Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Poetic Hypocrisy

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Poetic Hypocrisy

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

The early 20th century writer, F. Scott Fitzgerald, once wrote:

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

According to Ernest Hemingway, Fitzgerald was a drunk who couldn't hold his liquor, and had submitted himself to a long-standing abusive marriage with Fitzgerald's wife, Zelda (read The Sun Also Rises and A Movable Feast by Hemingway for confirmation).

Clearly, there was something about Fitzgerald that attracted people, besides the financial backing of book publishers, or else Hemingway and others wouldn't have maintained friendships with him despite Fitz's often self-destructive behavior. Hemingway especially seemed consistently concerned that Fitz was wasting his gift for writing.

***

But the question at hand is the quote itself- is it wisdom or is it one of those quotes that sounds profound when spoken by a character on TV at a dramatic moment or used as an excuse to do something one wouldn't ordinarily do (hypocrisy).

***

It struck me as profound when I first encountered the quote. Of course, I was on drugs (often) during that time, so it appealed to my belief that I could still function while on drugs while still influenced by past, un-drugged experiences and upbringing. It also nicely fueled my narcissism, thinking I had a "first-rate" intelligence.

All in all, it seems nothing more than a shocker, devoid of real substance or precedent.

If we really wanted to examine the quote logically, we'd have to first determine what exactly is "a first-rate intelligence", if it even exists, and most importantly, why is this specific set of circumstances- holding two opposing ideas in one's mind at the same time, the test to prove its existance. Furthermore, wouldn't three opposing ideas be an even larger indicator of a first-rate intelligence?

***

As one gets older, one gets exposed to more and more opposing ideas, and in order to continue to function, which demands action of some sort, one must favor one idea over the other. This is called selling-out, compromising, or hypocrisy. I don't see how it could be called "the test of a first-rate intelligence", otherwise everyone over 40 would have a first-rate intelligence, and then what would be first-rate about it?

@hamletswords,

First, I think we should not be quite so critical of Fitzgerald - he was a novelist, not a philosopher.

I think the general point he makes with this statement is valid. Anyone with a first rate intellegence would be smart enough to know that he knows very little. Consider for a moment, the problems of freewill and determinism. I might debate in favor of a particular opinion of the subject, but it would be silly of me to think my opinion is absolutely correct. A first rate intellegence can take two opposing sides of an issue, realize that he does not have anything close to a certain answer, yet still function despite the ignorance, perhaps being able to function because he at least is aware of his ignorance.

@hamletswords,

Well, novelists during that time fueled the stories with philosophy. I would argue that any good story would have to act out philosophical issues, and considering Fitz wrote what many consider to be the 2nd best book of the 20th century (The Great Gatsby), I don't think he gets off the hook so easily.

Secondly, I think you're infusing meaning into the quote that isn't there. He doesn't mention ignorance, he says "hold(ing) two opposed ideas", not "holding two opposed ideas and remembering that neither one can be right."

The power of the quote is that whoever is holding these opposing ideas believes in both equally, not that he or she doesn't really believe in either.

@hamletswords,

Novelists have always lined their work with philosophy. My point is that the philosopher and novelist have different aims in writting. The philosopher is making a particular point, using well considered arguments to reinforce the point. Novelists are more relaxed about such things, they lead us in different directions, hinting at conclusions. We should not let Fitzgerald off easy, just that we should hold him to a different standard.

You are right, he does not mention ignorance, though he also neglects to stipulate that the two opposing ideas are to be held with an equal degree of belief. He says "to hold two opposed ideas in the mind", there is no mention of believing them to any degree, only that one can consider both sides of an issue.

@hamletswords,

There are going to be contradicting ideas, but in philosophy, if there is no merit to take one over the other, and if by taking on the second new idea would mean changing your life's views and values, we can simple disregard it. Otherwise as you put it, it will be impossible to stay sane. Kind of the like the idea in science that if there are two laws the explain something, both of them have equal merit, then the simplest of the two is usually the better choice and we chose that.

@hamletswords,

Quote:

You are right, he does not mention ignorance, though he also neglects to stipulate that the two opposing ideas are to be held with an equal degree of belief. He says "to hold two opposed ideas in the mind", there is no mention of believing them to any degree, only that one can consider both sides of an issue.

He further neglects to say, "Consider two opposing ideas, and then run with one of them."

