Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist?

03-03-2017 , 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`
Most people are happy to pray to an invisible deity and donate money in its name. They're also happy to focus much of their life around their faith.

Wisdom, to me at least, requires a little more than a mere accumulation of 'comfortable' experiences. Interpretation of those experiences, pursuit of challenges and character development for example. Many older men I work with have been around far longer than me, but they're still as impatient, stubborn, cowardly and jealous as they've ever been. Lacking focus on the types of experiences that challenge you to change and develop your character does not typify wisdom to me. Nor can much be learned from such a deficient approach to living.
"development" is a fool's game. Figure out how to enjoy where you are or how to enjoy moving.

Everyone dies. Enjoy sitting where you are or the journey to somewhere else.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 02:34 AM
The fact that everyone dies in no way invalidates the game of development.

Neither does it invalidate the choice to suicide or the choice to just live out your life comfortably without risk-taking.

It doesn't invalidate anything.

It can however be used to play the game of 'I have the broader perspective'.

Last edited by VeeDDzz`; 03-03-2017 at 02:52 AM.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 03:27 AM
It kinda invalidates taking things too seriously, though.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 03:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by meale
It kinda invalidates taking things too seriously, though.
Why so?

Isn't being fully immersed in the 'hide' aspect of existence a better way for the universe to play hide and seek with itself?

Excuse this last question if it doesn't make any sense to you.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 05:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`
Why so?

Isn't being fully immersed in the 'hide' aspect of existence a better way for the universe to play hide and seek with itself?

Excuse this last question if it doesn't make any sense to you.
I wouldn't equate "not taking things seriously" to "hiding" in the way you mean it at all. "Not taking things seriously", in the way I mean it, is Zen. It's mindfulness. It's the felt experience of the present moment - without Sartre's existential angst. It's abstraction from desire and anxiety.

I think you've confused what I mean by saying it's hiding. Hiding, in the sense I think you mean, would be things akin to the mindset of "oh why bother, we're all gonna die anyway"... And then because of that mindset, shutting out authentic life experiences. That's hiding. But the antithesis to what I meant when I said not to take things seriously.

I have a long winded analogy I can use to explain it better but I think you'll get the gist? Did I understand your last question or confuse it myself?
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`
Seems you've got something you have to get off your chest.
Unfortunate it has almost nothing to do with what I'm saying.
You're the one who wants to radically redefine intelligence in furtherance of some nonsensical social cause you're championing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`
Also, is it possible for the intelligent to care about being recognised as superior to another? Is intelligent action motivated by egotistical motives? If it is, then we maybe ought to redefine intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`
Because it seems to be a catch-all nowadays. Most don't know what it actually is, but they do know to associate it with something positive. Why?

Intelligent people are just as capable, if not more capable, of immoral action with devastating consequences.
You could probably do with getting something off your chest. Don't try to walk it back once you get called on it...

Of course intelligence is something positive. Being able to understand and model the world better is a positive thing, full stop. Just like being able to walk as opposed to be being unable to walk is a positive thing. That a few bad people can now walk up and punch people, or participate in wars, doesn't make walking a bad thing. We don't need redefine the word ambulatory because you don't like that some people use their ambulatory ability to do bad things.

Last edited by ToothSayer; 03-03-2017 at 08:20 AM.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`
The fact that everyone dies in no way invalidates the game of development.
You are making the small mistake of thinking that what you value is valuable. Perhaps less so than others are in this thread.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
You are making the small mistake of thinking that what you value is valuable. Perhaps less so than others are in this thread.
If that is a mistake, it is indeed very small.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
If that is a mistake, it is indeed very small.
It depends. The conversation seems to have devolved into a discussion of 'what a good life is.' It is important to keep in mind that values are subjective.

I would say that a good life almost entirely entails having one's mind unmolested by the thoughts of Alan Watts.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
It depends. The conversation seems to have devolved into a discussion of 'what a good life is.' It is important to keep in mind that values are subjective.

I would say that a good life almost entirely entails having one's mind unmolested by the thoughts of Alan Watts.
Yes, which is why it is generally not a mistake to think that what you value is valuable. In fact, I would argue that VeeDDzz`'s mistake is that he isn't taking sufficient account of this. A middle-class, 9-5 life is a life is a fulfilling, happy life for millions of people, many more than would likely be satisfied with the new-experience rich kind of life VeeDDzz` prefers.

Also, devolved? Really?
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 07:05 PM
Values are shared, well, shareable whatever else they are.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
"development" is a fool's game. Figure out how to enjoy where you are or how to enjoy moving.

