Vocabulary: immature and superficial

Years ago, I decided that if I was going to learn foreign language vocabulary, I should also put some effort into learning more English vocabulary.  Therefore, I started writing down words that I didn't know when reading.  The first book for which I did this, "Empire of the Inca" by Burr Cartwright Brundage, provided a good start -- I got a good 20 words out of that book.  (It was as difficult to read as the vocabulary was obscure.)

After I had accumulated more words, I started noticing that they fell into categories, which I suppose is inevitable.  I present to you, therefore, some vocabulary words describing immature and superficial people:

"Callow" and "sophomoric" both mean "immature."  "Jejune" means childish or unsatisfying.  It is the key word in a great exchange between Woody Allen and Diane Keaton in "Love and Death":
- That is incredibly jejune.
- That's jejune? 
- Jejune! 
- You have the temerity to say that I'm talking to you out of jejunosity?
I am one of the most june people in all of the Russias.

"Sciolism" means superficial knowledge (from Latin "scius," "knowing").  A "philosophaster" is a person with superficial knowledge or who feigns more knowledge than he has.  A "pieriansipist" is a superficial learner, one who has sipped from the Pierian spring (sacred to the Greek muses) but not drunk deeply enough for real understanding.  That is a $3 word for superficial if I ever heard one.  But my favourite word in this category is "deipnosophist," meaning someone skilled at dinner table conversation.  Deipnosophist does not imply shallow or superficial, but it always makes me think of the type of person who spins out theories that sound plausible to most of his audience, but which are actually nonsense to the sort of people who would actually know something about the subject.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren'
Read more

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l
Read more

Three stages in liberal denial of media bias

I was 15 years old in 1984, and an avid follower of politics and the news. When Reagan was making his decision whether to run for re-election, I was opposed to it. It wasn't that I didn't like Reagan; I loved him. But I was convinced that he wouldn't stand a chance in the election, and I didn't want to see him lose. Of course, he went on to win one of the most lopsided elections in history. Why was I so wrong? Because I had been watching network news (the only kind, back then) and the coverage was overwhelmingly negative. Since that time, I have watched with disbelief as liberals have criticized Fox News as unbalanced, culminating in the amazing spectacle of the president himself declaring that Fox is not a legitimate source of journalism. Meanwhile, these same liberals refuse to acknowledge that ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc. (ad nauseum) have any bias of their own. What makes this all the more incredible is that a number of studies have been produced demonstr
Read more