I have found it rather exciting that a small tiff over 'Pseudo Intellectuals' has been brewing lately. In the big scheme of things on the Malaysian public sphere, it has probably gone unnoticed. But just to recap, the tiff over the past week can be traced to:-
1. An article condemning the rise of the Pseudo Intellectual, appearing in The Star on the 28th of June.
2. A counter argument to the original article, appearing in LoyarBurok on the 29th of June.
3. An article coming to defense of the Pseudo Intellectuals, appearing in the Malaysian Insider on the 6th of July.
Now, the first guy, article 1, goes to Dictionary.com to define a Pseudo-Intellectual (serious shit, I was surprised as hell when there was a definition listed as well). The definition is as follows:-
To my even further surprise, I found this definition on Urbandictionary.com:-
Okay, I'm not really here to critique in detail the arguments made in each article. Rather, I would like to point out something I think all the articles failed to really focus on. While I think Articles 2 and 3 do a good job shooting down the point of 'pretentiousness' (some measure of pretentiousness may be valid as long as people really are trying to become more 'intellectual') but they fail to address a more pressing problem with pseudo-intellectualism - crappy arguments.
To be clear, I am not saying people shouldn't be speaking about "intellectual" topics (who the hell defines what is "intellectual" or not anyway?). People should absolutely be giving deep thought to whatever the hell topic they want to think about or talk about. I think people should try and get as much information as they can about a topic and to be critical about the information they take up. From this combination of researched information and deep thought does a (generally) sound argument arise (For the record, a 'sound argument' is not an argument I agree with necessarily; I am happy to acknowledge the soundness of an argument against something I believe in).
I think the problem with pseudo intellectuals is the first bit in the Dictionary.com definition - "no basis in sound scholarship." The second definition doesn't really matter - people use money, looks, gadgets, clothes etc etc to get status; intellectualism shouldn't be any different. But the thing that annoys me is when a LPI (I have labelled these people as Liberal Pseudo Intellectuals before because they tend to claim themselves as Liberal) goes around shooting off arguments that aren't based on reason or logic or fact. Again, for the record, people can say whatever the hell they want - it doesn't mean they're not idiotic or they're not annoying.
Look, if you wanna quote Nietzsche, by all means go ahead. The thing is, though, if you have a really sound argument for something you believe in, you do not need a quote. Your reasoning is enough. Quotes are great for affirming or advancing a point, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient in making your point. Just by telling me what some person said as your argument does not convince me, at all, that your argument is right. If you can do a solid logical construction of the need for a socialist society, you do not need to quote Karl Marx. I will buy your argument (even if I don't agree with it) without you needing to appeal to an authority for backup.
It is also not a very good thing to let people carry on making crappy arguments just so they can "intellectualise" themselves. Shitty arguments are not intellectual, even if that person is trying to become more intellectual. People do not mock you because you're trying to gain knowledge, people mock you because your argument is rubbish. Worse still, if you just talk for the sake of talking, without actually making a point.
Consider this from Article 2, in response to Article 1:-
"When you are suspicious of people who engage in an intellectual manner chances are you envious, insecure, despise people who try to be better themselves with their minds, or all of the above?"
The frankly crap grammar notwithstanding, I don't understand the need to whack Article 1's argument, by launching a personal question. It's so easy then to say, "Are you (Article 2) only responding because you're offended, or because you actually find something wrong with Article 1's arguments?" If you're offended, well:-
But if you were disagreeing with Article 1's arguments, then berate the arguments. Likewise, for Article 1, the author misses the point as well with Pseudo Intellectuals. If they are LPIs, whack their arguments and watch the arguments crumble. The great thing about freedom of speech is that everyone's words is available to everyone else. This means that the good arguments will persist, while the crappy ones will die. Usually, any way. So, if someone is making a lousy argument, then correct their argument, not label them as LPIs and leave it as that. Unless I read them wrong, none of these articles really do very much in addressing the point about arguments which have "no basis in sound scholarship."
