Respect is a modern luxury

Fenris,

Sorry about the delay. Was kinda sidetracked the past couple of days.

Perhaps. I still wonder if some might come from areas too deep within to ever be properly understood. And thinking about them may just pile on the rationalizations which I've been accused of.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Really should start a Know Thyself thread.

I suppose it might be on-topic as regards knowing thyself aids in knowing others and thus aiding in the bestowing of respect to those you feel deserve it.

Interesting that you should say that understanding your own motives for making an external judgement doesn't affect that judgement in most cases. This leads me once more to thie thought of the 'higher man' hoarding himself.

I agree with Gendanken. This is a nice little parable.

However, those people who build mud huts, did build their mud hut. And in fact must rebuild it constantly to prevent it from eroding away. It's not a laziness that prevents them from moving to stone but rather a conservatism. It is likely, to my mind, that this conservatism would also prevent them from moving into a pre-built stone hut. Mud huts are where they've always lived and it is where they will always live. It is a matter of dogma rather than inferiority. I suppose you get at this with your talk of them being only capable of building by rote. And, what's wrong with that? Give them the knowledge of stone houses and they may better themselves a bit. By your labour (the creation of a new method) true, but so what? Given time, small improvements here and there might take place. An occasional prodigy may arise and cause a shift in building methods. Teach them your method and then move on to find these others, these creators of new methods. Then, someday return to see what has become of your teaching to the conservativists. You might be surprised at what has become of your teaching. For good or ill. I suppose that is what worries you about such a thing? The ill? These lesser beings corrupting your creation?

And, who's to say that once you find your group of like-minded creators that you will accomplish any kind of mixing? Too many chefs spoil the broth they say. One who creates something often holds that thing dear and would not like any other to alter it. Or, he may hold his creation in higher regard and esteem to another creator's creation. I can imagine the strife and bloodshed inherent in such a thing. It's not mandatory, but it is certainly likely.

And, the earlier people's mud technology might come in handy in certain areas of construction. We do not build in a vacuum. Everything is built on something previously known. There are no new creations. Nothing new under the sun. Well, very little. Perhaps one or two new things every few generations or so. If even that. And all is based on that which has gone before.


And, as far as Gendanken introduces the concept of rats for these mud-dwellers. Rats don't build. And the dwellers of the mud huts must build else the huts would have long since vanished.

Or perhaps merely to question it out loud. To others.

This is an excellent place to relate a rationalization of my rationalizations. In a message from Gendanken, she expressed amazement how I would circle and dance about a thing. Getting it for a moment then moving away and rambling in another direction then suddenly homing back in the point again. I expressed to her this thought as to why I do this and how it relates to my thought processes.

I think in words. However, I don't think I have the best memory. So, when I read something, I am able to understand it and classify it. And to think upon in some fashion, but it is in discussing it that the true analysis begins within me. When I sit down to post, I take the seperate elements and begin to toss them around. Spinning it this way, stretching it that way, holding it up to the light, submerging it beneath the water, whatever I can think of. As the flow of words comes out of me and onto the physical medium.

Brainstorming is a technique I learned in grade school. It had more to do with composing lists, but I've extended it to analyzing concepts and such. The problem with this method is an overabundance of words. Many of which are off-target and off-topic. But, some hit the nail on the head while others open up new areas of discussion. It is a chaotic process that taps into the subconscious. So, sometimes even I don't realize what I've come up with.

Now, what I should do is follow this brainstorming process and then come back later and edit it. To seperate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. I expressed to Gendanken that I feel that doing this might just break the machine that creates. And also that I hope to express something with the thought process that leads one word to the next. Perhaps I fail in this intention and the readers merely get swamped with "rationalizations". I don't know. As I've said, I'm new to this type of discussion with others. Most have been with myself. In my own head. And, as my memory is poor, they vanish into an ever-continuing flow of thought that without memory leads nowhere. Another reason to not go through this editing process, is that it is likely to simply spark another layer of brainstorming as I take my own words that I am 'editing' and spin them about to see what falls out. This could inspire a paralysis within me. An endless series of abstraction and intuitive leaps. Hard to say where I might end up after a few rounds of this. Could be practically anywhere.

So, I, for one, am happy to have this medium in which to solidify my thoughts. And if I come off as overabundant and overrationalistic then I can only say that perhaps I shall overcome these weaknesses in time.


Anyway, what does this have to do with your quote above? It is the opposite of paralysis. It is my thinking out loud. Perhaps it gives a bad impression to some, but that is the cost. What can I do? In the end, I do these things for selfish reasons. To further my thoughts. I like to speak of sharing and teaching. But, it is more about learning. For me. For my advancement. As, in the end, I feel it is for most of those on here. It is a rare occurence for anyone to change their thoughts over what has been written on these pages. Most will argue a point until there is no one left to argue with. More of a test of stamina than reason. I suppose this might be what turns people away from these places. I'm relatively new and still feel that reason can prevail. Even in myself.

Then I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Unless you're talking about the fact that I have conversations with more than a select group of people. That some of them are 'fools' and 'foolish'. As I said (albeit after your post) sometimes I just wish to chatter inanely. Sometimes, I don't seek enlightenment from a conversation. And in these cases, the 'fools' are always willing to oblige. And, the truth is, one never knows when a piece of enlightenment will come along. I've discovered profound thoughts in the strangest of places. That's the beauty of thought.

You are speaking of holding back. Should one give 100% or should one hold back in order to spare feelings? It is a judgement call. Sometimes, absolute honesty is required and sometimes a bit of dancing or avoidance altogether. I prefer honesty, but there are times when the risk is greater than the possible reward. For both sides. But, in the end, honesty is required. But, one can be honest without slapping or being gentle.

I see what you're saying. And there is certainly an element of truth in it. But, it is the "in many cases" that one should be wary of. In many cases, being slapped merely inspires a desire to slap back. Having nothing to do with honesty, merely the desire to inflict pain. Surely some truths will slip in as it is a spontaneous response, but one must realize that the desire to inflict pain surely overshadows all. It also tends to lead to an ever-increasing escalation of verbal warfare. A flame war erupts. And as it does so, honesty is moved farther and farther from the front as the desire to inflict pain increases further and further.

And, by the way, this desire to inflict pain is a 'truth'. But, not exactly the truth that you were looking for.

However. I do see your point. I merely advise caution with this method. Know it's limitations. Because it is limited.

I suppose this is somewhat true. But, it also leads to snap judgements which can close us to a source of information that might have shed some enlightenment should we have taken it in a bit more. How many movies have you not seen, saying to yourself, "Of, Forrest Gump. What a stupid movie. Tom Hanks playing a retard? WTF? Not going to waste my time." Then someone forces you to watch it and you're fucking amazed at this thing that you thought was so stupid because of the line "Momma always said life was like a box of chocolates." How many books have you judged by their cover only to find later (possibly years later) that the book was deep and insightful and would have served you better if you had read it years before when you 'judged the book by it's cover'?

Because one can be direct and polite at the same time. There is no stipulation that being direct is tantamount to slapping. Or that being polite is dancing about in indirectness. In fact, the early stage politeness is a directness. It is a direct invitation for a person to open themselves and explain themselves. To show their nature for judgement.

How do you reconcile 'instinctual judgements' with being direct?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wes,

I may be wrong on this one, but I think she's just up to her old tricks again. If you look about to find who might have made these statements (or rather statements that could be misinterpreted as these statements at least in the case of reading books) then it might shed some light on her motives. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Meh. That's just me though.

Rosa,

I don't come here to learn how to feel.

You might read my post to Fenris to learn my 'rationalization' on why I write the way I do. By the way, I've explained this to you before in lesser terms. Stream-of-consciousness writing.

But, you'll likely just glance over my posts and pick out little phrases to take out of context for your snide attacks.

Enjoy. I'm done.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I, personally, did not reach that conclusion about thinking through devotion, patience, effort, inquiry and humility. It took me years of rage and jumpiness.

Okay, Wes, since you apparently don't know certain things about yourself, let's observe you:

Devotion:
Wes reads a lot of things, like Scientific American, he follows news etc, he comes to Sciforums on a regular basis. He puts a lot of interest into these activities, and they mean a lot to him. (Or so you said.) How is this not devotion?

Patience, effort:
Wes says that he is a slow reader, nonetheless, this does not prevent him from taking the time to read through things, several times if necessary. Also, if he doesn't understand something, he asks. How is this not patience and effort?

Inquiry:
Wes uses several sources for his knowledge, likes to hear both sides of the story. If something perks his ears, he asks further questions. How is this not inquiry?

Humility:
Wes has the tendency to hear things out, to let people speak. He accepts other sources. How is this not humility?


Of course, people differ in the degree of devotion, patience, effort, inquiry and humility, but I think they are the basis for thought.

You've made a hasty generalization. And indeed, hasty generalizations don't become thinkers.

Would you get off your tripe of looking for an offense whenever there is an opportunity for it?!

Don't put words into my mouth.

Well, yes, then go ahead, proclaim strawmen, ad hominems, hasty generalizations, slippery slopes, non sequiturs, false analogies etc. etc. as "things thoughtful"!

Don't patronize me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL. Okay then.

It's more like compulsion, but I suppose it's hard to tell the difference.

Meh. I'm still a bastard.

It's all a sham.

If humility is thinking you're smart and stupid at the same time, I got that.

Using me was a pathetic example but I see your point more clearly and will stop giving you hell about it.

Hasty generalizations can be great tools for sorting stuff out if you don't mind being wrong part of the time.

Yeah I suppose I will. It's not really looking, it's just that I'm perhaps a bit too sensitive about my reading skills and style. I lack formality. IMO, your list was quite formal and binding. I took it to mean that informal intuitive, weird thinkers like myself were a joke.

Didn't. You said you knew if they said certain things (things that I think are pretty close to things I might have said to you in PMs) you know it'll be a waste of that hour or whatever (your time). So, no mouth word putting.

LOL. That's not what I mean. See you kind of do it again here, but I'll have to consider your point. You said thinkers have those properties, "Thinking requires a lot of devotion, patience, effort, inquiry -- and humility." The point above was supposed to be that people can reach valid conclusions of depth and interest without "strawmen, ad hominems, hasty generalizations, slippery slopes, non sequiturs, false analogies etc. etc." via without much devotion, patience, effort, patience or humility. Many impatient, rude, arrogant assholes come to perfectly valid conclusions about this that or the other. Bah, the entire point here was supposed to be that your list is nice, but I think it narrow. Could be that I'm the narrow one for missing a point you're trying to make. I just take issue with that particular assertion as overly narrow. I think there are a lot of paths to truth, as most truths that the species can access are subjective. I think there are "thinkers" on all those paths. Some of them would piss me off and sicken me, but that doesn't mean they suffer fallacies.

I wasn't, you bastard.

 

You're assuming that all of those judgements are negative.

Yes, they did build mud huts. But they built them only to keep the rain off. To comfort themselves.

Adherance to dogma stinks of inferiority. Conservatism is laziness, for the most part.

Teach a dog to fetch the paper and jump through hoops - he is still only a well-trained dog. It's the prodigy who taught them I'd be interested in.

Hmmm. I thought not long ago I'd like to be a teacher... I'm rethinking that. Although what I thought I'd like to teach, most would be there to learn from choice, not because they had to be. So perhaps it's still valid. The thought remains, however, that even most of those would never be anything more than students. Products. Siblings.

As to corruption - I wonder what Nietszche, as an example, would have thought of the various commentaries of his work. Probably would have hated most of them.

I never said that like minds will agree with each other. I did say that respect is not confined to those we would consider friends, did I not?

You missed what I said about the foundation. If that is compatible, then the result will be also compatible. Disagreements along the way will not lead to an ugly home - more likely, because they see eye to eye in the vision, the end result will be a thing of beauty regardless of those disagreements.

Which is why you must pick and choose between what has gone before in order to find that which is palatable. My values don't become diluted by others simply because those others exist. I don't read romance novels.

Yes, but they simply build more mud huts. The "higher man" makes sure his next house is rat proof.

True enough. I simply value my time more than that. Your way will have you years sifting through dross in order to find gems.

I see the point in the first part of this. But it leads to:

I see yours as being more so. You will never get to the heart of things when they're always covered with this veneer of "respect" as you see it. Truth will be forever danced around, never quite uncovered for fear of loss.
Slap me back and you might show me something I haven't seen. It may lead to loss, it may not. Loss of something you hold dear might lead to a pain in the short term, but holding onto something because you fear to lose it will lead to a greater pain in the long run - and one you might not ever know for what it is. You will become discontent, instead, without ever really knowing why. Pain is something I've discovered I have a great capacity for. Honest joy is something I have yet to find in another - but I have always chosen loneliness, in the end, over whoredom.

The desire to inflict pain in return is often easily seen for what it is. From the proles, it is merely laughable. Rosa's writing on a wall. From those we respect, it is seen easily but not so easily dismissed - it leaves a scar.

Be polite with me, and I might see "something" but I'll never uncover it completely. 'Tis unfortunate, but that's the way it is. Some couples spend their entire lives politely pointing things out to each other - and I bet they fuck like sloths.

separated:

Notably, if the only truths you're seeking are the ones you're looking for, then all you're looking for is confirmation, not truth. A dangerous trap to fall into, when seeking to "know thyself" becomes "confirm thyself".

If one desires to inflict pain on you rather than shrugging it off, then you've hit a nerve, have you not? It might be something in themselves they don't see, or don't acknowledge, or it might be only something they worry is there even though it might not be - but a nerve just the same. And there is your truth.

Again, rare. If you're speaking of books, then it's never happened. I'm not going to pick up a romance novel to see if they've improved. If you're talking about people, then you're approaching it from a different angle than I do - and we're back to the heart of the topic again. You still say that respect is accorded initially and then disproven later - I'm saying that I see someone as worthy of it or not at first glance or near enough, and then I might be proven wrong later. We've been here.

This is the main thrust - respect in these times in particular is a matter of a right, not something given according to worthiness. Listen to the radio - you'll hear plenty of "music" bleating on and on about it, how they are to be respected because they've been ejected from a human female. Some of them are inclined to stick a gun or fist in my face if I don't - which is guaranteed to achieve the opposite effect to the one intended. I've experimented with that. Most will simply walk away muttering about it. Point being that rather than something which comes naturally from worthiness, it's something demanded as a right. The word has begun to lose meaning. If you continue to follow the trend, you justify it.

Granted, but I still prefer to let my instinct tell me who is given that politeness. One's judgement of me very rarely affects how I see them, and I tend to berate myself when it does. Impasse indeed.
Actually, I asked the wrong question to begin with. I already knew how you'd answer that one. And you've already answered what I meant to ask elsewhere, so I'll leave it alone anyway.

Quite easily. If I'm bored or disinterested, I don't hide it. Simply wandering off is as effective as a slap and requires less energy.

Rosa:

You've said some rather illogical things lately, and I almost didn't read this.
Liked it though - except, I'd rather replace "he who made the lamb also made the tiger" with "the lamb and the tiger originated from the same primal source" (or similar). I don't care for all that god talk.

 

How did I use you? Did I say your name anywhere in my previous post?
You *chose* to see yourself in those lines.

Huh. Do distinguish between talking about something one is an expert in, and life in general. We indeed have not much to talk about Mediaeval German literature or Smith's economic theory -- and trying to discuss that would be a waste of time for both of us: you know next to nothing about Mediaeval German literature, and I know next to nothing about Smith's economic theory. So why go on thin ice, if one knows it is thin ice? I'm not that fond of discussing for the sake of discussion.

But I know that there are other things we could talk about, and those I don't consider a waste of time.

Oh yes, and they are just ... ummm ... insightful, right? Or they have divine inspiration.

Yes, but are their conclusions consistent? I can open up a book or watch movies, and quote stuff from them: sure, it will look as if I am stating perfectly valid conclusions -- but this is ecclecticism, and ecclecticism is never organic. Ecclecticism is a nice mess, useful if you want to impress someone, but it is not viable.


Secondly, just because some may appear as "impatient, rude, arrogant assholes", doesn't mean that they are not full of devotion, patience, effort, patience and humility for their thinking.

 

What? You mentioned my name at the beginning of each line. Here was the first one: "Okay, Wes, since you apparently don't know certain things about yourself, let's observe you"

Yes Rosa, but you forget that you weren't making that distinction before. You said (paraphrasing) "thinking takes ..... x, y, z" and then you said "if someone says a, b, it'll be a waste of time to talk to them". Your point had nothing to do with how well matched people's knowledge was, you were saying that "if a person doesn't follow x, y, z, they aren't a thinker. you can generally recognize this when you hear a, b from their mouth"

Okay then.

Perhaps gifted, inspired by circumstance, or in the grips of a mental disorder.

More than likely it depends on the topic you discuss with them. It would be difficult to gauge the consistency of a hypothetical person.

Intellect doesn't necessarily work like that. Many people have great comprehension and mental agility surrounding a subset of concepts/ideas that for whatever reason they have excercised more than others. I'd guess that most of the people considered the world's greatest thinkers by most probably met one or two of your criteria and massively contradicted the others. Often greatness stifles humility. That doesn't necessarily render them brain dead, just socially retarded.

True, but it doesn't mean they ARE either.

 

It can be read as a metaphor, there's no need to envoke a god (in the Christian sense) -- like you said "the lamb and the tiger originated from the same primal source". I thought it was obvious.
Also, Blake was ... well, one ought to be careful when he uses the Christian terminology.

(Since all the riches of this world
May be gifts from the Devil and earthly kings,
I should suspect that I worshipp'd the Devil
If I thank'd my God for worldly things.)

 

You have *first* "found yourself" in this:

You started by quoting the bolded text. In that post, where is your name mentioned?
Nowhere. You *chose* to see yourself in those lines, which you affirmed later by saying

And I've been trying to tell you what those xyz encompass, and that they can come in variant degrees.

Huh. If A is an expert in XY, and B is not an expert in XY, and they strike up a conversation about XY, and B says "Meh, but that's just me" or "I don't like reading books other people wrote", then the conversation will not bring much for A.

But just because B isn't an expert in XY, this doesn't mean that he cannot be a thinker -- he can be an expert in VW.

But usually, yes, there are signs, like the covers of a book, by which A can determine whether it is worth talking to B, about a certain subject, or in general. What Fenris has ben saying all along.

Like what? Mere ecclecticism is not intellect, I think that ought to be clear, I said ecclecticism is neither viable, nor organic.

And how, pray tell, does Einstein's thinking and work "massively" contradict the criteria I suggested?

Maybe the problem is that you see humility as something bad, or self-depreciating.

Name me some examples.

 

It wasn't, nor did I say it was. That's why I said:

So I'd think you could have figured out that "using me as an example" was in reference to where you used me as an example. :bugeye:

I saw a flaw in that line and wanted to see how you defended it. I may have seen it due to my sensitivity. Note that when I see a flaw I don't KNOW it's a flaw, I just give my take on it initiate a dialog to see if it is or isn't.

Yeah okay.

That depends. Seems like A maybe needs a little humility.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Perhaps B has come at the problem from an angle A has never considered because B doesn't read books by other people.

Like your recipe for "thinkers".

So what? The point is that your recipe isn't a necessity. I think giant jerkoff ego-maniacal assholes are sometimes great thinkers in some genera.

I wouldn't have picked him out in particular, but perhaps Stalin or Hitler?

Humility is to keep you for getting too big for your britches. I simply think that many people under-estimate the size of their britches, and many over-estimate. I think knowing your correct pants size is far more important than humility. Wearing the wrong sized brain pants can really chafe your cranium. The validity of your thoughts should suffer as a result. Sometimes it takes a humongous ego to accomplish humongous tasks. Now that I think of it, I'd guess that Einstein likely had a good ego on him, but he had it well in check. He had humility in appearance, but he must have had some ego in order to think it possible for him to do what he did. Perhaps by humility you just mean not to rub your talent in someone elses face?

Already did. Hitler, Stalin, etc. I would hypothesize that different recipes (other than "devotion, patience, effort, inquiry -- and humility") get you different thoughts, but doesn't necessarily impact the validity of them given their reference frame. I mean to say, perhaps a vain man can tell you more about the subtle varieties of pink and how they interact with sounds of a certain frequency, and how those impact unnattractive people when they jiggle on the dance floor. The point is that I believe "thinkers" come from a whole slew of characteristics. It's their characterictics that allow them such a unique view as long as they have the intellect to process their input.

