Philosophy Discussion Forums

Re giants and plebs:

The Belief Doctor is therefore a faithful democrat despite nodding to the disadvantage of democracy that can be inferred from Marabod's point.Even a conservative (like Churchill) would have to concede TBD's point.
Red herring warning! I trust this post is so small a red herring that it will be permitted.

It does not take a village to raise a child.
Let's not use cliches when discussing philosophy, or metaphysics.

LOL, Belinda - but in no case one million idiots can substitute for one genius. It simply does not work this way. Great mind is a national treasure, while the million fools are just cannon fodder - when they are killed, this remains unnoticed by history. A standard citizen, compared to some Mozart or Einstein, appears as simply a Neanderthal or even a Chimp.

Democracy as a system has nothing to do with this, as it only suggests the equality of people in their rights, not in their brain power or talents. When a crowd of idiots makes decisions, it is called not "democracy" but "ochlocracy" - as "democracy" is the "power of shires" not of "people" (demos= population of the "dems", territorial units each ruled by a local Council). Not to be confused

Marabod wrote:LOL, Belinda - but in no case one million idiots can substitute for one genius. It simply does not work this way. Great mind is a national treasure, while the million fools are just cannon fodder - when they are killed, this remains unnoticed by history. A standard citizen, compared to some Mozart or Einstein, appears as simply a Neanderthal or even a Chimp.

Democracy as a system has nothing to do with this, as it only suggests the equality of people in their rights, not in their brain power or talents. When a crowd of idiots makes decisions, it is called not "democracy" but "ochlocracy" - as "democracy" is the "power of shires" not of "people" (demos= population of the "dems", territorial units each ruled by a local Council). Not to be confused

Your disconnect with, and lack of empathy for the plight of others is somewhat disturbing.

it takes a village to raise a child
it takes a community to raise a genius. There are no exceptions to this.

your "just cannon fodder - when they are killed" is either exceedingly shallow, short-sighted and an attitude that engenders wars, or deliberate flame-bait or whatever the forum term is.

But either way, you've demonstrated your own internal war, with knowledge, intuition, acceptance, creativity, peace and ease.

Blessings on your journey.
Steaphen

Belinda, this lack of empathy to others comes from the simple fact that I myself also do not require any empathy from the others. All I want from the others is to interact with me non-emotionally and to our mutual satisfaction and I offer them the same, and I do not see any other mutual obligations as existing between the people in general. Each of us lives his/her own life and minds own business.

During my life the Mankind multiplied threefold, so if I, say, had some initial empathy to the others, by now each this other can only have 1/3 of it. Each individual life is worth something only for its owner and for their close people, is not it so?

Marabod, you may not do so but there are thousands of otherwise sane and efficient people who weep for Bambi's mother for God's sake!

More objectively, the result of the recent election here in the UK was decided by plebs most of whom are not political experts,trained economists or even philosophers.
Since the political giants who contended for the right to govern the country could not entirely agree, how, other than putting the matter to the plebeian electorate could shades of right and wrong be decided upon? Would you want to restrict the suffrage to people who had doctorates? Or what? Anyway, Joe the plumber may have talents that are not celeb material.

I think that the post below is approximately where we diverged from Meleagar the OP's original intention.

Post: #326 Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 10:26 pm Post subject:



Quote:
Well, actually, in this metaphor, "everyone" except the giant observer carries on with the waving, it's just the giant is a bit slow to catch all that side-ways fun and games.


I hope you use "giant" as an allegory. But on the other hand the fact remains, that the laws of the microscopic world took really giant minds to develop them, not vice versa...

I myself took The Belief Doctor's 'giant' to refer to the everyday macro perspective on the stadium where the crowd is visibly swayed as a crowd.The 'giant' that Marabod introduces is another, unconnected, metaphor using 'giant' in the sense of an individual among individuals.

I blame myself for running with Marabod's ball. I wonder if the new thread can be placed in the politics section. It's a good topic.

Hahahaha! - Bambi's mother! It took me few minutes to remember the beginning of the book, I read it probably in early 60s!

On politics I disagree that the voters are some abstract plebs - they never actually were such. Each individual voter earns some income, and is interested in the business, which feeds them, to prosper. If we use a parallel from the ancient Rome, then any Employer would be a Patron, while the Employees would be the Clients. The Clients want the Patron to make more money, as their own wealth depends on the wealth of the Patron! Of course, there are deviations, exceptions, individual cases etc, but the rule works in the sense of Big Numbers - if I know that, say, the Labours want a tax law which would ruin my Employer, I would naturally vote for Liberals (giving an Australian reference frame). Certainly there are some vigilantes among the voters, so some percentage goes to the small parties as a protest vote - but these parties are nothing on the national scale!