The idea behind the quote and what makes it almost really great is that it defies logic. How could one function if one "holds" (not "considers and then disregards one of") two opposing ideas? Maybe he meant it's a test of first-rate functional schizophrenia.

Quote:

Kind of the like the idea in science that if there are two laws the explain something, both of them have equal merit, then the simplest of the two is usually the better choice and we chose that.

Occam's razor is another often used debate idea, and, as often happens with popular debate ideas, I think it gets used in places it doesn't fit. If two opposing theories were being considered, then Occam's razor wouldn't fit, because those ideas wouldn't be equal (they would be the opposite of equal, actually).

Fitz was a hack.

@hamletswords,

The quote does not defy logic; it's an observation.

Let's see, though, if it does defy logic.

Here is the quote:
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

So, let's put this in an if-then statement.

If someone has the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time,
And still retains the ability to function,
Then that person has a first-rate intelligence,

I think at this point we can see why examining novelists as we do philosophers does not work. What does it mean to "hold... ideas in the mind"? To believe them, to consider them, to know the basic premises of the idea? What is meant by "function"?
To the philosopher, these questions are ones which must be asked; to the novelist, they are not questions for the author to address, rather, they are for the reader's contemplation.

Hacks do not write books like East of Eden, the Grapes of Wrath, or Of Mice and Men. Damn fine novelists do.

@Didymos Thomas,

Quote:

Hacks do not write books like East of Eden, the Grapes of Wrath, or Of Mice and Men. Damn fine novelists do.

Fitz didn't write those books.

Quote:

What does it mean to "hold... ideas in the mind"? To believe them, to consider them, to know the basic premises of the idea?

Probably all three of those and also "not letting go of one of them"

Quote:

What is meant by "function"?

Probably "to act unlike the drunk idiot F. Scott Fitzgerald".

Quote:

To the philosopher, these questions are ones which must be asked; to the novelist, they are not questions for the author to address, rather, they are for the reader's contemplation.

I'm all for poetic license, but this quote is phrased like a noble truth (and an arrogantly phrased one, to boot- first-rate intelligence my ass)

Here's one from a non-hack (Hemingway) for comparison:

"If you have a success you have it for the wrong reasons. If you become popular it is always because of the worst aspects of your work. "

@hamletswords,

Lord help! Here I am mixing up Steinbeck and Fitzgerald. I guess I should have slept longer this morning.

@hamletswords,

hamletswords wrote:

The early 20th century writer, F. Scott Fitzgerald, once wrote:

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

According to Ernest Hemingway, Fitzgerald was a drunk who couldn't hold his liquor, and had submitted himself to a long-standing abusive marriage with Fitzgerald's wife, Zelda (read The Sun Also Rises and A Movable Feast by Hemingway for confirmation).

Clearly, there was something about Fitzgerald that attracted people, besides the financial backing of book publishers, or else Hemingway and others wouldn't have maintained friendships with him despite Fitz's often self-destructive behavior. Hemingway especially seemed consistently concerned that Fitz was wasting his gift for writing.

***

But the question at hand is the quote itself- is it wisdom or is it one of those quotes that sounds profound when spoken by a character on TV at a dramatic moment or used as an excuse to do something one wouldn't ordinarily do (hypocrisy).

***

It struck me as profound when I first encountered the quote. Of course, I was on drugs (often) during that time, so it appealed to my belief that I could still function while on drugs while still influenced by past, un-drugged experiences and upbringing. It also nicely fueled my narcissism, thinking I had a "first-rate" intelligence.

All in all, it seems nothing more than a shocker, devoid of real substance or precedent.

If we really wanted to examine the quote logically, we'd have to first determine what exactly is "a first-rate intelligence", if it even exists, and most importantly, why is this specific set of circumstances- holding two opposing ideas in one's mind at the same time, the test to prove its existance. Furthermore, wouldn't three opposing ideas be an even larger indicator of a first-rate intelligence?

***

As one gets older, one gets exposed to more and more opposing ideas, and in order to continue to function, which demands action of some sort, one must favor one idea over the other. This is called selling-out, compromising, or hypocrisy. I don't see how it could be called "the test of a first-rate intelligence", otherwise everyone over 40 would have a first-rate intelligence, and then what would be first-rate about it?