So, yes, learn up as much as you can. The more people who think deeply and attain information about a given topic, the better for society. Anybody can be an "intellectual", whatever the hell that means, building on sound reason. By that same point, anybody can also be a LPI with a shit argument.
1. An article condemning the rise of the Pseudo Intellectual, appearing in The Star on the 28th of June.
2. A counter argument to the original article, appearing in LoyarBurok on the 29th of June.
3. An article coming to defense of the Pseudo Intellectuals, appearing in the Malaysian Insider on the 6th of July.
Now, the first guy, article 1, goes to Dictionary.com to define a Pseudo-Intellectual (serious shit, I was surprised as hell when there was a definition listed as well). The definition is as follows:-
To my even further surprise, I found this definition on Urbandictionary.com:-
Okay, I'm not really here to critique in detail the arguments made in each article. Rather, I would like to point out something I think all the articles failed to really focus on. While I think Articles 2 and 3 do a good job shooting down the point of 'pretentiousness' (some measure of pretentiousness may be valid as long as people really are trying to become more 'intellectual') but they fail to address a more pressing problem with pseudo-intellectualism - crappy arguments.
To be clear, I am not saying people shouldn't be speaking about "intellectual" topics (who the hell defines what is "intellectual" or not anyway?). People should absolutely be giving deep thought to whatever the hell topic they want to think about or talk about. I think people should try and get as much information as they can about a topic and to be critical about the information they take up. From this combination of researched information and deep thought does a (generally) sound argument arise (For the record, a 'sound argument' is not an argument I agree with necessarily; I am happy to acknowledge the soundness of an argument against something I believe in).
I think the problem with pseudo intellectuals is the first bit in the Dictionary.com definition - "no basis in sound scholarship." The second definition doesn't really matter - people use money, looks, gadgets, clothes etc etc to get status; intellectualism shouldn't be any different. But the thing that annoys me is when a LPI (I have labelled these people as Liberal Pseudo Intellectuals before because they tend to claim themselves as Liberal) goes around shooting off arguments that aren't based on reason or logic or fact. Again, for the record, people can say whatever the hell they want - it doesn't mean they're not idiotic or they're not annoying.
Look, if you wanna quote Nietzsche, by all means go ahead. The thing is, though, if you have a really sound argument for something you believe in, you do not need a quote. Your reasoning is enough. Quotes are great for affirming or advancing a point, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient in making your point. Just by telling me what some person said as your argument does not convince me, at all, that your argument is right. If you can do a solid logical construction of the need for a socialist society, you do not need to quote Karl Marx. I will buy your argument (even if I don't agree with it) without you needing to appeal to an authority for backup.
It is also not a very good thing to let people carry on making crappy arguments just so they can "intellectualise" themselves. Shitty arguments are not intellectual, even if that person is trying to become more intellectual. People do not mock you because you're trying to gain knowledge, people mock you because your argument is rubbish. Worse still, if you just talk for the sake of talking, without actually making a point.
Consider this from Article 2, in response to Article 1:-
"When you are suspicious of people who engage in an intellectual manner chances are you envious, insecure, despise people who try to be better themselves with their minds, or all of the above?"
The frankly crap grammar notwithstanding, I don't understand the need to whack Article 1's argument, by launching a personal question. It's so easy then to say, "Are you (Article 2) only responding because you're offended, or because you actually find something wrong with Article 1's arguments?" If you're offended, well:-
But if you were disagreeing with Article 1's arguments, then berate the arguments. Likewise, for Article 1, the author misses the point as well with Pseudo Intellectuals. If they are LPIs, whack their arguments and watch the arguments crumble. The great thing about freedom of speech is that everyone's words is available to everyone else. This means that the good arguments will persist, while the crappy ones will die. Usually, any way. So, if someone is making a lousy argument, then correct their argument, not label them as LPIs and leave it as that. Unless I read them wrong, none of these articles really do very much in addressing the point about arguments which have "no basis in sound scholarship."
So, yes, learn up as much as you can. The more people who think deeply and attain information about a given topic, the better for society. Anybody can be an "intellectual", whatever the hell that means, building on sound reason. By that same point, anybody can also be a LPI with a shit argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment