I have recently obtained a MA in Philosophy, and received a relatively comprehensive vocational training alongside it. I have a decent understanding of Western philosophical narrative between presocratics to around 19th century and have the capacity to think analytically. This makes talking with other people difficult, because I often end up resolving intellectual discussions with people who do not have formal training by simply finding a premises we disagree with and mostly stopping arguing for my position from there. I've stopped giving opinions on things I am not knowledgeable about and try to resolve most questions empirically if able. This is a lot less fun than being a pseud. Please help me /lit/, how do I become a pseud? Are there any books I should pretend to read?
>>25630515pseuds are rather rock solid and you jave all the pseud training you needso just bee yourself
Any philosophy book should do. You definitely already are a pseud with your schooling and all.
>>25630519Whats a good entry level philosophy book for pretending to have read it.
>>25630521hegel, kant, marx, nietzsche are probably the most common ones that people posture overkierkegaard is pretty common too but discussion around him is less debatebro-y
>>25630525I guess I could pretend to read Hegel, I've only done small snippets of Phenomenology, I have actually read the other four sadly. How does one go about it - read the Stanford summary and go from there?
>>25630527im not a professional pseud, i imagine it's fairly common to use wikipedia or chatgpt summaries
>>25630529amateur>>25630527see you know how to sound like a pseud
>>25630515Try branching out into other parallel fields, like history.
>>25630536hmm, okay, thank you
>>25630515>I've stopped giving opinions about..Eh, what? You possess the tools to do this plausibly, and yet YOU refrain? Let me guess, is this because you 'don't want to be like everyone else' ?
>>25630515Everyone knows that the book you should pretend to be reading is either Hawking's A Brief History of Time or How Not to give a F*ck. Geez, anon
>>25630706No, its just completely futile. Most people don't want to be precise enough to have a fruitful conversation about abstractions. This is entirely fine and probably even healthy all things considered. It feels like there is very little to be gained by giving my take on some moral issue or the other.
>>25630515every premise has an argument for and against accepting it
>>25630722>very little to be gainedDo you actually have a take 'on some moral issue or other'? --What abstractions interest you aside from Beauty?
>>25630722>It feels like there is very little to be gained by giving my take on some moral issue or the other.You're just not confident.
>>25630515Arguing with ChatGPT to sharpen your pseuds knowledge. Mix different knowledge from different fields to find connections even if it's not intended to be (like pic rel) and overall just churning out trash.
>>25630515Capitalism and SchizophreniaEcrits (Lacan)
>>25630722Congrats pseud you're pseuding it!
>>25630857That's limited to humanities academia No one takes that trash seriouslyIt has to be something important that you're pretending to know
Find Canadians and cut your teeth conversing with them, they will teach you the sacred language of the charade.
>>25630515Pseuds are born not made.
>>25630515>How to become a pseud?Frog posting
