IQ (moved subtopic)
^^Hey Luciom, can you remind me again how smart JD Vance is? Above, same, or below the average MAGA chode?
I have no problem with schools using affirmative action to help people like Vance with humble backgrounds.... but maybe not in law school where these idiots start becoming dangerous. And they got to find smarter people then Vance or the whole thing just looks ridiculous and all you're doing is de-valuing your own department.
grizy is a cult member, i wouldn't put too much weight into his opinion of anything
Obeying someone against your will = slavery
Voluntarily agreeing to slavery is still slavery.
Achieving greatness requires you to acknowledge the choice between two wills and to identify with the oppressed will over the dominant will.
I'd like to delve into this a little more. Could you please expound on the mechanics of voluntarily doing something against your will? I'd like to know more about the oppressed will and the dominant will.
I'd like to delve into this a little more. Could you please expound on the mechanics of voluntarily doing something against your will? I'd like to know more about the oppressed will and the dominant will.
The dominant will actualizes itself automatically / unconsciously. The oppressed will requires conscious intervention / identification.
Of course, the oppressed will must get the upper hand occasionally. Otherwise, the conscious self would never have the opportunity to identify with it and enter into slavery. The oppressed will only gets the upper hand during times of pain.
Just because the conscious self determines it wants to go in the direction of the oppressed will doesn’t mean it will succeed since it is still mostly identified with the dominant will. This is why it’s so hard for people to actually grow and transform, as they don’t want to subject themselves to slavery.
The dominant will actualizes itself automatically / unconsciously. The oppressed will requires conscious intervention / identification.
Of course, the oppressed will must get the upper hand occasionally. Otherwise, the conscious self would never have the opportunity to identify with it and enter into slavery. The oppressed will only gets the upper hand during times of pain.
Just because the conscious self determines it wants to go in the direction of the oppressed will doesn’t mean it will succeed
Sounds like a fun Saturday night. Does the dom will gag the sub will with an orange while all this is going on?
craig, how can one be both religious and have a self?
idk man, spending 1/7 days in dedication to him, 10% of all income, as well as a litany of other restrictions - it is hard to express any viewpoint that does not preclude subumation of the self if not outright building an onramp for it to occur
Intelligence = the ability to impose your will on reality
Wisdom = knowing what reality is and knowing what you should want your will to be
Accepting the above, you cannot be highly intelligent without having wisdom.
No, Craig.
The ability to impose your will on reality is called “power”, and to demonstrate this, I’m going to give you a day off for that very over the top and unnecessary personal dig at d2.
Obeying someone against your will = slavery
Voluntarily agreeing to slavery is still slavery.
Achieving greatness requires you to acknowledge the choice between two wills and to identify with the oppressed will over the dominant will.
If some people steals your stuff that's theft, if you give it to them that's a gift.
Silly me, I came into this thread thinking it was about IQ
Indeed. A living human brain in a jar would have no ability to impose its will on reality, even if it was the smartest brain in the world.
That reminds me of a lawyer joke (that I'm sure you've probably heard), from a list of amusing, putatively real excerpts of court transcripts.
Lawyer: "Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?"
Witness: "No."
Lawyer: "Did you check for blood pressure?"
Witness: "No."
Lawyer: "Did you check for breathing?"
Witness: "No."
Lawyer: "So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?"
Witness: "No."
Lawyer: "How can you be so sure, Doctor?"
Witness: "Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar."
Lawyer: "But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?"
Witness: "Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere."
No, Craig.
The ability to impose your will on reality is called “power”, and to demonstrate this, I’m going to give you a day off for that very over the top and unnecessary personal dig at d2.
I'll admit that I don't think this subject should be brought into the political forum, but it is an IQ thread. I understand what Craig is saying from a religious perspective. He's arguing that if you have acquired wisdom, then it's stupid to not act in accordance with it. Basically, wisdom is the understanding of truth, and intelligence is being smart enough act upon that truth.
Was the comment about the clueless alcoholic unable to kick the habit the personal dig you're referring to? Because that wasn't directed at d2. He was using the example of addiction to demonstrate his point about the dominant vs. oppressed will.
It's more an EQ thing.
Let's pretend for a moment that there is someone who really likes to play poker but knows they shouldn't play. This could be because they keep losing the rent, or maybe it's because they have a moral conflict. Either way, they know they should stop. They can't rationalize their way out of that truth. The fact that they can't rationalize their way out of it is key. If they quit, it's because they decided submit to that truth. The other option is to be "free" and play anyway.
Plato should write a book about it.
The problem with utilitarianism is that moral values are subjective in nature and that moral actions can't always based on their potential consequences. For example, the reason we so so many soldiers come home from war with PTSD isn't because they saw crazy **** go do down but because they killed people. No matter how much they went into war thinking it was justified, whether or not it was justified (subjective), and no matter how many people thank them for their service and call them heroes, th
I’m no utilitarian, but I believe that under utilitarianism their suffering would be considered important and morally bad in a vacuum, but weighed against the event space they might go forward with the war if it would prevent a larger amount of suffering or cause a significant amount of utility for those involved.
And really it’s more a criticism under Kantian deontology, which does not allow for any consideration as to the potential effects of doing the right thing, you are dutifully resigned to uphold whatever is in accordance to the categorical imperative.
Let's pretend for a moment that there is someone who really likes to play poker but knows they shouldn't play. This could be because they keep losing the rent, or maybe it's because they have a moral conflict. Either way, they know they should stop. They can't rationalize their way out of that truth. The fact that they can't rationalize their way out of it is key. If they quit, it's because they decided submit to that truth. The other option is to be "free" and play anyway.
you are criticizing the "voluntary" part. ofc if there is no free will there is no difference, but if there is no free will then all discourse is moot, the "master" is enslaving because he can't do otherwise as well
you are criticizing the "voluntary" part. ofc if there is no free will there is no difference, but if there is no free will then all discourse is moot, the "master" is enslaving because he can't do otherwise as well
But I didn't argue against existence of free will. The ability to act upon a belief is different than the ability to change that belief.