I have read both of these writers and even crossed Hemingway's path more than once. The idea is garbage; but the fact is all too common. When Fitz was showing was his respect for the upper crust of society who can mouth democratic or christian platitudes while cutting the guts out of both and feeding them to their dogs.

@hamletswords,

Yeah, Fitz was a putz.

@hamletswords,

I know nothing of a 'first rate intelligence', but I have experienced moments of so many perspectives that I could take no stance on the matter. Couldn't speak at all!
It seems that the more 'limited' one's perspective (knowledge/memory) on a matter, the more that one has to say about it.
Enough said.
*__-

@nameless,

Quote:

I know nothing of a 'first rate intelligence', but I have experienced moments of so many perspectives that I could take no stance on the matter. Couldn't speak at all!

If you couldn't speak, then you couldn't function, and therefore those moments of "so many perspectives" (i.e. high as hell) don't count as "first-rate intelligence".

Fido really hit the nail on the head with this thread. I can't think of a better way to put it.

I guess the way Fitz held the ideas of "writing well" (which normally includes exposing or highlighting injustice or otherwise unpleasant realities) and "serving the elite" (which normally includes ignoring the previous mentioned qualities and focusing on the better things in life) and still functioned (wrote a few novels in between his partying) kind of rubs me the wrong way.

@hamletswords,

hamletswords;7055 wrote:

If you couldn't speak, then you couldn't function, and therefore those moments of "so many perspectives" (i.e. high as hell) don't count as "first-rate intelligence".

I'm sure that any 'mute' people that read this will appreciate your comment.. *__-
Nonsense! Another cognitive fallacy; a non-sequitur.
If I can't speak at the moment, that equates, in your mind, that I can in no way 'function' (or is it simply my speech function that is momentarily nonfunctional... and is that worse than blathering from ignorance?)? It is hard to imagine that you, or about everyone else, has not experienced this phenomenon at least once. It cannot be that uncommon. How well does your excretory system 'function' while you sleep (on 'hold' I hope... nonfunctional). Our apparent 'functions' are very limited in any moment. One's thought process does not 'function' during meditation, yet one can go through the day 'functioning very nicely indeed.
So, you contend that one functions best with least perspective/knowledge/memory? I guess that there are moments where that might be true. You don't want a cop to be thinking too hard, or the perp wikk escape/kill him while lost in thought. Yes, it seems that no one is 'fully functional' in every moment. For a good reason, eh? I guess that you might have a very 'personal' understanding of 'function'.

In response to your comment; (i.e. high as hell), let me point out that:
"Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics, was under the influence of LSD when he first deduced the double-helix structure of DNA nearly 50 years ago." He said that it helped him to transcend his mundane mind and let his genius roam free. His friends knew, at the time, but the 'establishment' was no different then they are today; ossified, judgemental, entrenched fascista and he kept quiet... as did his druggie friends (fellow scientists and thinkers and artists..).
(see: Nobel Prize genius Crick was high on LSD
when he discovered the secret of life
By Alun Rees) Your judgemental attempt at discreditation only evidences your own ignorance on the 'place' of entheogens with what is accepted as 'creative genius'. If you feel that you might like to truly argue this point, I have a list of Nobel Prize winners and world class artists and thinkers that you might argue with first. Then, if you have any gas left, come back to me for another helping of 'crow'. *__-

" Again and again some people in the crowd wake up,
They have no ground in the crowd,
And they emerge according to much broader laws.
They carry strange customs with them
And demand room for bold gestures.
The future speaks ruthlessly through them."
 Rainer Maria Rilke

"Each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand mediocre minds appointed to guard the past."
-Maurice Maeterlinck

We can't all be 'first rate intelligences', eh? A mixed blessing at best...

@nameless,

Quote:

I'm sure that any 'mute' people that read this will appreciate your comment.. *__-

Typically, mute people are not temporarily verbally paralyzed from "so many perspectives". Generally, something is wrong with the wiring in their brain preventing ideas from translating to words. Fitz wasn't talking about them, he was talking about people who can care and not care at the same time.

Quote:

If I can't speak at the moment, that equates, in your mind, that I can in no way 'function' (or is it simply my speech function that is momentarily nonfunctional... and is that worse than blathering from ignorance?)?

Well, if you're operating a machine or something, I suppose you could "have so many perspectives" that you could function without communicating. You would probably turn the lever the wrong way, though.