Hitler was likely insane, yet brilliant - undeniably a thinker. Would you say that he was devoted? (me - hmm.. well, if compulsiveness is devotion, then I'm down with that) Was he patient? (me - maybe barely, depending on how you define it. He was extremely impatient as well if you look at it the other way) Was it effort if it was compulsory? Was he inquisitive? (interesting, would you just call him eclectic? he was certainly inquisitive about ways to kills jews) Did he have humility? (me - no I don't think so). What about other "thinkers" generally regarded as evil, like Mengala (is that his name? the doctor dude who did bad bad things that advanced medicine tremendously)

?

 

Sure. But time and energy are *scarce* things. Eventually, it is up to an economy calculation, what one can afford and what not.

Once more, an economy calculation. What on earth does it matter if someone writes tons of stuff about how to differentiate between different kinds of spits?! Yah, it may be great, it may be full of fancy metaphors. But if I find myself in the situation of choosing between that and Quine, I'll choose Quine.

Whether someone is to be regarded as a great thinker is hardly a matter of an absolute classification. In the end, it all comes down to those one had the opportunity to study, and not judge those whom one hasn't studied. It's professional ethics.

You mean *breeches*, like pants?

Knowing your "correct pants size" *is* humility.

Sure, different recipes get you different thoughts, I never claimed my "recipe" to be universal.

But the thing is that the biggies, the tyrants and the dictators had their own recipes, and usually not much need to talk about them -- they just set them into action.
And face it, none of us here qualifies for Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Stalin or whomever, we don't have that "extra benefit" they had. And to act as if we do have it is preposterous.

Like:
"Ya, look, I'm the new Hitler!"
"And what have you accomplished?"
"I killed 3 rats, tortured 2 frogs and rob an old lady of her purse."

Really, something to be proud of.

My, yes, and this is like, yeah, so important for the survival of the species, yes.

At some point, for a "thinker" to be a thinker, the criteria of economy and feasibility must set in, or he's just a most artful intermezzo, good or harmful.

I won't argue about Hitler. It is enough for me to go out of my house, 200 meters, into the wood, and there are holes in the ground, still, from the bombardments in WW2. This is where my internal emotional force tells me that something isn't right, if what helped causing this is to be called "brilliant thinking".

As for Joseph Mengele and the scientists in WW2, I am sure Gendanken would be able to tell you more. The war was a "practical" time for doing all sorts of experiments. The findings of these experiments were used later on by the "official science"; these findings sort of came "handy".

Giving in to strict reason, and trying to be value-neutral, and talk about the greatness of Einstein and Hitler in the same breath -- is a dangerous thing, testifying of a lack of heart.

 

Have you ever taught or tutored? I did both, and once in it, those "romantic" concerns about pupils, that "most of those would never be anything more than students. Products. Siblings." disappear (at least for me they did). Teaching is about professionalism, about being a professional teacher and a professiona student, both with a professional attitude. Unless of course, you want some other kind of teaching, be some other kind of teacher and have some other kind of students.

Everything gets boring after some time; it is a part of practical wisdom to be able to bear some boredom, or improvement is not likely possible.

 

Rosa, I think Wes had his conniptions over what he took as you breaching your last principle: humility


On Topic:

The greasiest rat in Rand's world is Peter Keating. He's the oily charmer standing by the watercooler, saying all the correct things at all the right times with just the right amount of syllables sprinkled in between forced laughter. He's the kind to shed his concern like reptile skin every damn where that he goes, bawling over with sympathy at the news that your mother is sick even though he's never met her.
He is ambitious and vain and greedy for a place of distinction, yet he nurses a secret fear inside of volcanic insecurity when left alone to be with himself.
All alone with himself there is nobody.
He's got a mother as cannibalistic as himself, perpetuating this pathology so common in men and praised by relgion: the shunning of self for the sake of community, the breaking of spirit in order to burden it with the yoke of Respect and Humanity.