What the actual Labours in UK visually succeeded in was to establish a strong support among so-called lumpen-proletarians, which do not work at all but receive government subsidies... to increase this support they wanted more people on the payouts and benefits. This is a historical deja vue, as the same was done in Rome as well - the original "proletarians" (people who had nothing except the children, "proles" is "siblings" in Latin, the word exists since 6th century BC coined by King Servius Tullius) were always given free food vouchers, free clothes vouchers, free circus passage tickets etc etc, just to ensure their support of the acting politicians. It is a form of a bribe, a vote-buying. In order to feed the lumpens such populist governments are strangling the rest of the nation with taxes and levies... But once again, the vote is defined by the income sources!

"your "just cannon fodder - when they are killed" is either exceedingly shallow, short-sighted and an attitude that engenders wars, or deliberate flame-bait or whatever the forum term is."

Well, to an everyday person with no connections to 99.999999% of the population, that is, in effect, what role unknown people play. Not knowing people does engender wars, but what is the solution? To know everyone and connect on a close and personal level? I don't think I'd have time even to visit with six billion people.

One who learns the patterns of people, like a psychologist, gets closest to this goal and can thus empathize with people to feel sorry for their pain. The best we can do is make sure our leaders have this ability to feel, because most people are not geniuses.

And yes, a city of fools can raise a genius to fix what they do wrong, but a population of geniuses would have already fixed the world's problems, and would likely have much smarter children.

Alexander Solzhenitzen's Nobel Lecture, 1970, describes just how art and literature show lies for what they are, and unite people of goodwill all over the world.This is his personal experience as someone who escaped from the USSR at its repressive,lying, worst.
My friends! Let us try to be helpful, if we are worth anything. In our own countries, torn by differences among parties, movements, castes, and groups, who for ages past has been not the dividing but the uniting force? This, essentially, is the position of writers, spokesmen of a national language, of the chief tie binding the nation, the very soil which the people inhabit, and, in fortunate circumstances, the nation's spirit too.

I think that world literature has the power in these frightening times to help mankind see itself accurately despite what is advocated by partisans and by parties. It has the power to transmit the condensed experience of one region to another, so that different scales of values are combined, and so that one people accurately and concisely knows the true history of another with a power of recognition and acute awareness as if it had lived through that history itself--and could thus be spared repeating old mistakes. At the same time, perhaps we ourselves may succeed in developing our own WORLD-WIDE VIEW, like any man, with the center of the eye seeing what is nearby but the periphery of vision taking in what is happening in the rest of the world. We will make correlations and maintain world-wide standards.

Who, if not writers, are to condemn their own unsuccessful governments (in some states this is the easiest way to make a living; everyone who is not too lazy does it) as well as society itself, whether for its cowardly humiliation or for its self-satisfied weakness, or the lightheaded escapades of the young, or the youthful pirates brandishing knives?

Belinda wrote:Alexander Solzhenitzen's Nobel Lecture, 1970, describes just how art and literature show lies for what they are, and unite people of goodwill all over the world.This is his personal experience as someone who escaped from the USSR at its repressive,lying, worst.
My friends! Let us try to be helpful, if we are worth anything. In our own countries, torn by differences among parties, movements, castes, and groups, who for ages past has been not the dividing but the uniting force? This, essentially, is the position of writers, spokesmen of a national language, of the chief tie binding the nation, the very soil which the people inhabit, and, in fortunate circumstances, the nation's spirit too.

I think that world literature has the power in these frightening times to help mankind see itself accurately despite what is advocated by partisans and by parties. It has the power to transmit the condensed experience of one region to another, so that different scales of values are combined, and so that one people accurately and concisely knows the true history of another with a power of recognition and acute awareness as if it had lived through that history itself--and could thus be spared repeating old mistakes. At the same time, perhaps we ourselves may succeed in developing our own WORLD-WIDE VIEW, like any man, with the center of the eye seeing what is nearby but the periphery of vision taking in what is happening in the rest of the world. We will make correlations and maintain world-wide standards.

Who, if not writers, are to condemn their own unsuccessful governments (in some states this is the easiest way to make a living; everyone who is not too lazy does it) as well as society itself, whether for its cowardly humiliation or for its self-satisfied weakness, or the lightheaded escapades of the young, or the youthful pirates brandishing knives?

Belinda, Thank you for this wonderful excerpt of Solzhenitzen's speech. I hadn't read it before, so will now follow up the referenced content. A worthy recipient of the prize.

