So, I have a midterm in an hour and a half and instead of thoroughly studying I'm writing emails:
You know, I’ve spent a portion of my life philosophizing on what it means to be “smart” and what the true definition of intelligence is, being that most of us find something that we’re really interested in and then out of our interest become proficient in our knowledge of it, and if that thing is highly valued then our proficiency is deemed intelligence…but there are many things to be interested in and therefore many things to be intelligent about, and its value is somewhat arbitrary. So because someone may like classical literature and that is more highly valued than say, the knowledge of car mechanics, the literature buff is considered smarter than the mechanic, which expresses an arbitrary value to a certain degree. So, is there a base that you can use to get a universal standard…I don’t know. But, in an a priori sense (as opposed to empirically testing it) we all have this idea of intelligence inside of ourselves and with regards to other people. I never liked being pointed out for anything that was an implication of being better than other people, whether a teacher was saying I was smart or a friend was saying I was pretty; I’m not really comfortable being deemed worthy based on subjective values.
But what I do know is that some people are smarter than others. Some people are just better at navigating through life – and the reasons for that are variegated. I just read a short story by Sam Clemens, where he imagines a dispute b/n different kinds of money inside of a money box in a bank. They are all arguing about who is better based on their value, and of course the copper coin, being the smallest value -- and brown -- gets the worst of it. They use the constitution and its declaration of equality to bolster their arguments. So the money pieces start beating each other up and causing a commotion, and their case ends up in court. The judge rules that each piece of money regardless of its denomination potentially earns the same rate of interest in savings, i.e. 5% and based on that they are all equal. He says they are all equal based on what they are, not who they pretend to be. And he points out that our constitution does not say that men are created inherently equal, as in looks, intelligence, etc…but that for what each of us is, we all have an equal opportunity to be the best that we can be without being discriminated against or thought of as less than anyone else. This of course is on the theory of equality rather than its practice and I think that was his point.
****************Later that day**************
I’ve given up on defining intelligence and I reject the way people use the word as if in and of itself it denotes a standard store of value. I think living well is above the notion of intelligence and I think that should be the goal anyway. And I think that living well has to start with knowing yourself.
You know, I’ve spent a portion of my life philosophizing on what it means to be “smart” and what the true definition of intelligence is, being that most of us find something that we’re really interested in and then out of our interest become proficient in our knowledge of it, and if that thing is highly valued then our proficiency is deemed intelligence…but there are many things to be interested in and therefore many things to be intelligent about, and its value is somewhat arbitrary. So because someone may like classical literature and that is more highly valued than say, the knowledge of car mechanics, the literature buff is considered smarter than the mechanic, which expresses an arbitrary value to a certain degree. So, is there a base that you can use to get a universal standard…I don’t know. But, in an a priori sense (as opposed to empirically testing it) we all have this idea of intelligence inside of ourselves and with regards to other people. I never liked being pointed out for anything that was an implication of being better than other people, whether a teacher was saying I was smart or a friend was saying I was pretty; I’m not really comfortable being deemed worthy based on subjective values.
But what I do know is that some people are smarter than others. Some people are just better at navigating through life – and the reasons for that are variegated. I just read a short story by Sam Clemens, where he imagines a dispute b/n different kinds of money inside of a money box in a bank. They are all arguing about who is better based on their value, and of course the copper coin, being the smallest value -- and brown -- gets the worst of it. They use the constitution and its declaration of equality to bolster their arguments. So the money pieces start beating each other up and causing a commotion, and their case ends up in court. The judge rules that each piece of money regardless of its denomination potentially earns the same rate of interest in savings, i.e. 5% and based on that they are all equal. He says they are all equal based on what they are, not who they pretend to be. And he points out that our constitution does not say that men are created inherently equal, as in looks, intelligence, etc…but that for what each of us is, we all have an equal opportunity to be the best that we can be without being discriminated against or thought of as less than anyone else. This of course is on the theory of equality rather than its practice and I think that was his point.
****************Later that day**************
I’ve given up on defining intelligence and I reject the way people use the word as if in and of itself it denotes a standard store of value. I think living well is above the notion of intelligence and I think that should be the goal anyway. And I think that living well has to start with knowing yourself.
