by Terry 102 Replies latest jw friends
quentin
Knowingly, or unknowingly most people fit that definition, having a natual desire to fill in the blanks they look for answers. Sadly, many of us have intellects that are impaired (whatever may be the cause) and are lame in our ability to reason. Thinking comes easy, using reason with our thinking is very difficult.
me too - and thanks for giving me my laugh for the day
...Your welcome...
Cogito ergo sum res cogitans.
So, I ask you: ARE YOU AN INTELLECTUAL or not?
Nah.
If not, why not?
I get distracted and/or fall asleep when I read.
In Ayn Rand's perfect world, what should be done with the mentally/physically disabled child who will require a small fortune to successfully reach adulthood? His parent's can't afford the care he needs. Shove him out on an ice flow to die?
Terry, do you know of a good knock-down, drag-out debate between a hard-core Objectivist and someone who takes the position I just did?
If you want, we can go at it, but I doubt I would do my side justice.
I personally think Rand's intellectual powers were so abnormally large she had trouble finding peers. Even the truly intelligent people who attended parties in her home were too much in awe of her to challenge her very often.
I've watched videos of her answering questions from various audiences. She was sharper than a razor with little effort.
As far as taking care of a disabled child---why wouldn't an Objectivist parent take care of their own child?
Rand's view was about forming values based on reality. If you love your child and value them you'd want to do everything you could on their behalf. I don't see anything strange or different about Rand's views.
When Rand spoke about Selfishness she deliberatley chose a provocative word and used it to draw people out. She was referring to carrying your own load in life and taking responsibility for yourself. She was not against anybody providing help on the basis of merit, but, mindless charity based on "need" was illogical to her.
I'm not a member of any Objectivist group. I find them dull and rather OCD as a rule.
I did attend a debate locally between an objectivist and a minister. The minister cleaned the Objectivist's clock--in my opinion.
It is a bit more accurate to say, "I exist, therefore I think." than the other way around.
Descartes wasn't checking his watch when he made his statement.
I see you set aside my challenge that it is not only the intellectual that suffers from the Watchtower policies. People who excel in kindness similarly suffer. You are also silent on the matter of the honest intellectual, willing to brutally self-examine. I'll assume you do not protest these.
Primitive societies
Again with the declarative statements. I'd accept them better if you backed them up with facts or sources.
By the practical standard of a life well-lived: Prosperity, health, education and improvement.
The United Nations Human Development report: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1990/ established life expectancy, infant mortality, adult literacy, and income equality as being fair measures. They are similar, but not identical to yours.
The purpose of any group is a measure of its philosophy. The leadership is key.
Now, where do you get this? You see, when you speak of "primitive" societies, I can't help consider the history of the Motilone indians of South America, who adopted those features of modern society that suited, and rejected others. There was definitely a community leadership, and the elders and the "Witch Doctors" held great esteem in the community. When the "Witch Doctor" however, was shown the effectiveness of antiseptics on evil germs through a microscope, he readily included antiseptics in to his rituals. The representative of modern society wisely worked with the Motilone social structure to add to their culture, rather than override it.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A0CE0D91F39E033A25750C1A9659C94659ED7CF
http://www.bruceolson.com/english/english.htm
A primitive philosophy cannot produce education, wealth, health and morality. It can only produce servants, vassals and believers who are kept in a rut of faith in their leaders.
Again, where did you get this? You are making great leaps of logic and not connecting the dots. I would be more accepting if you dropped the word "primitive philosophy" and replaced it with, say, "oppresive regime". There still might be an argument for and against. One could effectively argue that the average Russian's quality of life dropped when the oppressive regime was overthrown. One might say that the Cubans have accepted a much lower standard of living because of their "oppresive regime", yet it is one country that stopped AIDS. They did so by paying scant attention to individual rights. One could also argue that Cuba is poor not because of it's leadership but by the aggressive embargos imposed by the United States.
The Witch-Doctor is the embodiment of leadership by appeal to emotion and ritual. The Witch Doctor uses superstition, fear and an appeal to obedience to control the group dynamic and suck out a living by promising more than he can deliver.
