/lit/ - Literature

I tend to try to adhere to being average, as strictly as possible, whether true or false.

>>3654550
I look at education as a spectrum of three houses. Knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom. In no way can a person be sound in all three, but as long as they have an internal motivation to improve all three qualities than the level in which they think has no bounds. I don't think I need to be so specific as to define the three, but only because I think of them as common knowledge. IF you'd like to know more I'd be more than happy to discuss what I mean by this. I just want to know how willing are you to sit and listen.

.>>3654550
I think you should judge a man by his works alone

>>3654556
Why can't a person be sound in all three?

>>3654571
>3654571
Everyone is all three, but perfect in all three. It isn't common, it isn't natural and I think the human will is too weak at average to constantly support a high amount of wisdom, knowledge and intelligence. But before I can get into that I'd have to define what I mean by the terms prior. So, to me:

Wisdom: Is an observational trait which comes with age. A person can be very, very young and extremely wise but only if they remain observant of their surroundings. They are slower to devise answers because they know time is the best way to answer. Let time teach. Wise people rely on time as much as a baker relies on an oven. It is core because wisdom isn't always fact, but can always be right depending on application. They apply time to everything and cannot hold bars or grudges because they've felt like they've been through this before, somewhere in another time. Wise people can be very sagacious but their downfall comes from assuming too much from experience.

Would you liek to know more of this or would you like me to move on to intelligence. ALso, my words aren't 100% so feel free to poke at my holes and please tell me, TELL ME WHEN YOU THINK I'M WRONG.

>>3654676
but NOT perfect in all three... sorry.

>>3654676
I'd argue that it's impossible the be perfect in any 3

>>3654559
>>3654559
This.

>>3654698
Politely I ask you to re-read my statement here
>>3654681
OR rather your comment confuses me because I think you might be addressing my grammatical error in the first sentence which makes very little sense till you read >>3654681
OR you might be addressing that you, all together have an idea where one cannot be perfect in all three. If you do by all means I'd like to hear your words, my question is would you like to hear mine?

>>3654559
>>3654714
My God I am a huge idiot that only looks at the theme of the subject and not the subject... but I do agree with both of you. We are naturalists in the way that the only people who matter are the ones who change or make us want to know more about our nature and why we are here. That's why we have a criteria of competent... or Classical and Contemporary and a way to tell the difference from Hack Fiction.

Why try to determine your intelligence?
So you can underachieve, say "Society made me do it" and write a rap song about it?

>>3654757
Haha, well I think some rap artists are true poets and others are just cash sponges with as much literary integrity as a wet noodle. However, I think the question shouldn't be, "How smart am I?" But should be, "How can I apply what I already know, to the things I want to know more of?" Or, "How can I make this important to me so I remember it?"

>>3654780
Intelligence is a strange concept. I think I dont understand your goals.
Anyway I would recommend reading Cal Newport.

do intellectual battle with your enemies

>>3654848
I think we are using the wrong word here friend, I think we're trying to define education. Or the pursuit of enrichment. For the longest time we've consider education as a means of getting a job, but that doesn't mean much. We learn, but what for? And yes, I think I should actually write down all my thoughts before I lecture people on them, and that's what I shall do. I shall return to you /lit/ with a much more concise arrangement of ideas.

>>3654858
>We learn, but what for?
You should read Nietzsche´s Schopenhauer as Educator. Seriously, it´s the best text on the practice and purpose of education ever written.

Maybe not so subtle, but what do you do for a living?
Yes, I met higly intelligent cleaners etc.
I'm probably one of the most intelligent guys I ever came acrossed, yet I was kicked out of school.

You can take a real IQ test, not necessarily online.

Get rich. Nobody wants to be poor. If you are intelligent, you will find a way. End of story.

>>3654889

I've read this shit, makes no sense at all. It's just Nietzsche talking about the romantic ideal of education, where some people are talented and other not, and those who are not have to deal with it.

>>3654550
what is intelligence

>>3654983

>I'm probably one of the most intelligent guys I ever came acrossed, yet I was kicked out of school.

Such humility! You must be one of those hidden geniuses -- the kind that don't apply themselves. Good luck with that.

you could stop being so insecure

>>3654983
>I'm probably one of the most intelligent guys I ever came acrossed, yet I was kicked out of school
I've got some bad news for you...

>>3654983

>>3655273
I used to be like that. I was clever, but I'd never do anything, and go "it's fine. I'm like, the cleverest guy ever, I just don't apply myself."

Then I grew up, and realised that I could know I was the smartest guy in the world, but people would still think I was an idiot if I didn't demonstrate it. If everybody thinks you're an idiot, then you might as well be one.

True genius isn't what's in your head, it's what you do with what's in your head.

>>3654983
>I'm probably one of the most intelligent guys I ever came across, yet I was kicked out of school.
Same. I was expelled for being caught on the school CCTV buying drugs of another kid. Fortunately, I managed to convince my college tutor to let me take A-levels, then got into the uni I wanted to go to anyway.

>>3654983
same

>>3654550

The concept that intelligence is a measurable characteristic is underdetermined.

