Populist Philosophy

Have you ever had a conversation with a name dropper? I have had a few and found them to be very frustrating.

A) I wasn't always sure why they were quoting someone else. Were they trying to impress me? Were they tying to add credibility to their position? Were they simply referencing a complex idea that would take too long to delineate or were they lacking any personal insight to contribute and thus parroting the thoughts of others?

B) I wasn't always sure what they were saying. I was either unfamiliar with the quote or the person quoted and/or it was just over my head. It was completely lost on me, which may or may not have been the ultimate point. Sometimes the language of philosophers is purposefully exclusive and elitist. If ideas are conveyed in a cryptic language that only the intellectually elite can decipher, one must consider the purpose for the endeavor of communicating it in the first place. I find no difference between a brilliant theosophist (religious philosopher) and a raving lunatic glossolaliaist (person speaking gibberish or an unknown language) in such cases. Then again the language may be intended to cover the lack of actual content. The archangel Muluk-Taus is pictured as a peacock which represents hundred eyed cosmic wisdom. How fitting that cosmic wisdom be presented as a peacock. It's something to behold as it struts around with its chest out and feathers spread but if you are hungry, a chicken is much more filling. I don’t mean that we need to dumb down our communication to the lowest common denominator but rather that I believe we all have the capacity to understand complex ideas if they are explained simply & clearly.

The value of a thing can often be seen in what it does. If someone offers you something that has obviously made them a worse human, don't take it; it's bad acid man, simple as that!