She says to him on a night on finding her precious nobody debating with himself over his insecurities, as she lives through him vicariously:

"Your life does not belong to you, Peter, if you're really aiming high. You can't allow yourself to indulge every whim, as ordinary people can, because with them it does not matter anyway. Its not you or me or what we feel, Peter. Its your career. It takes strength to deny yourself in order to win other people's respect"

Wrong, Madamme. Wrong.
It takes strength to accept one’s Self and maintain that Self for a lifetime.
Other people ‘respect' only what is comfortable and unassuming and to me, this shunning of self, this pissing on one's potentials in pursuit of social prestige is a massacre.

This is what the man on the street buys into. He's a Peter Keating and all you civil, wonderful, cheerful, overtly humble people are his mother.

 

Ha, she grew up on Wilde:

The reason we all like to think so well of others is that we are all afraid for ourselves. The basis of optimism is sheer terror.

 

I have, in Asia, yes. Not my first choice in subject material, but I did enjoy it quite a bit.

Only if there is some purpose in it - I'm frequently bored at work, but it pays my rent. If there is no purpose in it, then why bear it?

 

There are so many of them though, aren't there.

The unfortunate thing about Rand is that in her novels, like in all novels, the hero always wins in the end. In the fountainhead, in Atlas Shrugged - they always win out, people end up seeing them and they become succesful. A good story. They have to really, don't they?
But in life, most of those who do see end up Mallory, Wynand or Cameron, in one way or another. Even the best of us have some of the weaker characters in us.

The beauty is in knowing and fighting it. Holding onto that self awareness, once seen, as you said.

Spotting the Dalmation in Pointilism.
That one, I'll always remember.

 

Agreed.

That depends on whether or not you value spit.

Exactly, it's what fits your tastes... just like the list that spawned this tangent.

It seems you're implying there that I stated that being a great thinker is a matter of absolute classification. I obviously didn't, nor did I imply that... so I don't get you. I agree with the statement.

I think you miss the point, which was that great thinkers come in a variety of packages, at least some of which violate the original assertion in dispute.

Yah. It's also spelled "britches".

That's interesting. I've always thought of humility as pretending you're less that what you are. Yeah, the definition kind of sums it up:

"The state or quality of being humble; freedom from pride and arrogance; lowliness of mind; a modest estimate of one's own worth; a sense of one's own unworthiness through imperfection and sinfulness; self-abasement; humbleness."

I smell christian guilt from you. Regardless, maybe you just mean "freedom from pride and arrogance". If so, then I see your point but still don't see it as a prequisite of a "thinker" or "thinking". I'd agree with it as a matter of taste and possible a desireable mode for finding balance, but the thinkers who are arrogant and proud may well have an advantage of confidence or sheer will (fed by their arrogance) that allows their thoughts to go farther than those who lack those qualities.

Sorry, it seemed like you presented it that way. It didn't seem like you presented it as a matter of taste.

- Extra benefit of being sociopath?
- Who is pretending anyone here is that way?
- The examples of Hitler and Stalin were only to show deviation from your recipe.

LOL. Well, I wouldn't be but if I just had that "extra benefit" I would probably be quite proud.

Well, I was trying to pick an example that might make you chuckle. I didn't realize that "thinkers" only mattered if they were "important for the survival of the species". I suppose we can all just kill ourselves to stop the oxygen drain. We are "thinkers" and I'm almost sure the species can survive without us. Oh crap that wasn't very humble. I guess I wasn't thinking.

Okay, but that doesn't address the point that many thinkers violate your recipe. Many are arrogant. Many are impatient. Many are driven by compulsion rather than a stoic devotion. For many that compulsion makes it effortless. You probably got the inquiry part right.

Well, though I find what I know of his perspective repulsive, as do many. There are many who disagree. Should we tell them how wrong they are? Will that change their minds?

Well, I don't really need it, thanks.

Yup. Every account I've heard stated "very important contributions to medical science" - even though they strongly condemned the method (as I think they should). Again though, just an example of "thinkers" that don't conform to your assertion.

LOL. Yes I do smell that christian guilt coming from you. I'd say if you're value nuetral you'd have thought of this before your "lacking heart" condemnation (and please note that asserting "lacking heart" is not "value nuetral"): Of Hitler and Einstein, which one taught us more?

