offend you, but it just seems that you are a typical teenager in the wild - you seem quite insecure Yup. I don't think I'm a typical teenager though. Typical in a sense that you are going through what most people go through, not the specifics of your personality or whatever EDIT: Don't feel bad man, I was like that until pretty recently. You will hit that point one way or another
|
If someone used the word "nincompoopery" whilst accusing me of false intellectualism, I would be inclined to serve him a punch to the dick.
+ Show Spoiler +I don't have a clue what you were trying to say with your fancy college words, but praxis points are best spent on hacking-capture upgrades. It is known.
|
Let me give you some anecdotal experience, but coming from the other side.
Every summer i spend about two weeks with some friends at the beach. One of them is a massive hippie and conspiracy theroist yet someone i think is very intelligent. I am someone who enjoys thinking. Me and him both enjoy deep conversations over "mundane trivial" stuff, like you. There is also another kid. This kid ive never been friends with (we all couldnt fucking stand him at one point, he was there because he was good friends with another kid). This kid is good looking, athletic, popular, and likes to party hard. He also enjoys to talk deep and often tries to talk with my friend and sometimes me about very macroscopic topics.
While my friend likes the kid (even though he annoys him alot) we both came to the same conclusions about him: 1. He dosent stop talking 2. He isnt actually that smart 3. Hes a massive suck up
Now i have no idea how you or your friend act. I have no idea how smart you or your friend are. But from my own experience these are things that turn me and my friend off from this kid. While my friend puts up with him, he confessed that he dosent really enjoy it and often gets annoyed by him. However he dosen't show his annoyance (though he occasionaly yells at him to stfu). Personally i cant enjoy a conversation with the kid as its very one sided and he just parrots what others tell him, leading me to try to avoid one-on-one conversations with him.
So my advice is to just reflect about your interactions with your friend and think about what you couldve done over time that possibly annoys him. I feel that you are taking a very one sided perspective in your op ( i haven't read that much of the thread so i dont know if you touch upon this sry) and not really seeing this through your friends eyes.
On another note, i always tend be a very cynical towards people who like to be verbose and unnecessarily use big words. Your friend, judging by his response, is someone i would really call into question.
|
So what school does he go to?
|
On April 02 2012 21:01 Azera wrote: I asked, "What do you think of the statement ------- ?"
I wouldn't have even bothered responding to that.
Why do you think TL requires people to put some effort into an OP? Because that's the only way to actually open a meaningful discussion. A needlessly cryptic line of text (which honestly screams "academic jargon for its own ego-boosting sake") and the command "discuss" is no way to open a discussion. Maybe if you had presented your analysis of it, said why you agreed or disagreed, and asked how he felt about what YOU had to say, he might have responded differently.
Edit: also, I'm pretty sure that response was sarcastic. I imagine your friend saying that with a gold monocle and a top hat, holding a brandy snifter with a cane under his arm. Nobody says "it is tedious to entreat with..." and "nincompoopery" if they're 100% serious. And if he was being serious, dear god, both of you need to be knocked down a peg or two.
|
Fake intellectuals ask simple questions in complex wording.
The true mastery of speech is not to ask increasingly poluted questions, it is to reduce complex concepts to their basics.
Fake intellectuals really do exist and they are a pain in the ass. I can spot them from a mile away. In text I can catch them most of the time, in real life conversation I can catch them a 100% of the time.
A fake intellectual can be smart. Hell, a fake intellectual can even be an intellectual.
The core of the problem is people who are obviously extending beyond their own ability, increasingly making their speech more poluted with words that they clearly don't fully grasp themselves.
They want to be smart, desperately so. They phrase their questions in increasingly complex words for the sake of appearing more intelligent than they really are.
The difference between a real and a fake intellectual lies in the desire that is underneath their questions, debates, and discussions. Do they truly want to learn? Or do they crave the title of intellectual and engage in complex issues for the sake of engaging in them.
Fake intellectuals are pain in the ass because they are, despite what they might even think themselves, not truly interested in the topic, whatever the topic may be. They just want to talk about topics they perceive as intelligent, because they want the status of intellectual that clings to those subjects.
These faux-intellectuals can be recognized by their whimsy, often switching to seemingly random subjects, and the usage of words which clearly do not come naturally to them.
That is why I said I can catch them every time in a real-life conversation, it is the way in which they force these words into sentences in a way which is clearly not natural to them.