Quote:

It is hard to imagine that you, or about everyone else, has not experienced this phenomenon at least once. It cannot be that uncommon. How well does your excretory system 'function' while you sleep (on 'hold' I hope... nonfunctional).

You seem to have absolutely no understanding of the meaning of Fitz's quote. He's not talking about separate organ functions, he's talking about general function of a human being in society while holding two opposing ideas in one's head.

Your points are really silly. I'm only rebutting them because I honestly think that you think they have some sort of merit.

Quote:

Our apparent 'functions' are very limited in any moment.

Not a general function. For Fitz, his function was "writer". Even when he's sleeping, he was still a writer. He needed to sleep some times so he could write at other times.

Quote:

One's thought process does not 'function' during meditation, yet one can go through the day 'functioning very nicely indeed.

You must have really uncomplicated days if you can go through the whole day meditating.

Quote:

So, you contend that one functions best with least perspective/knowledge/memory?

Who said that? You're the one that just said you could go through a day "nicely" while meditating.

Perspective, knowledge and memory are all important for functioning well. The tricky part, as Fritz points out, is if you have conflicting world-views (he was really talking about two opposing overall perspectives- imagine having your view of yourself, others and the world constantly being pulled from two opposite directions).

Quote:

I guess that there are moments where that might be true. You don't want a cop to be thinking too hard, or the perp wikk escape/kill him while lost in thought.

According to Fitz, if a cop believed in law and order and anarchy equally, at the same time, consistently, and still did his job, then this cop would have "first-rate intelligence". That's how I understand the quote, anyway.

A more complicated scenario would be if the cop believed something more general and less directly related to his job and still functioned, like "any actions harm others, and I don't want to harm others" and "actions are necessary to get things done, and I want to get things done." If a conflicted cop with these ideals still performed his job (function) well, then he'd be a first-rate intelligent guy.

Quote:

Yes, it seems that no one is 'fully functional' in every moment. For a good reason, eh? I guess that you might have a very 'personal' understanding of 'function'.

If you look at the big picture, everyone is fully functional all the time. It's just that some people's chosen or assigned functions are somewhat inglorious.

Like cogs in a great big scary machine that haunts your nightmares, we all function as part of this thing called humanity.

I have no idea what that "personal understanding of function I might have" meant.

Quote:

In response to your comment; (i.e. high as hell), let me point out that:
"Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics, was under the influence of LSD when he first deduced the double-helix structure of DNA nearly 50 years ago." He said that it helped him to transcend his mundane mind and let his genius roam free. His friends knew, at the time, but the 'establishment' was no different then they are today; ossified, judgemental, entrenched fascista and he kept quiet... as did his druggie friends (fellow scientists and thinkers and artists..).
(see: Nobel Prize genius Crick was high on LSD
when he discovered the secret of life
By Alun Rees) Your judgemental attempt at discreditation only evidences your own ignorance on the 'place' of entheogens with what is accepted as 'creative genius'.

Actually, it just seems I was right that you like to use drugs.

It's also not relevant to the thread, because Fitz wasn't talking about the effects of drugs on your perspective, he was talking about moral and ethical perspectives.

Quote:

Your judgemental attempt at discreditation only evidences your own ignorance on the 'place' of entheogens with what is accepted as 'creative genius'.

Creative people used drugs? I'm appalled! It's not relevant.

Quote:

Again and again some people in the crowd wake up,
They have no ground in the crowd,
And they emerge according to much broader laws.
They carry strange customs with them
And demand room for bold gestures.
The future speaks ruthlessly through them."
 Rainer Maria Rilke

"Each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand mediocre minds appointed to guard the past."
-Maurice Maeterlinck

I like the quotes. They're not relevant.

I'm not opposing you because the future is speaking ruthlessly through you. I'm opposing you in this thread because you're making bad arguments.

Quote:

We can't all be 'first rate intelligences', eh? A mixed blessing at best...

What is this supposed to mean?

@hamletswords,

hamletswords;7074 wrote:

nameless wrote:
:I'm sure that any 'mute' people that read this will appreciate your comment.. *__-

Typically, mute people are not temporarily verbally paralyzed from "so many perspectives".

Yet they function anyway, ability to speak or not.
Better to be 'verbally paralyzed' then to fill the soundscape with useless (other than to hear yourself talk.. ego) verbal diarrhea!

