Tim's reply within: > [Mark adds] > There is such a thing as pointing out defects in a rational argument > using > hyperbole, or arguing through extremes.
Just a side point, Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote a whole novel about this concept of an 'intelligent murder'. That book is "crime and punishment' if anyone cares. What this means is one chooses > an > extreme example which would result from a premise to show that the > premise > is flawed. Such reasoning does not necessarily add to the argument > against, > but is more of a red herring (do you know that term? I used to eat > herring > in Holland). Such examples used to test the limits or to prove a point, > and > are often misleading and purposefully distorting. Lawyers love them, as > do > politicians. So I would agree with dmb that the point is to remain > reasonable. > > What you say, Tim, regarding intellect may indeed be true, but it adds > nothing. The scale of intelligence is certainly something we have > discussed. We have the IQ test that has been considered somewhat > self-serving by some. Such a test is the intellectual age divided by > actual > age, multiplied by 100. In this way, 100 is average. The intellectual > age > is ill defined. But the questions that are used to determine it presume that there is some concept: TRUTH. Truth then is teh judge of intelligence. > The measurements rely on certain types of problem > solving, again, are you telling me that intellect means the ability to grasp reality through problems-solutions? There is such a real thing as a problem, and such a real thing as a right solution? > perhaps because the founders were good problem solvers. In my opinion, > they mean nothing since effort and drive are more important, and their > use > in education is overblown. > > Rather than define intelligence, it may be more relevant to consider how > it > is used. Use your common sense to define intelligence. What is better > to > you? How would you use your intelligence to achieve that? Where does > wisdom come in? Yes, as a subject/object, as a "me", there may be certain problems which solutions I can never know, and must rely on common sense... But I guess what I am really asking: does quality itself have a hard definition for intelligence? Or a hard definition for Moral, for that matter? I think Phaerus's point was that, regarding the former, yes, it is quality, and not the intermediate subjects-and-objects, which supplies the definition for intelligence; and then regarding the latter: yes. Tim -- [email protected] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
