I am the most intelligent person of all time.

[equal2u]

I think my ideology is the correct one and all the differing ones are incorrect. So that makes me the most intelligent person out there.

Is that really what defines intelligence?

No that is what makes you a person with an opinion. I think it's not so much a misnomer as, given what he is saying here, an irony.

It depends on whether my opinion is correct or not. If my opinion that I'm a genius is correct then I am. If not then I'm not.

I was tempted to get out my comfy chair sit on it, and throw popcorn at my mouth, asking that question seemed to be pointless in that you already asked it now. The only question I would ask is how on Earth we would know or care about your magnificence if you are hanging about on an internet forum, and not walking the walk in what I loosely call the real world, so as to give us some position to really judge. Not that the real world is the be all and end all of everything but it sure helps to be recognised by these so called real people for something.

The internet is a part of the real world. My ideology doesn't lend itself to writing a book. Ideological books are supported by lots of references to similar expressed ideological positions in history. My genius elevates me so far ahead of any other human being in history that this kind of communication would not be appropriate. The best method for me to demonstrate my genius is on the internet, but unfortunately the intellectual shortcomings of my fellow users means my genius goes unrecognised.

[Helandhighwater]

The internet is a part of the real world. My ideology doesn't lend itself to writing a book. Ideological books are supported by lots of references to similar expressed ideological positions in history. My genius elevates me so far ahead of any other human being in history that this kind of communication would not be appropriate. The best method for me to demonstrate my genius is on the internet, but unfortunately the intellectual shortcomings of my fellow users means my genius goes unrecognised.

Lol the internet is part of the real world, good one.

Your genius going unrecognised renders your genius nul. You can't be a genius if everyone thinks you are an idiot or wrong or just misinformed or x, any more than you can be a car mechanic if you can't fix cars, but you claim you are a car mechanic because you say so. It doesn't work like that. Sure you may be the most intelligent man alive, I somehow doubt it but given the standard it's not that hard a target, but a genius is something else apart from just intelligence.

Are you sure it is their intellectual shortcomings that are the problems or yours? Because a smart person would know better than to blame others for their lack of insight. Hence the systems of intellectual acclaim, none of which AFAIK you have excelled at achieving.

Ok let me make another analogy I am a genius, beyond measure, no one believes me and in fact they all think I am dumb, but none the less I am the most intelligent person in the universe: the only reason they don't see that I am the bestest damned intelligencia type guy is because they are too dumb, and I can't talk to plebs or convince them of my superlative genius, because when I do they are all just too dumb to understand my magnificence.

[equal2u]

The internet is a part of the real world. My ideology doesn't lend itself to writing a book. Ideological books are supported by lots of references to similar expressed ideological positions in history. My genius elevates me so far ahead of any other human being in history that this kind of communication would not be appropriate. The best method for me to demonstrate my genius is on the internet, but unfortunately the intellectual shortcomings of my fellow users means my genius goes unrecognised.

Lol the internet is part of the real world, good one.

Your genius going unrecognised renders your genius nul. You can't be a genius if everyone thinks you are an idiot or wrong or just misinformed or x, any more than you can be a car mechanic if you can't fix cars, but you claim you are a car mechanic because you say so. It doesn't work like that. Sure you may be the most intelligent man alive, I somehow doubt it but given the standard it's not that hard a target, but a genius is something else apart from just intelligence.

A car is an inorganic machine. It is not comparable to a sentient being.

Are you sure it is their intellectual shortcomings that are the problems or yours?

It's their intellectual shortcomings.

Because a smart person would know better than to blame others for their lack of insight.

I have insight. I'm blaming others for not recognising that I have insight.

Hence the systems of intellectual acclaim, none of which AFAIK you have excelled at achieving.

The systems of intellectual acclaim are created by other human beings who are too ignorant to recognise my intelligence.

Ok let me make another analogy I am a genius, beyond measure, no one believes me and in fact they all think I am dumb, but none the less I am the most intelligent person in the universe: the only reason they don't see that I am the bestest damned intelligencia type guy is because they are too dumb, and I can't talk to plebs or convince them of my superlative genius, because when I do they are all just too dumb to understand my magnificence.

That's right.

[Helandhighwater]

The internet is a part of the real world. My ideology doesn't lend itself to writing a book. Ideological books are supported by lots of references to similar expressed ideological positions in history. My genius elevates me so far ahead of any other human being in history that this kind of communication would not be appropriate. The best method for me to demonstrate my genius is on the internet, but unfortunately the intellectual shortcomings of my fellow users means my genius goes unrecognised.

Lol the internet is part of the real world, good one.