Quote:

Fitz wasn't talking about them, he was talking about people who can care and not care at the same time.

Is that what he told you personally? That is still, by the way, what I said. Two perspectives. Same moment. 'Function' goes on.

Quote:

Quote:If I can't speak at the moment, that equates, in your mind, that I can in no way 'function' (or is it simply my speech function that is momentarily nonfunctional... and is that worse than blathering from ignorance?)?

Well, if you're operating a machine or something, I suppose you could "have so many perspectives" that you could function without communicating. You would probably turn the lever the wrong way, though.

Nonsense. I can hold no thought at all and operate machinery. What you are saying makes no logical sense at all.

Quote:

Quote:It is hard to imagine that you, or about everyone else, has not experienced this phenomenon at least once. It cannot be that uncommon. How well does your excretory system 'function' while you sleep (on 'hold' I hope... nonfunctional).

You seem to have absolutely no understanding of the meaning of Fitz's quote. He's not talking about separate organ functions, he's talking about general function of a human being in society while holding two opposing ideas in one's head.

\
I do it all the time. You're full 'o gas!

Quote:

Quote:Our apparent 'functions' are very limited in any moment.

Not a general function. For Fitz, his function was "writer". Even when he's sleeping, he was still a writer. He needed to sleep some times so he could write at other times.

More nonsensical 'attachments'. When he is writing, he is a writer. When he is sleeping, he is a sleeper. Not a difficult concept. What sort of 'damaged brain' cannot understand this?

Quote:

Quote:So, you contend that one functions best with least perspective/knowledge/memory?

Who said that? You're the one that just said you could go through a day "nicely" while meditating.

What I said was that the more 'perspective' one has, the less verbose in defense of any one particular perspective one will be. Understand?

Quote:

Perspective, knowledge and memory are all important for functioning well.

Perspective=knowledge=memory

Quote:

The tricky part, as Fritz points out, is if you have conflicting world-views (he was really talking about two opposing overall perspectives- imagine having your view of yourself, others and the world constantly being pulled from two opposite directions).

Unless you have experience here, you are simply using idle speculation as a basis for argument. If you are really interested, ask someone who actually lives that life, and listen and perhaps gain a bit of 'perspective'. From this experience/perspective, your ill-informed opinion is no more than that. Tell me about France once you have been there. Get it?

Quote:

Quote:I guess that there are moments where that might be true. You don't want a cop to be thinking too hard, or the perp will escape/kill him while lost in thought.

According to Fitz, if a cop believed in law and order and anarchy equally, at the same time, consistently, and still did his job, then this cop would have "first-rate intelligence". That's how I understand the quote, anyway.

I understand that is how you interpret the quote.
I 'interpret' it as meaning that a first rate intelligence is the 'intelligence' that is capable of maintaining 'perspectives' of many shapes and flavors. A 'mediocre' intelligence is, therefore, one that is 'limited' to one single perspective.

Quote:

Quote:In response to your comment; (i.e. high as hell), let me point out that:
"Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics, was under the influence of LSD when he first deduced the double-helix structure of DNA nearly 50 years ago." He said that it helped him to transcend his mundane mind and let his genius roam free. His friends knew, at the time, but the 'establishment' was no different then they are today; ossified, judgemental, entrenched fascista and he kept quiet... as did his druggie friends (fellow scientists and thinkers and artists..).
(see: Nobel Prize genius Crick was high on LSD
when he discovered the secret of life
By Alun Rees) Your judgemental attempt at discreditation only evidences your own ignorance on the 'place' of entheogens with what is accepted as 'creative genius'.

Actually, it just seems I was right that you like to use drugs.

Actually, you display your third-rate intelligence by that remark. I never spoke personally, yet you seem to think that your dismissive attempted ad-hominem is sone sort of valid 'argument' or makes some sort of 'valid point', it does not.

Quote:

It's also not relevant to the thread, because Fitz wasn't talking about the effects of drugs on your perspective, he was talking about moral and ethical perspectives.

Ah, new additions in the equation. That won't save your spurious argument. Now you claim that he was speaking morally and ethically. More idle speculation? Care to link me to his actual words in (context) support of your assertion?
Nevertheless, my point remains valid and is supportable. You seem to be floundering and sputtering as if my perspective somehow threatens your 'beliefs'.
And I didn't bring up the pathetic drug reference, you were grasping for anything to float your ship of dreams, the drug reference fails.

