About >>> Academic Snobs...

I think I’m seriously puzzled to understand why it is that academic snobs envy my honest personal, philosophical success? (- Maybe it’s a question, which only qualified psychologists are able to answer?) I trust the academic wisdom of the forum members to come up with a plausible answer. Could it be that they need to play some sort of a tricky game to curb their inferiority complex. Could it be that their incapability to come to terms with their personal, philosophical development drives them berserk? You know, there is only one thing, which is worse that envy: It’s when someone makes sure that no-one can have what they cannot have themselves! - Albeit the envy of academic snobs is an acquired, negative personality disorder, it represents a self-inflicted, serious impediment to personal, philosophical development. What a shame!

What’s your take? Respectfully, jjj
PS. Please refrain from academic insults. Only kind postings are appreciated… :blush:

JJJ-

I mean this as kindly as possible (seriously)- nobody here envies you. JJJ… have you ever given thought to the idea that it could be you that has a problem and not the rest of the world? Seriously JJJ, I am only saying this because I think you are entirely oblivious to the fact that you are horribly aggravating in a passive-aggressive sort of way. And JJJ, having a happy life does not mean that you are correct philosophically! I have met a few Mormons that are extremely happy and peaceful with their lives, but that does not mean that an angel by the name of Moroni flew from the heavens and gave a drunk womanizer by the name of Joseph Smith the secret to life on a gold tablet! If someone made such a claim (as you have), and then claim to be a purveyor of logic and reason, it’s a slap in the face to someone that does practice sound reasoning.

One more question JJJ, how can you say you’ve done your philosphic homework, and at the same time claim to have never read any other philosophers?! Do you understand how incredibly ridiculous of a statement that is?

I should note, some of the above may come across as vindictive, but I do not intend it to. :frowning: :frowning:

  1. I really think that I (unlike Mormons) have created and earned my highest possible contentment and quality of life. It’s far more to it than just “being happy”.
  2. With “having done my homework” I meant to say that I established my very own brand of philosophy… which actually works effectively. I told you that there are several way to Rom and my way of reasoning is one of them. Thus, I cannot imagine how more or another philosophy could improve my contentment and quality of life. I achieved my objective in life… Gracias a la vida! Now, I really enjoy to help others to achieve the same or more! If my help is not welcome, I won’t be the loser anymore. Perhaps the oldies are right of discouraging me to continue my mission? Perhaps it’s the Power of the Universe, which controls who is worthy of sharing my treasures? Although I’m an agnostic, I sense the presents of the Power of the Universe and it’s Laws of Logic…
The other day I had no time to go into the nitty-gritty of the following. Thus, today I thought about it:

 In context of philosophical guidance (in my books) and the article  "Women & Reasoning" I only aimed to help the ladies. Thus far, I had a pretty positive response from them.  One can go on an on about it... That'll do.

In regard to emotional creativity assessment, I truly believe that it can be assessed. Professional teachers and examiners are truly able to assess the quality and technique of divers artists. Thus, paintings can be analyzed can be and assessed and accordingly the painter with the most points of skill and talent gain the highest recognition and reputation. The same goes for musicians. For instance we can analyze the individual levels of technical skills and emotional pattern of a  musical composition or performance. Thus, the evolutionary level of one's inherited unique abilities and talents is in deed assessable.   jjj

Please accept my apology for any hurt my posting “academic snobs” caused. Actually it was a little game I thought to play in order to tame the tigers…
No big deal! Just a little shake on the establishment… Some clocks tick again or much better after a little shake…yet, some (shut up…me!)

yes, i don’t think anyone would doubt that. that is the scariest thing about you.

i think that is the best part. The guy is actually happy. We might think he is ignorant is a certain sense. But to him, it is bliss.

undoubtedly the cave is much more amenable to those who have never seen the light :wink:

helping ladies is courtoisie, not philosophie :smiley:

But the reasons a person might want to help a lady should be investigated. Isn’t what a person’s values are considered philosophy, or is the act of investigating what values are based on philosophy?

jjj,

If you’ll recall, a million years ago success was determined by who had the biggest club. Today, in the modern world, wit has taken the place of brawn and usually it’s the guy with the largest vocabulary who claims the victory. What puzzles me is the fact that with club and wit alike, success doesn’t appear to be “success” in the sense that it has overcome any obstacle. The inherent problems in human existence remain and what one might call “success” is really just a type of biding time, distractions, occupying oneself. What I mean is that when someone shouts “I’ve done it!,” that usually means that they have convinced themselves that some amount of progress has been made. But if one looks closer, it has not, nor was the problem that was claimed to be fixed even really a problem to begin with. So, parading the minor problem with a solution does nothing but create an illusion of progress, success, as well as an element of jealousy to be passed back and forth between competing thinkers depending on who “got there first.” One, the pedant doesn’t want you to ask questions he cannot answer, and two, he certainly doesn’t want you to understand so easily what has taken him many a dollar and pressed suit to discover. Philosophy has become, in the modern world, a fashion institution. You simply aren’t supposed to “know” the things you know without due investment. We can no longer become “smart” by taking a walk through the woods or sitting beside the lake on a stormy afternoon. We have to jump on an imaginary band-wagon, pay the fees, learn the rudimentary essentials, and only then can we begin any original thinking.