It reveals the desire to be intelligent, rather than the desire to learn. The difference might seem subtle, but it is anything but. Once you pick up on it, any discussion seems hollow. You are no longer learning from one another, you realize that you are being used to stroke the other persons ego.
|
A NOTE BEFORE I TALK ABOUT THE OP Azera I do not wish to sound harsh, but talking in a haughty manner like your quote was in, and in his way of speaking is not the defining factor of what makes you seem smart. Your acquaintance's failure to use proper parallelism in his statement, and the fact that you copied your statment out of a 1920's Charlie Chaplin speech, does not lend itself to seeming intellectual. Even if this guy takes 8 classes, book smarts do not equal street smarts or the ability to be extraverted and create cordial conversation; they can however create asshole remarks and a feeling of betterness.
Now onto your relationship. Relationships generally succeed when two people are on the same level, if he holds you in a lower regard and treats you as such, then no there is no real friendship there. If he is at a higher level but doesn't treat you like a lackey, then yeah sure friendships can abound in that situation. This guy was an ass when he responded to you, but he may not have been completely false (though a fail grammatically speaking) when he talked of Faux intellectualism, if you were discussing the complex natures of the universe at a young age where you still have a lot to learn in the basic subjects. I can't say i know you personally, but from your name I'm going to guess you are Jewish or have some semitic descent (Ezra) and that you aren't graduated from college yet (neither am i). Now my point here is that you might not be at fault at all, and he may be, for lack of a better term, an asshat; however in the event that he isn't completely wrong, or that you just want to learn from the event, you can look back at what you talked to him about and see if you could have known more about it rather than both of you not having any kind of clue what you are talking about and just shooting the breeze. Also its possible you knew more than him, were varacious intellectually and no matter how book smart he is, he may have been scared off by that. If that is true, that could be his point in the last phrase about having the will to learn in his letter. If i'm completely off, I'm very sorry for that, but hopefully some of what i said rings with you .
|
Ok guys, many things happened. He actually googled the quote and found this blog. He then apologised for his actions and I guess we cleared things up.
|
Hong Kong9136 Posts
On April 03 2012 16:33 Azera wrote: Ok guys, many things happened. He actually googled the quote and found this blog. He then apologised for his actions and I guess we cleared things up.
Awkward. Guess that's one way to learn to stop being pompous.
|
On April 03 2012 18:06 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 16:33 Azera wrote: Ok guys, many things happened. He actually googled the quote and found this blog. He then apologised for his actions and I guess we cleared things up. Awkward. Guess that's one way to learn to stop being pompous.
No doubt
|
The main issue is moot, but I do want to give a few thoughts and *unsolicited* advice.
Just ask simple-worded questions to head these issues off. I don't know where your quote came from, but I do see the idea behind it. If you want to truly learn, then try to make the statement readable to the ordinary person - not necessarily understandable, but readable. I mean, "demystifying" can be simplified into "clarify", "praxis" into "practice" or even "experience" and so on (if I can follow the thought behind the quote). Precondition, if not really meant in its temporal sense, can be simplified into "condition" or "requirement" even. Thus you end up with "Clarifying the present is a requirement of practice (or if you want to keep the philosophical heritage of the term intact, praxis), which is necessarily future-oriented. (cut off the first thought there) This would be possible if the future were partially known." Two ideas then - (1) that some form of present clarity is required for praxis, and (2) that by the nature of praxis (in its future-oriented approach), partial knowledge of the future needs to be attained.
When you simplify things, it's not as complicated or "intellectual"-sounding as your quote made it out to be, and you can have a more fruitful discussion (with less "pomposity" thrown between thinking friends).
|
Yup. I don't think I'm a typical teenager though. You have no idea how much of a typical teenager you sound like....
Maybe if you and your friend were honest from the start and didn't act dumb in the first place, this problem wouldn't happen. Maybe you should go into the Stoner thread... they always having "Deep philosophical discussions" about the vast and majestic universe, current affairs, and literature.
|
Am I the only one that doesn't find the guy's answer harsh or pretentious (besides the word "nincompoopery" lol)? He's expressing his frustration at a very specific behavior, rather than calling Azera stupid or saying lets not be friends anymore. If someone just sent me that quote and didn't mean it as a joke then I would be kind of annoyed as well. It doesn't serve as much of a springboard into anything besides how language can get in the way of clarity of ideas. But anyway it's pretty hard to make a judgment on this person with so little context given.
|
I think it was Tolstoy who said he was perfectly content to work the farm, but his novel called to him to be written.
|
On April 04 2012 17:13 Roe wrote: I think it was Tolstoy who said he was perfectly content to work the farm, but his novel called to him to be written.
Sorry what?
|
On April 04 2012 18:00 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 17:13 Roe wrote: I think it was Tolstoy who said he was perfectly content to work the farm, but his novel called to him to be written. Sorry what? Go outside, put your mind at ease. People get stuck in the dust of books too often.
|
|
|
|