>>3655423
I'm sure that sounded clever in your head.

Of course intelligence can be measured. It's a biological, tangible thing, and anything tangible can be measured. However, it's also a complicated thing, composed of a myriad factors, and can only be measured when all those factors are taken into account. As it is, we don't even know what half of those factors are, and are subsequently in no real position to create an accurate measure of them.

>>3655436

After coming up with the first sentence of this post I realize that you were under pressure to demonstrate that you could intellectually outperform >>3655423 - but really all you needed to do for that was make a post that wasn't completely fucking retarded, and this you disastrously failed to do.

Man, this thread sucks. Let it be a valuable lesson to those who think that "i'm totally smart, i just never got good grades because school was beneath me/kicked me out/didn't appreciate my intelligence" is a legitimate defense of self.

>>3655447
But i'm completely and utterly correct.

>>3654983
0/10

>>3655458
"completely and utterly"
can you define utterly as a stand-alone adjectival?
You realize that you're arguing for empiricism--right? That' so 1940's of you, friend.

>>3655458

In what sense is intelligence "tangible"? Just for starters.

>>3655458

Except you're not.

Prove to me--to us--how intelligence is tangible. Show us why humans are more intelligent than animals, and why some humans are more intelligent than one another.

Show us what intelligence IS.

>>3655436

Gould...Shoenmann

The explanatory fucking gap. There are very strong foundational critiques of the possibility of measuring intelligence.

>It's existence is underdetermined.

>>3655570
It's a manifestation of the contents of the brain. We may not know exactly what causes it, but this we know.

Unless you believe in the soul, or something like that, in which case there's absolutely no use arguing with you, and we might as well just pack it in now.

>>3655586

>cannot into emergentism

>>3655577
>>3655575
>>3655570
>>3655567
>think /lit/ is intelligent
>the moment something vaguely scientific is resembled they're reduced to ludicrous, anti-intellectual mindfuckery
guys pls

>>3655592
*mentioned, not resembled
God knows how I did that.

>>3655586

I agree: intelligence is a name we give to a wide variety of phenomena related in some way to measurable aspects of the brain. I am asking you in what sense this makes intelligence "tangible" rather than a catchall name we make use of because we don't (yet, and may never be able to) fully understand these underlying measurable aspects.

>>3655592

You really don't know what you are talking about. Karl fucking Popper was an emergentist.

Give up on the blind scientism. It will get you nowhere not even in science .

>>3655262
>where some people are talented and other not
Dude, you´ve got to read it carefully. He doesn´t make any categorical distinction between the "talented" and those who are not. He says, without making any distinction between the various kinds of readers, that "your true nature lies, not concealed deep within you, but immeasurably high above you", i.e. that the potential is there for everyone. It is true that the great majority does nothing to develop this potential, but this isn´t due to any intrinsic weakness, but - laziness. That is, anyone can reap the benefits of education proper if he is willing to walk the walk (which admittedly takes a lot of dedication).

And personally I find it wonderful, immensely uplifting and more humane than any other of Nietzsche´s writings. But that may be just me.

>>3655575
there is an actual answer to this in the philosophy of language, did you know that ?

>According to Edelman (2003), animals with primary consciousness—whilst able to “integrate perceptual and motor events together with memory to construct a multimodal scene in the present” (Edelman, 2003, p. 5521), as well as to alter their behavior in an adaptive manner—are unable to go beyond the immediate scene in planning their behavior. By contrast, animals with higher-order (or secondary) consciousness, such as primates and humans, additionally have semantic or narrative capabilities and in virtue of these capabilities are able “to go beyond the limits of the remembered present of primary consciousness” (Edelman, 2003, p. 5522). Thus, self-awareness, metacognition, and the ability to reconstruct past and construct future scenes are all crucially tied to linguistic capabilities. Self-consciousness, in terms of consciousness of consciousness, only “becomes possible via the linguistic tokens that are meaningfully exchanged during speech acts in a community” (Edelman, 2003, p. 5523).
love,
>>3655717

>>3655717

conflating explanation with causation

Edelman is normally better than this

>>3655298
l absolutely agree with this. lntelligence needs to be visible. Thoughts in a head mean nothing.

>>3655906
They mean something, but only to one person in a billion

>>3655911
*one person in seven billion

>>3655906
Thoughts in a head mean everything. For without those thoughts in a head, where would we be now a days? Would we have the technology, or art we have now?
Without thoughts we are scarcely human, if human at all.

>>3655914
Consider all the wise thoughts you have about doing this and that but which you never actually grasp into action. Even to that one person, they mean nothing unless the action they require aren't made.

>>3655923
Obviously. l'm talking about not leaving ideas to be just thoughts in a head.

If l device a way to make combustion engines 700% more efficient but never implement or share that knowledge it is meaningless.

>>3655957
Very true. But as you said, simply telling others who may have more use for your idea, is not a waste. If I cannot possibly create something, but know someone who could and tell them my idea, the idea then has meaning. As soon as the idea leaves your head in some form it has meaning. Even if that form is a rough sketch.

swag