Quote:

Quote:Again and again some people in the crowd wake up,
They have no ground in the crowd,
And they emerge according to much broader laws.
They carry strange customs with them
And demand room for bold gestures.
The future speaks ruthlessly through them."
 Rainer Maria Rilke

"Each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand mediocre minds appointed to guard the past."
-Maurice Maeterlinck

I like the quotes. They're not relevant.

Yes they are. They seem to refer to us.

Quote:

I'm not opposing you because the future is speaking ruthlessly through you. I'm opposing you in this thread because you're making bad arguments.

Actually, it is your fallacy filled and ignorant and unfocused arguments that fail here. It seems that you are arguing either for the sake of arguing (ego) or you are infected with a 'belief virus' that makes logical, rational discussion impossible.

Quote:

Quote:We can't all be 'first rate intelligences', eh? A mixed blessing at best...

What is this supposed to mean?

It means that if the ability of maintaining various perspectives at one time are said to be a sign of a first rate intelligence (not my words or concepts), then that would apply to me. You don't seem to be displaying the evidence that he says is indicative of 'first rate intelligence'.
Besides, he wasn't a 'philosopher or a scientist', he was (by profession) a novelist/artist, thats all, entitled to his perspectives and opinions of no more value (but to him) than anyone else's opinions.

An interesting and illustrative short essay on the nature of perspective(s);

The Illusion of Time
Rodger Stevens

Picture yourself standing on the curb, watching the traffic go by. The traffic which is presently before you is called the present . . . you can smell it, touch it, see it, hear it, and so on. You can see about a block in each direction, up and down the street. This narrow slice is called the present. The past is the traffic which has already disappeared down the street , and the traffic which has yet to appear up the street we'll call the future (to avoid needless confusion, we'll call it a one-way street, even though what we call time might run in both directions, and even at right angles). Compared to the past traffic (which has been going past for millennia) and the future traffic (likewise), our block-wide present doesn't look like much. Suppose further that as you are standing there, you hear a voice which says, "In about three minutes a green truck will come by." You look up the street, you don't see anything, but sure enough, in three or four minutes a green truck comes by. Amazing! You hear the voice again, and again you hear a prediction. You might freak out (if you are a fundamentalist), you might think it is magic, you might even set yourself up as a trance medium if you can get the voice to cooperate. In fact, though, it is only someone leaning out of a fourth story window over your head. From his position up there, your cosmic traffic announcer is looking at a present which is much wider than yours . . . from his higher perspective, his present includes part of what you call the past and the future; he is reading your future from his present.

The higher up the building you go, the more the past and future resolve themselves into the present. Going higher up in the building is raising your consciousness, which is the true meaning and intent of getting high. From the top of the building, you have raised your consciousness to the point where the so-called future and the so-called past have ceased to exist, and there is only the present. There never was anything but the infinite present, but from your incredibly limited perspective down on the street corner, you couldn't see much of it, so there appeared to be a past and a future.

I think that I am done with this particular discussion, as I have said what I have to say. You have your perspective, I have mine. I have stated mine and you don't seem to like it. Tough. You don't have to 'like it'. Go on to someone else's perspective that you feel more comfortable with and less contentious. I don't expect you to adopt my perspectives, I am simply here to share them. My words either have meaning to you or they dont. It matters not a whit to me, unless you desire to understand what I am saying, in which case I'd be happy to answer peaceful questions as best as I can. I am not here to argue. I am here to 'hone' my thoughts through intelligent lucid rational conversation and examination through critical thought(!), not a series of fallacy filled unpleasant argumentative 'conversations' salted with ad hominems and non-sequiturs. Truly?? You sound like either a fundamentalist, of some sort, or a 'materialist' (same thing), with neither of whom can I derive a peaceful rational conversation.
Perhaps another time...
As far as this goes,
I bid you good night and...
Peace

@nameless,

Quote:

Nonsense. I can hold no thought at all and operate machinery. What you are saying makes no logical sense at all.

The trick is operating machinery while believing you should and shouldn't at the same time equally.

Nobody said anything about holding no thoughts as a sign of intelligence (except the Buddhists).

Quote:

More nonsensical 'attachments'. When he is writing, he is a writer. When he is sleeping, he is a sleeper. Not a difficult concept. What sort of 'damaged brain' cannot understand this?

