The idea of put label on humans as pseudo intellectual is just an escape people use to ignore everything they say. It's an oversimplification to state that all that a human say should be ignored. This is living life with a Black and White mindset.
Would be interesting to hear @nonameslefttouse opinion on this. This NYT article reminds me about that other guy on Steemit that wrote 1000 word fluff Steemit comment responses haha.
So can you name even one idea that you would be willing to defend?
I think it's completely fair that if someone is pretending that old, easily dismissable ideas are intellectually provocative then it's correct to call them a pseudo intellectual.
Where does David say that if these people actually started real discourse he wouldn't change his opinion?
David didn't write the article, which I'm not sure you realize is on your side.
First David didn't even make a point that he is defending. So there is no argument I can do in return. It was mainly fluff in this specific video. He has probably done other videos with more clear stuff that get's to the point much faster. But I do feel many in here seems to believe the Intellect to be some magical tool that can solve all. The Intellect is good for survival surely and do some cool things. But it cannot know life so to say.