GENIUS FORUMS

What's a 'henid'.

Kevin posted a definition on his website. There's a link to it somewhere around here.

My greatest worry is his suicide. Genius is as genius does.

Were you not just preaching on the merits of rising above your own ego? Worry is really quite egotistical. If the man had no value to you by virtue of his suicide, why do you worry about his suicide and how it might affect others?

I mean intellectual/spiritual and not physical.

So, I repeat the question, what relationship does your recommendation of starting a charity (a physical activity), etc., have to higher consciousness?

Unidian wrote:About what? The stench that is Weininger? I'd be offended, too. In fact, I am.

I lost my Secret Enlightenment Decoder Ring the other day. I think it fell in the drain. Would you happen to have a pipe snake handy?

I don't think a pipe snake would sufficient for the cause. Something caustic, perhaps?

Why do I care what Dan thinks of Weininger? As if he, or anyone apart from my own thoughts and reasoning, should be the authority?

Is there something specific to Weininger you'd like to argue aside from sharing your assertion that he stinks?

Is there something specific to Weininger you'd like to argue aside from sharing your assertion that he stinks?

No, except to mention that he also stole my bike.

Leyla wrote:Kevin posted a definition on his website. There's a link to it somewhere around here.

That's not very helpful. Can I get a new research assistant?

Were you not just preaching on the merits of rising above your own ego? Worry is really quite egotistical. If the man had no value to you by virtue of his suicide, why do you worry about his suicide and how it might affect others?

Not preaching, just suggesting. Worry is egotistical? How so? The man brings his own philosophy and transcendence into disrepute by his final act.

So, I repeat the question, what relationship does your recommendation of starting a charity (a physical activity), etc., have to higher consciousness?

Relationships with others. Doing things for others. Joining the fray.

“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving” Einstein

There are different ways of "joining the fray." One thing I find interesting is the tendency for people to bash QRS and others for "retreating from the world" and such. Do these people somehow fail to note the existence of the very forum they are posting on?

There are several legitimate and serious criticisms to be made of the QRS approach. However, chiding them to "join the fray" and such is simply not one of them. They are involved in the fray in at deepest level - the level of ideas. That's where all the action is, and it's where everything else comes from. If one wants to contribute to change and progress, there's no better way to do it than to get involved in examining the beliefs, values, and ideas that inform human behavior.

Ironically enough, many of the people who criticize QRS and others involved in full-time intellectual activities are not involved in "the fray" to any significant extent themselves. Flipping a hamburger, pushing a pen, or turning a screw most of the day means very little. People who spend their lives doing such things are barely even involved in the whole human saga. Where it concerns progress, they barely exist. The realm of ideas, values, and beliefs is where everything significant has its source.

The title itself frames the discussion in an insulting way. "Self-indulgence" implies that anyone who stays unemployed to pursue philosophy might as well be sitting around whacking off all day.

Yep.

The implication is that pursuing intellectual activities full-time is self-centered, wasteful, egotistical, etc. It's a product of the deep-rooted anti-intellectualism in popular culture. The thought never occurs that those who pursue philosophy might be motivated by a desire to find out what is wrong with this world and how to fix it. Only hamburger flippers and pencil pushers can do that, in their strange worldview.

Unidian wrote:The thought never occurs that those who pursue philosophy might be motivated by a desire to find out what is wrong with this world and how to fix it. Only hamburger flippers and pencil pushers can do that, in their strange worldview.

The problem is that your average working class citizen has the expectation that it's heroes should be able to make a living writing books and getting elected into positions of power.

North American culture, despite what we might consider it's anti-intellectual tendencies, does tend to fund intellectual/moral heroes. (e.g., the Noam Chomsky's, Alan Watt's, the Einstein's, the Martin Luther King's, etc)

Being a revolutionary, historically, is often an enterprise supported by winning the affection of an audience, selling books, gaining positions, or, in Kierkegaard's and Schopenhauer's case, inheriting wealth.

Society doesn't fund Noam Chomsky. He works as a professor, and he has deep misgivings about it due to his deep mistrust of the academic community. However, it is the only job available to him that allows him to pursue his philosophical work nearly full-time. I have a feeling that if a guaranteed minimum income existed, Noam Chomsky would be one of the first in line.

Tomas wrote:the able-bodied adult who would rather consider themself a victim of "socialist society" has no one to blame but themself for their predicament.

I don't and never have considered myself a victim, I make the best of my circumstances and blame nobody for any misfortune that falls my way. Still that doesn't mean I or anyone else should feel obligated to "do their fair share" in the mindless and insane game the human race plays. Participating in this society requires that you sacrifice your soul to the collective unconscious of society, and if you don't want to participate in it then you should receive adequate compensation to maintain a humble lifestyle. Of course for you, Mr. Tank, and the rest of society to actually understand this POV you would have to actually be able to place yourself in this mindset, which is impossible because that would mean you wouldn't be as insane as you are and there's a good chance we wouldn't have this problem to begin with.