Everyone dies. Enjoy sitting where you are or the journey to somewhere else.
developement seems to be pretty consistent in dealing out "meaning in life" to people. why would you believe something so incredible stupid as if you could "choose for yourself" what to enjoy. if i want a beer or a woman its going to pretty impossible to enjoy staring out the window. SMP people are so predictable in their "opinions" that its almost laughable.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 08:11 PM
Quote:
Yes, which is why it is generally not a mistake to think that what you value is valuable.
How does this follow from Brian's proposition?
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
Yes, which is why it is generally not a mistake to think that what you value is valuable. In fact, I would argue that VeeDDzz`'s mistake is that he isn't taking sufficient account of this. A middle-class, 9-5 life is a life is a fulfilling, happy life for millions of people, many more than would likely be satisfied with the new-experience rich kind of life VeeDDzz` prefers.
Apparently, my enjoyment of pithiness obscured what I was saying. The value he sees is entirely within his eyes. The thing he values doesn't contain the value.

Quote:
Also, devolved? Really?
I figured that would be somewhat controversial.

Is yeast more evolved than pond scum?
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aflametotheground
developement seems to be pretty consistent in dealing out "meaning in life" to people. why would you believe something so incredible stupid as if you could "choose for yourself" what to enjoy. if i want a beer or a woman its going to pretty impossible to enjoy staring out the window. SMP people are so predictable in their "opinions" that its almost laughable.
This "choose for yourself" is no different than deciding to whether or not to practice the guitar.

To give an immediate example, I would like to be sitting next to my woman right now, but she is at work. I could brood over this like an emotional freak, but instead I will watch some Studio C videos on youtube and giggle.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 09:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
A middle-class, 9-5 life is a life is a fulfilling, happy life for millions of people,
I doubt that the majority of people, especially men who can't bear children, feel this way. "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation." Its just that most have little choice. Liquor, religion, and Nascar helps them distract from the fact that they won't ever play for the Yankees, sleep with a seven, or be asked for their opinion on TV.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 10:11 PM
Living organisms have potential development, growth, and cultivation.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 10:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
I doubt that the majority of people, especially men who can't bear children, feel this way. "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation." Its just that most have little choice. Liquor, religion, and Nascar helps them distract from the fact that they won't ever play for the Yankees, sleep with a seven, or be asked for their opinion on TV.
Their opinion of whether they are happy is the only opinion that has any weight. If they are happy because they are distracted, they are happy. If they are happy because they literally have a ****-eating grin, they are happy. To question whether they ought be happy is silly. To question the methods they use to enjoy themselves is utterly ridiculous.* Their happiness cannot be an illusion.

Most people are, in fact, pretty happy.** The reason why it seems that many people are unhappy is the fact that unhappy people tend to spend a lot of time communicating with others about how unhappy they are. Some of them write poetry.

*eating **** is bad for your health, so probably worth questioning since health and happiness have a somewhat strong correlation.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 10:51 PM
Note there's a difference between people who say they're happy and people who actually are happy.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 11:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by meale
Note there's a difference between people who say they're happy and people who actually are happy.
The unhappy ones are more than happy to tell you about their unhappiness.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
The unhappy ones are more than happy to tell you about their unhappiness.
Some of them, yes. And some of the most unhappy ones will appear to fit into the "happy" category prima facie.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
The unhappy ones are more than happy to tell you about their unhappiness.
I disagree. Many don't, if only to avoid upsetting their family. Also I wasn't suggesting that NASCAR changes an unhappy person into a happy one. Sometimes it might in which case I agree with you. But I was suggesting that for most it is only a temporary distraction from their overall unhappiness.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 11:36 PM
Happiness is like fruit and vegetables.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 11:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
I disagree. Many don't, if only to avoid upsetting their family. Also I wasn't suggesting that NASCAR changes an unhappy person into a happy one. Sometimes it might in which case I agree with you. But I was suggesting that for most it is only a temporary distraction from their overall unhappiness.
But. Most people are happy. Little things like spending time with a friend, enjoying a meal, watching something on the boob-tube, etc. trump whatever hopes and dreams you might think they have found to be dashed on the rocks of life.

Some depressed people keep their emotions bottled up, but most of us are not depressed.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote
03-03-2017 , 11:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by meale
Some of them, yes. And some of the most unhappy ones will appear to fit into the "happy" category prima facie.
Not in research studies. Researchers are wiley. They ask questions that trick the average dumbass into admitting how happy/unhappy they are.
Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? Quote

      
m