Are you an out-of-the-box thinker?

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

I'm just a little surprised that you would attach to Eric Hoffer. He certainly was a social conservative applauded by the likes of Ronald Reagan and Thomas Sowell. Ah well, not that much surprises me anymore.

Hell, I am a revolutionary and a conservative... This is America, and the ultimate conservative value is revolution when necessary to assure human rights.. Hoffer had lived through too much history to be idealistic, and so have I... I remember watching the show rivited to every word, and my father who was no dumbell by any means said it was all bullshit... Maybe he knew more about the guy's politics than I, but he was a philosopher, like other Americans such as Mark Twain or Abe Lincoln, able to find the deeper meaning in the written word, and gifted with a sensitive observation of human nature... I remember to this day his contradiction of another's statement about hope... His conclusion was that hope was like a balloon, and when one pops, we inflate another... It presents a problem for those seeking social change, that people grasp at any hope false or full in order to avoid taking matters into their own hands, and changing their forms... Jefferson talked of the natural reluctance (conservativism) of people in regard to their forms...And you see that as our social forms fail us that many retreat into older social forms like religion that failed former generations of mankind rather than putting on a brave face, and grabbing history by the balls...

2 Replies

@Fido,

I would opine that Hoffer was the result of a combination of factors. (1) he was self-educated (2) he was a blue-collar worker (3) he was literate (4) He was articulate (5)he was anti-communist (6) He was writing in the 50's. This combination of factors led to him being adopted by the "intelligentsia" in much the same manner as Ayn Rand. If I remember correctly, he was provided an office at UC Berkley. When I first read him (True Believers) I was rather neutral as to his social philosophy as I was to Bill Buckley III as I was, at the time active in social reform (specifically in the rights of the workers in the Bracero program) and, later, the civil rights movement. let's just say Hoffer and I were on different pages re humanistic philosophy.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

I would opine that Hoffer was the result of a combination of factors. (1) he was self-educated (2) he was a blue-collar worker (3) he was literate (4) He was articulate (5)he was anti-communist (6) He was writing in the 50's. This combination of factors led to him being adopted by the "intelligentsia" in much the same manner as Ayn Rand. If I remember correctly, he was provided an office at UC Berkley. When I first read him (True Believers) I was rather neutral as to his social philosophy as I was to Bill Buckley III as I was, at the time active in social reform (specifically in the rights of the workers in the Bracero program) and, later, the civil rights movement. let's just say Hoffer and I were on different pages re humanistic philosophy.

I may be on a different page from him too, for all I know... I am anti idealistic... What ever forms people come up with have got to fit them, and they should not be forced to fit the form... And, I am sort of self educated as well; enough so that I have reached a few of my own conclusions, right or wrong... Perhaps I would have benefited from a formal education... I got the only education I could afford...

0 Replies

well fido, I thank you for keeping this thread a discussion, I find discussions to be a learning experience. unfortunately many people have a need to be right more than they have a need to express opinions in an honest dialogue.

0 Replies

@Fido,

If my memory is still intact, I recall the conservatism in his time (and mine) was very different from today's conservatism. Now it's all about taxes and unfettered capitalism---all about money, and social and christian religious ideology.

I liked Eric Hoffer's down-to-earth non-elitist style of presenting his philosophy. His books were wonderfully easy to understand and relate to for all people. While I listed to his broadcasts I would argue back with some of his opinions in my usual questioning pattern. I didn't agree with some of his theories but I had great respect for him anyway.

BBB

1 Reply

@BumbleBeeBoogie,

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

If my memory is still intact, I recall the conservatism in his time (and mine) was very different from today's conservatism. Now it's all about taxes and unfettered capitalism---all about money, and social and christian religious ideology.

I liked Eric Hoffer's down-to-earth non-elitist style of presenting his philosophy. His books were wonderfully easy to understand and relate to for all people. While I listed to his broadcasts I would argue back with some of his opinions in my usual questioning pattern. I didn't agree with some of his theories but I had great respect for him anyway.

BBB

Heidegger should have taught the world of philosophers about weighing in on political matters...Philosophy gains nothing by it and politics gains all... And I talk about politics in a general fashion... Humanity being what it is gives me no reason to recomend one bum over any other...

