I don't like the concept of "intelligent" or for that matter, "dumb" and the like.
I don't like it because it's a relative term. It's not like being "black" or "white" because those are definite independent states. Being "intelligent" is like being "bright" or "dim". The term is relative because there is a comparison being made. If something is "bright" it is "bright" compared to its surroundings; something by itself cannot be "bright" or "dim", nor "smart" or "stupid".
There can't really be a "black" or "white" (extremes) made from the ideas of intelligent or stupid. Actually, "black" could maybe be something that cannot be classified as intelligent because it doesn't think (i.e. independent of the concept altogether.. e.g. inanimate or dead), but there's nothing that can be considered white. True "white" would mean infinite intelligence, a point where it is just as beyond the concept of intelligence as something that is dead or inanimate.
As with how our eyes see light, there isn't really an ultimate "white". White-painted walls aren't absolute white, because they are dependent on the room's lighting. Even a lit florescent light bulb isn't the brightest it could be if compared to another, more intense, source. A blinding light could conceivably be outdone by a yet more intense light, and so on. And even a "white" light bulb wouldn't be considered "bright" if the only two shades available to the viewer were it and a more intense and blinding light source.
I don't like this comparison (measures of intelligence), furthermore, because we don't have the ability to accurately assess such a characteristic. We could perhaps go as far as to determine that one person is capable of assessing something more quickly than another, but the speed at which it is i done is irrelevant in general practice. The resulting ideas are what are valued, not the minute (I hate homonyms.. I mean 'small') differences in how long it took them to be had.
I think everyone has the capacity to make any judgment that can popularly be seen as conceived by "strokes of genius". It's just that not everyone has the proper experiences to cause them to narrow in on those areas and the interest and devotion to follow through with them. Generally, I believe that great strides the sciences and philosophy are a product of circumstance and intellectual work ethic, not intellectual superiority.
I don't like it because it's a relative term. It's not like being "black" or "white" because those are definite independent states. Being "intelligent" is like being "bright" or "dim". The term is relative because there is a comparison being made. If something is "bright" it is "bright" compared to its surroundings; something by itself cannot be "bright" or "dim", nor "smart" or "stupid".
There can't really be a "black" or "white" (extremes) made from the ideas of intelligent or stupid. Actually, "black" could maybe be something that cannot be classified as intelligent because it doesn't think (i.e. independent of the concept altogether.. e.g. inanimate or dead), but there's nothing that can be considered white. True "white" would mean infinite intelligence, a point where it is just as beyond the concept of intelligence as something that is dead or inanimate.
As with how our eyes see light, there isn't really an ultimate "white". White-painted walls aren't absolute white, because they are dependent on the room's lighting. Even a lit florescent light bulb isn't the brightest it could be if compared to another, more intense, source. A blinding light could conceivably be outdone by a yet more intense light, and so on. And even a "white" light bulb wouldn't be considered "bright" if the only two shades available to the viewer were it and a more intense and blinding light source.
I don't like this comparison (measures of intelligence), furthermore, because we don't have the ability to accurately assess such a characteristic. We could perhaps go as far as to determine that one person is capable of assessing something more quickly than another, but the speed at which it is i done is irrelevant in general practice. The resulting ideas are what are valued, not the minute (I hate homonyms.. I mean 'small') differences in how long it took them to be had.
I think everyone has the capacity to make any judgment that can popularly be seen as conceived by "strokes of genius". It's just that not everyone has the proper experiences to cause them to narrow in on those areas and the interest and devotion to follow through with them. Generally, I believe that great strides the sciences and philosophy are a product of circumstance and intellectual work ethic, not intellectual superiority.
No comments:
Post a Comment