It is precisely my point that writers, not scientists are best able to steer society. Science without faith is blind, as Einstein reminded us. We'd all be in grave danger if so-called "giants" ran the world. Probably run on right on time, tho', right into the next environmental disaster, genetically-induced disease, or pandemic. As it is, I fear we've allowed science to be the central story in our society way too long.

Jester Gren wrote:"

And yes, a city of fools can raise a genius to fix what they do wrong, but a population of geniuses would have already fixed the world's problems, and would likely have much smarter children.

Just because one is a genius doesn't mean that one is not going to exacerbate problems, let alone solve any. Genius is not moral and ethical character. Intelligence is like any tool; it can be applied towards good or evil ends.

Thats just it, that genius could fill the heads of his inferior minded peers with nearly any notions he/she desired.
The genius could, in a manner that is not obvious to those he wishes to control, steer his/her peers whichever direction the genius chooses.

If the geniuses realize the level of ignorance within the masses how could they not be tempted to use their intellect towards self-serving means?

With some one can tell their intentions, while others hide their intentions behind a well painted mask that only portrays an image of morality.
So it shouldn't be surprising if the average folk often don't trust what the geniuses tell them, which may be why you have met such resistance here TBD, many don't understand the science and therefore distrust the results.
I know I am guilty of it.

I am curious TBD, on your website page, who wrote your bio?

reflected_light wrote:Thats just it, that genius could fill the heads of his inferior minded peers with nearly any notions he/she desired.
The genius could, in a manner that is not obvious to those he wishes to control, steer his/her peers whichever direction the genius chooses.

If the geniuses realize the level of ignorance within the masses how could they not be tempted to use their intellect towards self-serving means?

With some one can tell their intentions, while others hide their intentions behind a well painted mask that only portrays an image of morality.
So it shouldn't be surprising if the average folk often don't trust what the geniuses tell them, which may be why you have met such resistance here TBD, many don't understand the science and therefore distrust the results.
I know I am guilty of it.

I am curious TBD, on your website page, who wrote your bio?

Masks? Quite so, very much so.

Case in point: Besides myself, who here is being open about who they are ( www.beliefinstitute.com/about )?

This is off subject but the talk of geniuses, well...

What is meant by genius? Of course, I'm sure you mean a real smart person. Maybe even the smartest possible person. Should that person, that genius, the 'smartest possible person, do you think it's even possible he could figure out how to cure all the social ills around the world? Should he even waste his time trying?
No, I think most people know what needs be done. It's not hard to not be mean. Take care of what's around you, take care of yourself and you will take care of others. So that yourself will be taken care of.
I don't believe that a genius could do any more than the dumbest among us. Take care of yourself and whats in your control. And try not to be mean probably...
That's one of the problems with government. People rely on the government to fix a problem that it was never intended to fix. And then over time people get the idea that it's not that government doesn't work for that sort of thing, they think they just don't have it right yet and keep messing it up bu thinking that it can some day be solved by the government, or the genius, by anyone else than yourself, and myself...

prodygi wrote:This is off subject but the talk of geniuses, well...

What is meant by genius? Of course, I'm sure you mean a real smart person. Maybe even the smartest possible person. Should that person, that genius, the 'smartest possible person, do you think it's even possible he could figure out how to cure all the social ills around the world? Should he even waste his time trying?
No, I think most people know what needs be done. It's not hard to not be mean. Take care of what's around you, take care of yourself and you will take care of others. So that yourself will be taken care of.
I don't believe that a genius could do any more than the dumbest among us. Take care of yourself and whats in your control. And try not to be mean probably...
That's one of the problems with government. People rely on the government to fix a problem that it was never intended to fix. And then over time people get the idea that it's not that government doesn't work for that sort of thing, they think they just don't have it right yet and keep messing it up bu thinking that it can some day be solved by the government, or the genius, by anyone else than yourself, and myself...

Agree. Well said.

After all, how many MBA's, scientists and geniuses did it take to cause the Global Financial Crisis? (yes there are scientists /mathematicians working on Wall Street)

As far as general characteristics are concerned, geniuses are usually borderline autistic, so extremely focused they're unable to properly function in the world by themselves.
Einstein:

"he sleeps until he is wakened; he stays awake until he is told to go to bed; he will go hungry until he is given something to eat; and then he eats until he is stopped". (Ronald W Clark's Einstein, Life and Times, p 242).

Right, so geniuses are going to save the world. Don't think so.

In my experience, the intuitives who get it are women, artists, poets, musicians, writers, entrepreneurs and the occasional alternative-medical practitioner (each having their particular gifts in terms of what they intuit).

And enough said ...

Caio
Steaphen