Your genius going unrecognised renders your genius nul. You can't be a genius if everyone thinks you are an idiot or wrong or just misinformed or x, any more than you can be a car mechanic if you can't fix cars, but you claim you are a car mechanic because you say so. It doesn't work like that. Sure you may be the most intelligent man alive, I somehow doubt it but given the standard it's not that hard a target, but a genius is something else apart from just intelligence.

A car is an inorganic machine. It is not comparable to a sentient being.

You're not big on analogies are you..?

Ok let me make another analogy I am a genius, beyond measure, no one believes me and in fact they all think I am dumb, but none the less I am the most intelligent person in the universe: the only reason they don't see that I am the bestest damned intelligencia type guy is because they are too dumb, and I can't talk to plebs or convince them of my superlative genius, because when I do they are all just too dumb to understand my magnificence.

That's right.

What is?

[fuse]

Sometimes people value their lives negatively. There is more suffering than happiness and so ending life is the best option.

I think it's called "not valuing one's life." I don't think it's negative value.

Intrinsic value is just inherent or essential value.

Inherent or essential value implies that the value of the thing exists prior to anyone's judgment, even a person's judgment of himself. Therefore, if a person's value comes from his valuing himself (as you say), then it's not intrinsic.

Human beings derive their value purely from their humanity not from the economy.

I've actually seen people that do seem to derive their value from the economy. Anyways, if people have intrinsic value then they do not need to derive their value from anywhere -- that's the whole point.

[Helandhighwater]

Sometimes people value their lives negatively. There is more suffering than happiness and so ending life is the best option.

I think it's called "not valuing one's life." I don't think it's negative value.

Intrinsic value is just inherent or essential value.

Inherent or essential value implies that the value of the thing exists prior to anyone's judgment, even a person's judgment of himself. Therefore, if a person's value comes from his valuing himself (as you say), then it's not intrinsic.

Human beings derive their value purely from their humanity not from the economy.

I've actually seen people that do seem to derive their value from the economy. Anyways, if people have intrinsic value then they do not need to derive their value from anywhere -- that's the whole point.

A nice post.

Equal2u will read it as something else, but a good post needs to be acknowledged.

I've seen the rings off of Saturn, which is a moon and shit off of Saturn, well not it's an x moon. And that was kinda cool, you know cause the rings and shit were off of Saturn.offf of Saturn I saw them, you wont believe me but they were off of Saturn and shit.

No offence to equal2u, but shit man, I and by I, I mean I have seen a lot of rings off of Saturn and shit.No one has told me as yet that's a good thing but I have seen them, another analogy.

[fuse]

It was really against my better judgement to post in this thread...we'll see where it goes. Thanks.

[equal2u]

Sometimes people value their lives negatively. There is more suffering than happiness and so ending life is the best option.

I think it's called "not valuing one's life." I don't think it's negative value.

I think it is negative value. If suffering is greater than happiness that's a negative not an absence.

Intrinsic value is just inherent or essential value.

Inherent or essential value implies that the value of the thing exists prior to anyone's judgment, even a person's judgment of himself. Therefore, if a person's value comes from his valuing himself (as you say), then it's not intrinsic.

A person's value comes from his humanity. An essential part of which is sentience and self value.

Human beings derive their value purely from their humanity not from the economy.

I've actually seen people that do seem to derive their value from the economy. Anyways, if people have intrinsic value then they do not need to derive their value from anywhere -- that's the whole point.

Human's derive their value from their humanity. That's what 'intrinsic' means.

[equal2u]

You're not big on analogies are you..?

I like analogies. But they have to work. Your 'car mechanic' analogy doesn't work. Anyway it's very simple. I'm a genius but everyone else is too dumb to realise this. No analogy necessary.

Ok let me make another analogy I am a genius, beyond measure, no one believes me and in fact they all think I am dumb, but none the less I am the most intelligent person in the universe: the only reason they don't see that I am the bestest damned intelligencia type guy is because they are too dumb, and I can't talk to plebs or convince them of my superlative genius, because when I do they are all just too dumb to understand my magnificence.

That's right.

What is?

I'm a genius but everyone else is too dumb to realise this. As you described in your 'analogy'. Although it isn't actually an analogy it's just a description.

[fuse]

equal2u,

Intrinsic value is unconditional. Not all sentient beings hold themselves to be unconditionally valuable. So not all sentient beings hold themselves to be intrinsically valuable.

[fuse]

And there's a difference between the idea of decided (subjective) intrinsic value and the idea of objective intrinsic value.

