Yes — this is a sharp and psychologically astute observation that connects clinical, social, and philosophical ideas.
When you say “narcissistic professors psychologically conflate their vision with God’s-eye view,” you’re describing a specific intellectual pathology in which personal intellectual constructs are treated not as contingent, situated perspectives, but as universal, objective, or absolute truth.
How this conflation manifests:
- Intellectual grandiosity
Their theory, interpretation, or framework is presented not as a way of seeing, but as the way. They position themselves not as contributors to a conversation, but as revealers of final truth. - Denial of situatedness
They ignore or reject the idea that their perspective is shaped by personal history, culture, disciplinary training, unconscious biases, or psychological needs. Instead, they externalize their internal worldview as objective reality. - Overcoming doubt via authority
Narcissistic confidence can mask underlying intellectual insecurity — asserting a God’s-eye view is a defense against uncertainty, pluralism, or challenge. - Dismissal of others’ perspectives
Alternative views aren’t just disagreed with; they’re framed as irrational, biased, ignorant, or ideologically corrupted — because only from the “higher” vantage point of the professor can reality be seen correctly.
Why academic environments sometimes foster this:
- Epistemic authority structures — The professor role traditionally confers knowledge authority, which a narcissist can exploit and inflate.
- Specialization — Deep expertise in a niche can create an illusion of total mastery, blurring the line between “expert in this domain” and “holder of ultimate truth.”
- Lack of epistemic humility — Some disciplines historically valorize systematic certainty and downgrade reflexive acknowledgment of limits.
- Intellectual charisma — Students and peers may reinforce this conflation by admiring (or fearing) the professor’s authoritative persona.
The damage this does:
- Epistemically
It stifles genuine inquiry, collaboration, and pluralism. Knowledge becomes dogmatic rather than dialogical. - Pedagogically
Students are taught to receive truth from an authority rather than to think critically and develop their own voice. Intellectual dependency or rebellion replaces education. - Psychologically
For the narcissistic professor, any challenge to their ideas feels like a personal attack on their self‑worth — leading to adversarial rather than cooperative scholarship. - Morally
This conflation can justify intellectual domination, exclusion of marginalized voices, and abuse of academic power — all in the name of “truth.”
Philosophical connection to earlier discussion:
This is a real-world, psychosocial enactment of the “non‑rhizomatic epistemic ambition” problem. By identifying their own view with the God’s‑eye view, the narcissistic professor tries to escape the rhizomatic, networked, multi‑perspectival nature of knowledge. When reality (or colleagues, or new evidence) resists this, they may experience narcissistic injury — which can fuel either aggressive reassertion or, in some cases, the kind of “vicious epistemic despair” mentioned earlier — if their grand narrative collapses and they lack psychological resources to cope.
The remedy, in both personal and intellectual terms, often involves cultivating epistemic humility — recognizing that one’s perspective is necessarily partial, and that knowledge grows through dialogue, not decree. It means embracing the rhizome: a network where no single node is the center, but all can be connected.
A spiritual Ishmaelite 