 

Bah, we'll never agree about humility, so let's leave it. It must be that my native language has implanted a different conceptualization of it in my mind.
I'll have to find some other English word. Dictionaries aren't enough.

Duh.

Yes, mainly. Note that pride is another problematic word, at length discussed in ... another thread.

Yah, hot air is what they mostly produce.

I take the introducing thought -- "Why do you think that people become amateur ornithologists or lovers of kricket?" kinda set the tone of my comments being of a personal nature.

I suppose this is one of those "extra benfits".

I didn't say that anyone here does. Just in case anyone would like to. And there are people who would like to.

Yah, and they have the "extra benefit".

My, I see that I will indeed have to resort to foul language to get my point across.

Look, *I*, for the most part, cannot do much with those who "violate" my "recipe". So they may be all great and everything to someone else, but I simply don't feel to be bespoken by those.
Uh, and to avoid a predictable whack: The latter statement does not imply that I like only those I am comfortable with.

Do you think that we have the right to desire to change someone's mind? In which cases? By what criteria?

Firstly, shut up. I grew up in a strictly atheistic family, with the environment being strictly Catholic. Yes, I have seen their "Christianity" up close, on my skin. For example, when I wasonce in the winter, a boy rubbed my eyes with snow, and I had a hazy vision in my left eye for weeks -- and what happened, did anyone set him straight? No. Because he was good fucking Christian, and they don't do bad things.
Don't you ever dare talk to me about "my Christian guilt".


And most of all, once it is your own family who is wronged by what those "great thinkers" wanted, you simply think differently (well, not all do, people forget very easily).
My grandmother lost two husbands to the war, and when the war was over, the German soldiers raided her house and took everything they could. My other grandfather was in a concentration camp, and got a serious lung disease.
Not to mention the casualties, and overall economical damage to the country.

1. I never consider myself value-neutral. I don't think one can ever be value neutral.
2. Humans are made this way that they see most what jumps at them. Negative lessons sit better than positive. Yet, for some reasons, big catastrophes, like wars, floods, earthquakes, fires -- they are forgotten quite quickly. To remember them is expressed in ceremony, not so much in actual change of lifestyle. In the end, it is the little everyday things that bring us under.
3. I don't think you can compare Einstein and Hitler, as they were active in completely different "fields of interest".

***

For one, we ought to know why we do things, and do them to some benefit for us. Thus, there is purpose in them. I think this is obvious.
For two, those who bear boredom to no apparent purpose, may be bearing this boredom for purposes other than directly connected to the activity in question. "Earning respect" maybe one of such purposes for bearing boredom.

 

Fenris:

No, not many.
They are all, and all globalized into large galaxies of sameness.
You know what I see? Tiny Gaia riding on the outskirts: small, unknown but teeming with life compared to everything dead around her in that gigantic Milky way.

I don't think so.
I think the best of us have destroyed it and keep the remnants up somwhere as reminder, a deterrernt- something like an obese pig of a woman who has lost 3 hundred pouds of dead weight.
She keeps pictures of her former ugliness pinned up to her refrigerator.

Absolutis.
Remember what I said of the rapture- I was not speaking of reading her as I follow no one and no ism.
By rapture I meant the the rediscovering of things known, a kind of mournful regret for having forgotten one's gifts and identity and recapturing them in sheer joy.

Regarding the fantasy of these heros winning in the end when we damn well know they don't, I wrote this on the margin about Roark:
"He has all the useful privileges of a human in an autistic body"
An impossibility.

Rosa:

I have seen all your reasons for this.
And have yet to see a good one.

Demotionalise when speaking.

 

Just in for a quicky here. Sorry I haven't been replying much the last few days. Bit of a funk. But, I've just found something that you were talking about, Gendanken.

<img src="http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3144&stc=1">​

Is this the image you were talking about? I have to say that the dalmation leaped out at me. It took no searching to find it. But, of course, one's true self is no dalmation on the wall, is it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Edit: Found another one. This one I haven't discerned yet. It could be several things.

<img src="http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3146&stc=1">​