GENIUS FORUMS

I read some of the posts on here, and I find them difficult to understand, either because they are complex, poetic, failing to give links, just don't make sense, missing foundations, or using words that I am not familiar with.

Can we live without heavy reading?

Is it more intelligent to write text in a simplifie manner?

Is it better to write for Dummies?

Or should the dummies catch up with the literature?

My thinking on this is that it is hard to always link to other websites all of the time. However, it does take more effort to put something into a simple form. If I want somebody to totally understand something that I have written, I take a long time to get the words right. Does this mean that, because I take longer to get the words as simple as possible, that simple text for Dummies is actually using up more of my intelligence than posting something that is heavy reading? Afterall, the universe is very simple, it built itself, you have simple rules to work with. Yet to explain, and prove the universe, there are complex sets of mathematics required. Can the math's be simplified, and because it is going to be difficult to simplify the math's, that the simplified math's are actually written by a more intelligent person? Is that maybe what Philosophy is?

Just some thoughts.

By the way.. I like the way that Kevin Solway writes...

http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/poison.html

I found it interesting, and a very easy read. I might not completely agree with everything however. I found it sooo close to the truth, but I was concerned that because it is almost right, that somebody might mistake it for perfectly right.

There is merit to being able to write simply, but I also have no sympathy for people who are unwilling to work for truth. If you want to have the hardest thing to obtain, why would you also want it to be easy?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:There is merit to being able to write simply, but I also have no sympathy for people who are unwilling to work for truth. If you want to have the hardest thing to obtain, why would you also want it to be easy?

Because there is too much information for me to store if I want to get a very complete picture of everything. I need to store everything away as simplified as possible. Could be just a lack of brain cells in my case, not sure, but I do have a lot of simple knowledge stored away... I believe.

That should be a good reason to break everything down to "true" and "not true". Then you don't need a million categories.

Maybe, if you are interested in ethics, you could add a few more, like "ought to be".

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:That should be a good reason to break everything down to "true" and "not true". Then you don't need a million categories.

Maybe, if you are interested in ethics, you could add a few more, like "ought to be".

You should forget about that True/False method. It is way worse than storing at least some of the random information. That is probably why you are still hooked on the same topic. You have no new random place to go.

Don't take it as an insult by the way. I am just making an observation. Thinking more. I probably triggered your response like a CAUSE.

Random information? Why would I need that? I can't act on random information. It stores itself against my will, and usually -- when I do request it -- it fits in some strange category of "unable to know whether this or true or false, therefore completely unhelpful."

Although I have no reason to go in the same direction I've always gone in, I also have no reason to go in a random direction. Novelty by itself is not a reason.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:There is merit to being able to write simply, but I also have no sympathy for people who are unwilling to work for truth. If you want to have the hardest thing to obtain, why would you also want it to be easy?

Why do think truth is the hardest thing to obtain? Why would you want finding truth to be hard? Masochism? For me, the ease or difficulty in finding truth is not the point, the real point is simply to find it.

Jason,

Why do think truth is the hardest thing to obtain?

There isn't a paycheck, but "philosopher" is more intellectually taxing than "lawyer".

And even if it were hard to obtain, why would you still not prefer if it were eary to obtain?

I like challenges. Had I known the truth at the outset, I would not have had any reason to search for it. If it looked like I only needed to reach out my hand and grab it, there would be no reason to search for it. Only when truth seemed distant -- that is to say, difficult -- did it ever seem enticing.

For someone who has recently proclaimed their amazing passion for truth/reality in another post, I find your comments here to be rather odd.

Halcyon days are never as golden as I'd like to pretend they are. This "amazing passion for truth" is -- truth be told -- boring, and when it's not boring, it's offensive. If it somehow manages to avoid being both boring and offensive, it makes little girls cry.

Socrates must have spent his days in constant boredom because he didn't feel like working. That's the only explanation.

Why would you want finding truth to be hard? Masochism?

Yes, masochism. And a bit of envy. Perhaps some arrogance. Some sadism, as well.... Quite a lot of human foibles go into producing a philosopher. Usually the worst of them.

Does anybody want to play a game of chess?

TheChessPlayer wrote:you can't find a genius unless he reveals his talent its quite simple.

But is his talent that he is able to make the complex sound simple. or is his talent that he can write out a complex structure, and expect you to understand it?

Pincho Paxton wrote:

TheChessPlayer wrote:you can't find a genius unless he reveals his talent its quite simple.

But is his talent that he is able to make the complex sound simple. or is his talent that he can write out a complex structure, and expect you to understand it?

As I am sure you are aware, the act of understanding is not a passive one, but requires some effort on our part; for we must construct new concepts from those concepts which are already present in our memories. Often, and especially in metaphysics, we find it difficult to understand what is being said, because we lack a fundamental understanding of the technical terms that are being employed, and so we substitute the more general meaning of the term in its place. This is especially true of such terms as ‘existence’, ‘entity’, ‘real’, ‘absolute’, ‘relative’, ‘essence’, ‘element’; just to name a few. If we enter into a metaphysical enquiry, without a thorough understanding of the technical meanings of such metaphysical terms, we are bound to have great difficulty understanding precisely what the speaker is trying to convey, and precision is of the utmost importance in such enquiries; for the point that the speaker is attempting to make may be very subtle.

Chess,

you can't find a genius unless he reveals his talent its quite simple.

It goes without saying that the genius needs to express himself in the first place to be measured at all.

But I think the question is whether you can judge the quality of genius by the style of writing -- the relationship between talent and genius.