It is indeed a psychological game, where the players believe that knowledge is power, and power is success. Meanwhile, in outer-space, the gag reel keeps turning, and usually it’s the guy sitting beside the lake that knows this, and knows this alone.

Bingo! In the company of a pedant, one needs to do two things. First, let him do the thinking, and two, never tell him that he is wasting his time contemplating issues that you solved when you were 11. Or better yet, issues that you realized cannot be solved when you were 12.

Oh, heavens no! “Academics” do nothing but confuse the problem more. Just ask the common man, not these hideous mutant beings.

I believe it was Good Will Hunting that once said- “When you get to be fifty years old you’re going to realize two things. First, “don’t do that,” and second, you wasted a hundred grand on an education you could have got for a buck-fifty and late charges from the public library.”

Well said De’trop! I completely agree with you, but I find it quite ironic that jjj, whom has insisted on egotistical boasting from the time he joined the site, to be complaining about the egos of the pedants. Well said though.

I am fortunate (in some respects, not in others) not to have attended college. I read what i want to read when i want to read it. No professor gets the opportunity to cram his theory down my throat.

I never realized my vocabulary could be construed as a club! Should i curb my sesquipedalian tendencies? :unamused:

Never trust the academics (Argumentum ad Verecundiam or appeal to authority). Where would the World be without the lone, solitary thinkers like Thoreau (lived by a pond (not lake)), Nietzsche, Emerson, Diogenes, etc.

There is nothing wrong with education, just the institutionalization of education.

  • Kafka

I’ve never studied philosophy in my life. I knew practically nothing of the works of Descartes and all those other ‘established’ philosophers, until I joined here when I realised I’d already thought of what they did. Not to say I haven’t learnt anything from being around learned philosophers who have studied it. But I think I’ve got pretty far just by my own observation and thinking to myself in my free time, and thought up a great deal of what they thought up on my own. I’ve had the freedom to roam as I please and think about what I want rather than just learn what other people have already thought of and methods to help you think like them. I learnt to do that myself. I’m the guy who lives by the pond. I used to boast about it. But that just made everyone hate me and didn’t solve anything. And I also realised that I had nothing to boast about. Because true knowledge is knowing that you know nothing. And ppl aren’t generally impressed by that. Fools!!

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :smiley: !!!

I agree that education has been the biggest waste of my life and whilst it has done me good, it has done far more harm.

Yes. :slight_smile:

Yes. :frowning:
Thats how I define success. But it never ‘gets’ me anywhere because no-one else defines success that way.

Silhouette wrote-

It was not my intention to imply that one could not understand philosophy without reading other philosphers. However, if one did educate themself without any outside influence, I have a problem with them announcing they did their “philosophic homework”. It is quite possible that someone could, by themself, have thought of every concept that exists in philosophy. However, how could one know unless they did some research to see if there wasn’t something else that they had not thought of? Or perhaps a different perspective than the one they hold? The fact is, they can’t. If someone has done their philosophic homework, they not only understand their own view, but the views of others as well.

Emerson and Thoreau are my philosophical idols!!!

Which one said, “A man is only half his expression.”?

I am not formally taught, in fact I’m hardly informally taught. Little by little the scope of my philosophical knowledge is coming out of these debates.

My problem is in the way I express my thoughts. I might disagree with something someone said, but I wouldn’t have the words to write it out. I find myself many times referring to dictionary.com for some of these words.

I also think that philosophy is a subject that has no room for egos. I really don’t see how one can become big-headed with it. It is true that I have but two or three people in my life right now that I can sit down and really discuss philosophy with. Besides that, the majority of the human race doesn’t care. I don’t find myself more intelligent because I can say a qoute by a great philosopher, or because I know the synopsis of Othello, or I own Waldon Pond. Or because I could play all three movements of Moonlight Sonata, none of this matters. These are things that make me more cultured, and a bit more refined. But overall I don’t think that justifies me acting like I’m above the people that decide to spend their free time bored, or wondering what to do. I am never bored, only boring people get bored.

Isn’t it like experts, they know more and more about less and less until eventually they know everything about nothing!!

Does it then follow logically that philosophers knowing they know nothing, know less and less about more and more until they know nothing about everything??

Yes! :smiley:

Which is why I find philosophy ultimately pointless because it will never reach its goal of understanding of the truth so as to make better use of it, because there is no truth. So all thats left is the enjoyment and satisfaction you get from making logical conclusions and coming up with new ideas and/or studying ppl who do that. And thus the only kind of point in philosophy is similar to the only point in entertainment, which is contentment from stimulation. The nicest, least bad way to be to fill up the time before you die.

And yet i hold those who constantly entertain themselves with simple, repetitive amusements to be passive, not exercising their minds, etc. It’s like some people just take what is given to them. and at the same time i have finally learned not to hold them in disdain (thanks smooth for the lesson about humility, i need to be reminded of that occaisonally).

In the final analysis any occupation is a crapshoot. But what a beautiful, elegant game of craps this philosophy! One sharpens one’s mind, reads nobel prize winners, talks to intelligent and interesting people, defines one’s ideals, notions, and goals. And the dice are not loaded; philosophy being the most general science in town.

How could the icons of contemporary academia know what it is to truly live one’s philosophy? Maybe some do, but my bet is for the fool on the hill, or better yet, the hermit by the lake.

yes, what a game of craps this is. Where else can a person sound like they know what they are talking about. But in closer examination. They really didn’t say anything at all?

besides being a politician.