Not all Witch-Doctors. Your prejudices are showing and I wish you would drop them.
More robust definition of a "genuine" intellectual.
A genuine anything matches its identity to its description.
But you provided your own definition that, as others have pointed out, does not match those that are generally accepted.
...applies workable philosophical strategies and improves life as a result of what they know...
You have inserted words like "workable", "philosophical", "strategies", and "improvement".
I am strongly suggesting that an intellectual may follow impractical lines of thought for the sheer pleasure of discovery, and still be genuine. A pure intellectual does not have to be practical, or improve life. I think you are trying to combine two distinct lines of reasoning, that are not interdependent.
I see a strong preference in your writing to a "right", "moral" and "good" way of living. This is independent of the intellectual, and may be well-known by the most "primitive" mother.
A person who knows all the best information and yet lives contrary to its benefit is not a genuine intellectual. They are a second-hander.
Well, we'll ignore the reference to the "genuine intellectual" here. You haven't established your case. Also, we don't all "know" what is "best". These are subjective terms. Are you perhaps trying to point out the hypocrisy of living contrary to our own base values?
What is a second-hander? A person who lives off the opinions of others rather than their own achievements.A Jehovah's Witness must, often, live a double life pretending to be what the Watchtower tells them they must be. They know their own life is a mess--but, as long as they can live the lie convincingly--their success comes to them second-hand. Phoney reflected opinion they are in a brotherhood of genuine Christians, a paradise on Earth and ark of salvation. Their "accurate knowledge" isn't genuine intellectuality, it is primitive because they must function with the approval of their Witch Doctor.
I suggest that many Jehovah's Witnesses are caught in a cognitive loop. They are convinced the source is infallible and therefore must be followed without question. To question the "infallible" source causes great discomfort, becuase the implication is that their entire philosophical foundation is flawed. It is much more logical to assume that they are somehow imperfectly following the instructions. So they try harder. This is all logical and reasonable to the person caught in the loop. Unless, of course, they are blessed by an new, external observation. This is how an "intellectual" may be caught, successfully, by the Witness philosophy. All very logical and reasonable.
Your personal philosophy is your software program that runs all your applications. For a philosophy to benefit you it must be workable: it must have practical applications in your daily life. You must come out ahead. You must prosper. Otherwise, your strategy is wrong.
I have come very close to following this criteria, myself. But I don't think it is the only workable philosophy. Very many people value personal relationships over honesty. Their philosophy, though at comes at great personal cost, is also valuable.
It is a bit more accurate to say, "I exist, therefore I think." than the other way around.
Descartes wasn't checking his watch when he made his statement.
Descartes was proceeding on the basis of doubt. How could he know anything existed and was not an illusion? He subjected everything to doubt. The fact that he could doubt and think about his own existence however, was proof that he himself existed. He made this one of the starting points of his epistemology.
Don't knock Rene if you don't understand him. BTS, res cogitans.
Does a "genuine" intellectual necessarily improve life?
A genuine intellectual must live their own life, possess their own identity, create their own prosperity and succeed at proving their own philosophy is practical, workable and beneficial.
Again, I think you are progressing in to territory that is separate from the concept of a pure intellectual. You are applying value statements like independence, prosperity, and practicality.
...People who study and know things and live a life that is a crumbling, pathetic, mess ....
I think you vastly underestimate the power of the mind to self-deceive. It is true that some peoples' lives are a crumbling, pathetic mess. But can they admit it? Few can.
They seek to put on a false front of intellectuality so they can puff up their self-image with OPINION rather than substance.
Though having a magnificently working mind is valued by many of us, it is not valued by all. I just revisited some research on the various personality types that make up our world, and, hate to say it, intellectuals are the minority in our society. Intellectuals are the minority in our wealthy, prosperous society that enjoys a high level of literacy and longevity. The majority of the people in our world value relationships over intellectual achievements, and the second-highest group value traditional values and stability.
I suggest also that intellectuals are just as adept at self-deception. I would agree with you that a well-examined life is the noblest of all.
http://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/newsletter.aspx?id=49