In the context of the quote, he's talking about functioning in society, not temporary micro-functions like sleeping or taking a dump. I know this not because he told me personally, but because the quote would be meaningless if he meant what you're talking about, and Fitz wasn't that bad of a writer.

Quote:

Perspective=knowledge=memory

Is there any room for outside present and continuous influence in that equation for perspective? In your case, it seems not.

Quote:

Quote:
The tricky part, as Fritz points out, is if you have conflicting world-views (he was really talking about two opposing overall perspectives- imagine having your view of yourself, others and the world constantly being pulled from two opposite directions).
Unless you have experience here

Yes, I have experience with the idea. That's why I'm interested in the quote. I actually used to really like the quote, as I mentioned, but now it seems full of shit to me. I'm trying to get some feedback on my new perspective, and I would like yours, but it has to actually be about the quote as written for it to be useful to me.

Btw, you don't need to live in France to be pulled by opposing perspectives (although Henry Miller did it much better than I or Fitz ever did).

Quote:

I understand that is how you interpret the quote.
I 'interpret' it as meaning that a first rate intelligence is the 'intelligence' that is capable of maintaining 'perspectives' of many shapes and flavors. A 'mediocre' intelligence is, therefore, one that is 'limited' to one single perspective.

Say, a perspective of "The way I see things is the only way that interests me and if you don't like it, tough?" or being "a-moral"? Those seem like single perspectives without much opposition.

I do agree with you in general- a person able to see multiple sides of things and still function is probably intelligent. But when two sides oppose, and one doesn't discount either of them, and still functions, well, that's something. Probably hypocrisy. That's what I'm trying to nail down. That's the quote.

You could make your own quote about seeing the world through multiple perspectives at all times and how that makes one intelligent, but it would be a different idea than Fitz's.

Quote:

Actually, you display your third-rate intelligence by that remark. I never spoke personally, yet you seem to think that your dismissive attempted ad-hominem is sone sort of valid 'argument' or makes some sort of 'valid point', it does not.

I guessed that your moments with "so many perspectives" came from using drugs, and stated it in a somewhat abrasive manner which would likely make you respond. You responded by presenting a well-circulated article about a scientist who had a revelation on LSD. This pretty much confirmed to me that you do drugs. I used to do drugs, too, it's not a problem, I just wanted to see if that's where the "so many perspectives" were coming from or if something else was going on.

If you want me to respond to the point you raised, I wonder what would've happened if Crick spent his pre-Helix-conceptualizing days doing lots of drugs instead of studying and working. My guess is, something alot less interesting. The "so many perspectives" probably would've hindered his functioning.

Quote:

Ah, new additions in the equation. That won't save your spurious argument. Now you claim that he was speaking morally and ethically. More idle speculation? Care to link me to his actual words in (context) support of your assertion?
Nevertheless, my point remains valid and is supportable. You seem to be floundering and sputtering as if my perspective somehow threatens your 'beliefs'.
And I didn't bring up the pathetic drug reference, you were grasping for anything to float your ship of dreams, the drug reference fails.

Yes, this thread truly is my ship of dreams.

For someone against sniping who later calls for a "peaceful discussion", you sure do partake in it often enough.

I suppose the moral and ethical implications of the quote are debatable, but if they aren't moral/ethical, then what are they? An orange is orange and an orange is not orange? I can think that and still function? That's not very profound.

***

Bottom line: the key words you refuse to acknowledge in the quote are "two" and "opposing". You keep ignoring them to fit your experience with "so many perspectives" which may or may not be oppositional and your idea that you are intelligent.

It's simply not the quote or what the thread is about. If you want to make your own thread about that idea, I promise to listen to what you have to say.

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

I know nothing of a 'first rate intelligence', but I have experienced moments of so many perspectives that I could take no stance on the matter. Couldn't speak at all!
It seems that the more 'limited' one's perspective (knowledge/memory) on a matter, the more that one has to say about it.
Enough said.
*__-

It is the same old dipdink Nietzsche used to ink: If you cannot dazzel them dimwitz, then baffel them with bulshit. If it slows people down enough to think that is a step in the right direction. But, if you think about a part of the stuff you can read as was once considered intelligent you have to wonder, -where was the brain behind that!

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Poetic Hypocrisy

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Poetic Hypocrisy

Quick Links

My Account

able2know