Also, you and Unidian are both are guilty of only seeing the small picture with the problem of socialism. There is in fact an entire causal web of destruction and negative effects it produces which I can't even begin to explain without making a lesson out of it. So I'll have to leave it here for now.

Unidian wrote:Guys, Weininger stinks. Seriously.

Ask Dan. He doesn't care about Weininger, either.

To be clear: I am not as big a fan of Otto as Kevin, but it's not true to say I don't care about him (in the end one can dispense with any past philosopher in one's quest for philosophical understanding). Weininger certainly doesn't stink - "stink" is not an argument. And his suicide is rather unimportant, frankly.

L: Kevin posted a definition on his website. There's a link to it somewhere around here.

b: That's not very helpful. Can I get a new research assistant?

Nope, sorry. I have decided that since you joined the forum the day after Christmas, there is no hope for you. Alternatively, you can attempt to find my very last post (before this one, that is) for the link.

L; Were you not just preaching on the merits of rising above your own ego? Worry is really quite egotistical. If the man had no value to you by virtue of his suicide, why do you worry about his suicide and how it might affect others?

b: Not preaching, just suggesting. Worry is egotistical? How so? The man brings his own philosophy and transcendence into disrepute by his final act.

Wait a minute. I’m just not seeing the connections between your thoughts. If the man brings his philosophy and transcendence into disrepute by his final act, what the heck is there to worry about? Are you saying you’re worried about his reputation?

L: So, I repeat the question, what relationship does your recommendation of starting a charity (a physical activity), etc., have to higher consciousness?

b: Relationships with others. Doing things for others. Joining the fray.

I think you have sufficient replies to consider already. I’ll watch for your response to them.

b: “Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving” Einstein

Again, I fail to see how this follows. Are your thoughts as I see them---disjointed---or am I missing something that’s already there?

Regarding Weininger:

"Stinks" represents my view that he is dated, misogynistic, self-loathing, and an intellectual lightweight. I saw nothing in Sex & Character to indicate that this guy was slaying dragons. I did see some rather transparent conceits intended to give that impression, but Weininger fails to deliver the substance needed to carry them off. Instead, he criticizes femininity owing to a rather obvious resentment of his own effeminate bearing, and he criticizes the Jews owing to a rather obvious rejection of his own Jewishness. While such otherwise base psychological motivations can in some cases fuel great work, I don't think that was the case with Weininger. Rather, he was a deeply neurotic man who made an attempt to rationalize his neuroses by applying his considerable intellect to philosophy. And that's not even to mention some of the laughable empirical proclamations he made.

In other words, he stinks.

And his suicide is rather unimportant, frankly.

I disagree. Suicide is a matter of character, and since that was part of the title of Weininger's book, he can be held responsible for defaulting on own potential and robbing the world (Kevin excepted) of any substantive contribution he might have made. I'm pretty sure I've been every bit as suicidal as Weininger on certain occasions. And yet, I don't consider it an option. I have chosen to believe that I have a duty and a responsibility to stick around and play whatever small part I can play. Weininger didn't have the guts to do that. He bailed out, and that's why his suicide is relevant to me.

Unidian wrote:Regarding Weininger:

"Stinks" represents my view that he is dated, misogynistic, self-loathing, and an intellectual lightweight. I saw nothing in Sex & Character to indicate that this guy was slaying dragons. I did see some rather transparent conceits intended to give that impression, but Weininger fails to deliver the substance needed to carry them off. Instead, he criticizes femininity owing to a rather obvious resentment of his own effeminate bearing, and he criticizes the Jews owing to a rather obvious rejection of his own Jewishness. While such otherwise base psychological motivations can in some cases fuel great work, I don't think that was the case with Weininger. Rather, he was a deeply neurotic man who made an attempt to rationalize his neuroses by applying his considerable intellect to philosophy. And that's not even to mention some of the laughable empirical proclamations he made.

In other words, he stinks.

Fucking postmodernism! You call that critical analysis??

PS: I suggest you review your definition of "critical."

Re: Bill's original post. I don't believe Bill's effort is even worth addressing seriously. What is one supposed to do with mindless caricatures like:

If higher consciousness means sitting around on hard mats, sipping black tea and admiring each others sandals and beards, then count me out.

There's nothing one can do with that sort of insipidity.

Leyyyyyla (got me on my knees, beggin darlin please),

Fucking postmodernism! You call that critical analysis??

PS: I suggest you review your definition of "critical."

LOL...

I'm pretty sure my toenails know more about critical thinking than you do, dear. But suit yourself, and don't forget to call me a misogynist for saying "dear." I'd hate to set that up and have the bait just hang out there in the breeze.

I'm pretty sure my toenails know more about critical thinking than you do, dear. But suit yourself, and don't forget to call me a misogynist for saying "dear." I'd hate to set that up and have the bait just hang out there in the breeze.