1 Reply

@Fido,

A very long time ago I discovered that my middle name must be "why?"

BBB

0 Replies

Why the romance with being out of the box?
The box exists because people in general are comfortable there.

I think it it has everything to do with the internal struggle between our need to belong and our need to transcend.

2 Replies

@GoshisDead,

Out-of-the-box thinking often results in solutions rather than not knowing how to resolve.

For example, the famous story of a young boy who watched a truck that had entered a tunnel too low to allow it to clear the top of the truck and it was stuck. The police and firemen arrived, shaking their heads about a way to free the truck without damaging the tunnel. People crowded around, trying to suggest ways to free the truck, but nothing worked. Then the little boy went up to a policeman and suggested "why don't you reduce the air in the truck's tires?" The policeman looked at the little boy and smiled. They reduce the truck's tires and the truck was freed.

That's out-of-the-box thinking.

BBB

BBB

1 Reply

@BumbleBeeBoogie,

Yes I understand what out of the box thinking is. Normally it comes down to the uncommon recognition of a common sense solution. I am broaching the question of why is it romanticized.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

interesting thoughts, seems like a majority of people really need to be "in the box" of social acceptance while at the same time want to think of themselves as "not thinking like everyone else" thus "individualism" becomes a facade, a gilding on the base of conformity. "I'm just like everyone else except I'm different."

2 Replies

@dyslexia,

What you said is pretty much what I think. Maybe it came about with real self awareness. We have a biological social drive but a feeling of aloneness because we can abstractly preform introspection.

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

Yes I understand what out of the box thinking is. Normally it comes down to the uncommon recognition of a common sense solution. I am broaching the question of why is it romanticized.

It really is an intelligence test... My kid gave me a book of games for the super intelligence, riddles and challenging problems... Some times I do okay, and sometimes the most obvious solution escapes me... I have never approached a difficult job without thinking there must be an easier way and usally I have found something to help... What do you do when you get a job that is 100% bull work, and you find no other way than to put lots of grunt on it and get it done??? Sometimes there is no easy way and if there was your momma would be doing it...

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

interesting thoughts, seems like a majority of people really need to be "in the box" of social acceptance while at the same time want to think of themselves as "not thinking like everyone else" thus "individualism" becomes a facade, a gilding on the base of conformity. "I'm just like everyone else except I'm different."

Individualism is a cruel myth used to deny people the support of their communities and leave them open to victimization... We are told we are individuals, and we are different, but primitives -thinking they were all alike actually expressed their differences as we fear to do... We think we are different, and we all buy off the rack... We all ape the behavior of the rich and stupid... We all follow the party line...

Is our individualism enough to justify our empowering of law and the disempowering of families and communities... Why is it that law says we are all individuals, individually responsible for our actions, and yet if found guilty, no degree of guilt is considered, and one penalty fits all... And why does law not protect communities from the responsibility for their members when they have no power... A fraction of blacks are criminals and the whole group suffers and law does nothing even though they have no power over their own... The whole nonsense does not work...

0 Replies

@Fido,

I was an Iron worker in local 25 in the early 80's and I heard numerous stories about Hacksaw Smitty. Was he a real person? If half of what I heard about him was true he must has been quite a character. I heard he got the name hacksaw because he saved a trapped man by cutting his leg off with a hacksaw!

0 Replies

Is anyone here good at chess problem solving?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Probably everyone who plays chess will answer yes to that question.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Hardly the point of the question.

Though, as an aside, the the vast majority of people who play chess only for fun would be much less proficient than a club player at chess problem solving. There's a ratings system that helps determine such. Hard to hide from such.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Well, It's been some time since I've played. What's your problem?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

You haven't thought beyond the obvious before responding. Would I really want just a 'yes I'm good' answer to the question I asked? Why then would I ask such a question? How does my question relate to the thread (and it does relate)?

In such a case, in responding how you did, there's little that can be said other than 'that's hardly the point of the question'. The rest was a correction to 'everyone who played chess would answer yes'.

2 Replies

Are you an out-of-the-box thinker?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know