I believe in subjective, but not objective, intrinsic value. The problem for your argument is that subjective valuation varies from person to person. Thus if even one person does not value himself [positively], then the statement "all sentient beings have intrinsic value because they value themselves" is invalidated.

Oh yeah, and "because they value themselves" necessarily indicates that you are talking about subjective value.

[equal2u]

equal2u,

Intrinsic value is unconditional. Not all sentient beings hold themselves to be unconditionally valuable. So not all sentient beings hold themselves to be intrinsically valuable.

It doesn't matter how they 'hold themselves' to be. It only matters what they are. Each human being is of fundamentally equal value. Many human beings think they're fundamentally superior, it doesn't mean they are. Each human being derives the same value from his humanity.

[fuse]

equal2u,

Intrinsic value is unconditional. Not all sentient beings hold themselves to be unconditionally valuable. So not all sentient beings hold themselves to be intrinsically valuable.

It doesn't matter how they 'hold themselves' to be.

So you contradict what you said before? "conscious beings have intrinsic value, because a conscious being will value himself"

Also please respond to my last post when you get a chance.

[equal2u]

And there's a difference between the idea of decided (subjective) intrinsic value and the idea of objective intrinsic value.

I believe in subjective, but not objective, intrinsic value. The problem for your argument is that subjective valuation varies from person to person. Thus if even one person does not value himself [positively], then the statement "all sentient beings have intrinsic value because they value themselves" is invalidated.

Oh yeah, and "because they value themselves" necessarily indicates that you are talking about subjective value.

There is only one kind of intrinsic value. It's completely objective. The human being has value because he is sentient. He values himself but this does not change his value. He has value because he values himself, among other things that are inherent to sentience, but his valuation of himself has no bearing on his actual value, no matter how high or low it is.

[fuse]

his valuation of himself has no bearing on his actual value

And the great mystery at the bottom of all this -- exactly what is and how do you know about a sentient being's actual value?

[equal2u]

equal2u,

Intrinsic value is unconditional. Not all sentient beings hold themselves to be unconditionally valuable. So not all sentient beings hold themselves to be intrinsically valuable.

It doesn't matter how they 'hold themselves' to be.

So you contradict what you said before? "conscious beings have intrinsic value, because a conscious being will value himself"

There is no contradiction. Human beings have value because they value themselves. But their valuing of themselves does not change their value.

A tramp who lives under a bridge values himself as worthless while a banker values himself as superior. In fact both human beings are of equal value, because they value themselves. Whether the self valuation is high or low makes no difference.

[equal2u]

his valuation of himself has no bearing on his actual value

And the great mystery at the bottom of all this -- exactly what is and how do you know about a sentient being's actual value?

The value of each human being is one human being. Each human being has the capacity for suffering and happiness, has fears and desires. Each human being is born an innocent baby, there simply is no reason to value one baby more than another. To do so is an affront to morality.

[fuse]

The value of each human being is one human being.

That's not saying much. One human being can be radically different from one other human being...

Each human being has the capacity for suffering and happiness, has desires and fears.

But not the same capacity. Some have more range in certain capacities than others. And some will develop further in one capacity than another. Each person has different potentials and limitations.

Each human being is born an innocent baby, there simply is no reason to value one baby more than another.

Hm. Is it wrong then that a new mother leaves the hospital with her child and only wants to leave with her child as opposed to all the other newborns? Better yet, forget about right and wrong. You say she has "no reason" to value her baby over another. That's just plain false. She is emotionally (it came out of her, has her genes, was already nurtured by her for months) driven to value her child above the others.



You still haven't told me about "actual value." The value of each human being is one human being. A vacuous generalization that means nothing to me. Human beings come in all different, significantly different, stripes. Where is the actual, objective value? What is it tied to?

[equal2u]

The value of each human being is one human being.

That's not saying much. One human being can be radically different from one other human being...

It's saying the most important thing in existence. All human beings have the capacity for suffering and happiness. Each human has an equal right to the maximum happiness and minimal suffering possible in society.

Each human being has the capacity for suffering and happiness, has desires and fears.

But not the same capacity. Some have more range in certain capacities than others. And some will develop further in one capacity than another. Each person has different potentials and limitations.

Obviously. Each human has the capacity for suffering and happiness. It doesn't matter whether a person is in a wheelchair or is an international athlete, whether they have severe learning difficulties or they're a Harvard professor. Each human being has feelings and has the same value and right to fair treatment.

Each human being is born an innocent baby, there simply is no reason to value one baby more than another.

Hm. Is it wrong then that a new mother leaves the hospital with her child and only wants to leave with her child as opposed to all the other newborns?

Don't be stupid.