Then maybe, sweetcheeks, for all of our sakes, you ought to let your toenails do the posting to the forum instead of your--well . . .

Oh, so you have a thing for my toenails, eh? I should have known. No, I won't let you collect them in a jar. That's just gross.

Nick Treklis wrote:Also, you and Unidian are both are guilty of only seeing the small picture with the problem of socialism. There is in fact an entire causal web of destruction and negative effects it produces which I can't even begin to explain without making a lesson out of it. So I'll have to leave it here for now.

Heh, the old conservative saw that welfare will ruin society as a whole. I've read enough of those criticisms that I think I can sum them up pretty well:

1. Welfare diminishes the disparity in standard of living between those who work and those who do nothing, which causes fewer people to want to work. As fewer people work, more taxes are needed to support the increased number of people on welfare. These heavier taxes mean less income for those who work, hence they further diminish the monetary difference between working and not working, which causes yet more people to quit work, ad infinitum.

2. In the case of old age pensions, the welfare system (by providing "free" money) effectively encourages people to stop working as early as possible, and makes less serious the problem of caring for parents (and others) in their old age. This means that relations between the generations tend to deteriorate, since it's easier to ignore family ties if you think that they'll never be necessary for anyone's survival.

3. The welfare system provides more money to single parents than to wedded or coupled parents, thus subsidizing the creation of single-parent homes and further weakening families.

4. By giving money to those with incapacitating physical or mental conditions, welfare encourages people to fabricate illnesses or exaggerate the seriousness of existing illnesses in the hope of receiving free money. This puts a strain on the medical system, which necessitates still-higher taxes, leading to more of the effects noted in (1).

5. The weakening of the family in (2) and (3) leads to a host of effects, but one of the worst is misbehaved children who grow up undisciplined (because of lack of parental attention), doing poorly in school and slowing everyone else down, eventually dropping out, and often becoming criminals.

6. Because welfare takes up the slack in caring for the sick, disabled, and aged, people no longer have to deal with dependents as frequently or directly as they once did. This leads them to develop a selfish attitude, since they think that when somebody needs help, "the government" will provide the necessary cash and care. It leads to a lack of initiative on the part of individuals to be charitable in their personal lives because everything is already supposedly being provided by welfare.

7. By giving aid to drug addicts and others whose "disorder" consists of nothing but poor behavior, welfare effectively encourages such behavior. Any plan of action involves a cost-benefit analysis; addiction becomes a less dangerous prospect if you offer aid to anyone whose drug-taking leads to ill-health, rather than merely leaving him to clean up his own life and pay for his mistakes.

8. To sum it up, government aid decreases the disincentive to engage in the bad behaviors that lead people to become poor or stay poor. Things that would normally result in poverty (or perpetuate poverty), like wasteful spending, drug addiction, apathy toward one's own education, and plain laziness, become less dangerous (and thus more attractive) when people have the "cushion" of welfare to fall back on.

Is that something like what you had in mind?

Aaaaargh... hehe.

In my view, the bearer of a superior intellect has a responsibility not to use his powers for eeeeeeevil, even for the sake of argument. I wouldn't be surprised to see that list copied to some conservative site, where it would be eaten up with extra Worcestershire sauce.

Well-summarized, though. You've clearly been paying attention to their rebuttals.

No, actually. I don't have a problem with welfare specifically, as I've defended it many times here already. Even though I work a tax paying job I still have no problem with people receiving money from the state through welfare or some other means. I even encourage it to an extent being that I see it as a from of civil disobedience or protest against the status quo. Socialism is what I have a problem with and how it is fundamentally unethical and leads to an array of causal factors that all work to bring down society. I'm really starting to get tempted to type up a detailed explanation as to why this is the case, but before I do that let me say this. Socialism is the rule of the old world, only in the past 250 or so years have we really began to experiment with capitalism, the free market, and individual rights and property as a whole, and look how far we have come in such a short time. We have made more progress in the past 200 years than we've made in all of history combined, and this is still only the tip of the ice-berg. It's no coincidence that this has occurred the same time Liberty and Individual Freedom was brought into the equation. Now we are once again moving back to the ways of the old world and soon enough we will end up in the same circumstances our fore-fathers fought so hard to escape.

Okay. What do you mean by "socialism," then? Nationalization of industries? Things like labor laws?

A lot of people use "socialism" to label any system that includes welfare, which I think is kind of inaccurate, since it's possible for a country to have a generous welfare system and otherwise be very unregulated and capitalistic.

Nick "Ron Paul" Treklis,

Hmm. Since nothing resembling socialism as it is defined by economists and philosophers existed until 1789 (and the term itself was not coined until 1834), how do you figure socialism is "the way of the old world?" Wouldn't it be more likely that feudalism (the direct ancestor of capitalism) would fit that description?

Methinks someone is making arse-derived proclamations (and no, it ain't me).

In my view socialism occurs when government employs a system of taxation and redistribution.