@HexHammer,
HexHammer wrote:
The Pentacle Queen wrote:Well since I majored in aesthetics I'm not going to deny the attraction to the 'beautiful' or even 'mental masturbation'. But I think you're missing the point.
If my posts are 'irrational' or full of pot holes then would you please point out said pot holes and critique them rather than just making a general offensive statement.
As far as I have seen, on this thread, you made one contribution at the beginning, which was a good 'factual' post description of different types of intelligence and then for the rest of it just tried to but heads with various people. You have demonstrated a preference for the 'factual' rather than philosophical in your posts, which I support, but you seem to be making an error in presuming that this constitutes rationality... it doesn't, it's just parrot-mouthed repetition. Rationality is the ability to construct logical arguments from given premises, not just cite the premises and call everyone else stupid.
I also think you are misguided on your concept of 'use'. What is useful? Was any of the work of any of the philosophers 'useful'? Does what they say become less profound if it is not useful? Is posting on A2K useful? Is posting facts from wikipedia onto A2K more useful than posting personal philosophical insights on A2K?
This is excatly why I ask you to point out where Cy' has made ANYTHING useful.
Quote:Rationality is the ability to construct logical arguments from given premises, not just cite the premises and call everyone else stupid.
This is where you are utterly wrong, along with so many other mastubational philosophers who refuse to see rationallity. It is "
to construct USEFUL arguments from given premises".
Now I ask again, please point out where Cy' has made anything useful that can be of any use in the real world, other than serve as mere mental mastrubation.
Please don't dodge my simple question with absurd counter attacks, I ask a VERY simple question which should be easily satisfyed.
I hardly think I am being 'hysterical'.
No, you're just looking for a black and white answer from me, and are choosing to take my lack of presenting you with one as something it is not.
I think the 'use' of Cy's posts in relevance to me is evident when you see that I am only following 4 or 5 people on here, of which he is one. Cy's posts are useful for me because in my opinion he has the ability to express penetrating insights in extremely concise statements.
When he defined intelligence as 'the process of creating one's own reality' (was it exactly that?) he was doing that and only that, offering a plausible definition, definitions being general in their nature. If you look at your above statements you will see that each of them can be reduced to Cy's basic observation; you offered a more complete, expansive, and equally good answer through catergorisation.
As for any other concept of use, you must be clearer on what you consider 'useful' because I feel the word is being used pretty subjectively. Spinoza was a rationalist, but does that make his work 'useful'? It didn't help feed the poor or put the kids to bed or find a cure for cancer.
Do you mean, by 'use', that the subclauses of an argument should bear logical relation to the larger architecture of ideas and wind up with some kind of 'conclusion'? Because if you are, yes I agree this is how rational arguments work, but we were not talking of arguments, the topic is called 'define intelligence'. And also, if you are talking of 'use' in this sense, I didn't see your post exhibit that structure either, it just listed some types of intelligence.
I really fear Hex is displaying the same amount of despair that I feel when I read posts from people like Mark Noble.