Better yet, forget about right and wrong. You say she has "no reason" to value her baby over another. That's just plain false. She is emotionally (it came out of her, has her genes, was already nurtured by her for months) driven to value her child above the others.

All children should be valued equally by society. Of course a mother is only going to look after her child, she's not going to cram all the newborns she can into the back of her car. But if she's morally aware she wont value her child as fundamentally superior to any other. If she thinks her child is better because he's of a certain race, for example, then she's a racist.

You still haven't told me about "actual value." The value of each human being is one human being. A vacuous generalization that means nothing to me. Human beings come in all different, significantly different, stripes. Where is the actual, objective value? What is it tied to?

I've already told you what it's tied to. Each human being is equal because each human being has the capacity for suffering and happiness. Each baby has the right to be given the best chance they can by society to experience the maximum happiness and the minimum suffering possible.

[Helandhighwater]

I have yet to decide if equal is trolling or a bit stupid.

I think the former seems unlikely so the latter would be ironic, considering what he believes, belief being the operative word. I really don't know at this point...

[Slow John]

I don't think trolling is his MO, his name and philosophy argue equality of value, and he's definitely not stupid. His ideas are simple and put forth with off-putting confidence. He has an interesting voice. There is something poetic in the confidence, a meta statement he's making about the experience of being human, the experience of thinking and believing. He has a talent for reduction and simulated objectivity.

If he is guilty of fallacies they are subtle, and easily defended or steered into safe territory by his next line. It's not that his argument is airtight. It's that his confidence is, and the art is in finding ways to pay this off convincingly, and in this, he generally succeeds.

What we find unappealing is his unwillingness to be civilized, humbled, to dance sportingly with the subtleties of an argument, or to demonstrate validation of a colleague's impulse, or to show any interest in learning from anyone here.

One would think the only way to function in a thread begun by him is to praise, extoll, exalt, honor and coronate his name, and my guess is this would still somehow piss him off. Our praise would somehow be deemed malformed, misnomered, unworthy.

We are well versed in the truths that come from our keyboards, and books, gentleman minds; but what of the truths on the path between the keyboard and the toilet, the grungy looks in the mirror, the moments of congealed, reptilian mind, what of those truths?

Could it be that equal2u's conduit connecting these truths, the primal truths, to the pressure valve of a computer and into the aether is a thicker, better, cleaner conduit?

I don't come here to find academic tropes and cadences or social niceties. I come here to marvel at people like equal2u, even as I disagree 110% with any given precept.

If u r reading, well played, sir. Equal, indeed.

[ScavengingVulture]

So, it's true then. The most smartest person really is full of hot air.

[Slow John]

What in the blue heck does that mean, SV?

[ScavengingVulture]

What in the blue heck does that mean, SV?

People who declare themselves the smartest are always self conceited and full of themselves.

Rather speak with somebody that talks little and declares nothing of themselves.

Those individuals I find have wise insights over all the useless know-it-alls.

[Gamer]

People who declare themselves the smartest are always self conceited and full of themselves.

post hoc ergo propter hoc. hasty generalization. but I get your point. you have recognized a trend. it is often the case that the wisest are also humble, viz the "more I know the less I know," axiom implied by Socrates.

But then again, when wittgenstein asserted his mental superiority, as he did on many occasions, he wasn't exactly wrong.

Rather speak with somebody that talks little and declares nothing of themselves.

but this can be boring. sometimes i'd rather speak to someone who is arrogant and belligerent. a future wise man. i don't expect you to share this fetish necessarily.

Those individuals I find have wise insights over all the useless know-it-alls.

my read on equal2s assertion is more satirical, or poetical. because while we know we are not the wisest of them all, not one of us is immune, at one point in life, to facing the existential idea that we perceive ourselves to be infinitely wise.

this often coincides with the age of growth between 13 and, say, 22, where the testosterone is coursing through us, emboldening us to trust our bodies and ideas, that we may survive and integrate into adulthood.

without this bravado at this time, I believe we are worse off. this is a fascinating time in the mind of man, I find it invigorating to be in their presence.

equal2 can not gaze into the mind of another. all he can see is his own mind, the infinite expanse, the subtlety of concepts, the courage of reduction, the mechanisms of rationality coupled with the courage of a youth. it must be a beautiful view.

perhaps, later, he will learn to better gaze into the mind of his neighbor, and there is no doubt he will be more than good at it, i can tell by his writing. when this happens, something is gained, but also lost. he will become wise. but he will become less in his own eyes. Less, perhaps, than he actually is.

for now, i love how online he can take this bravado quality to its ultimate conclusion, adopting an idiosyncratic swagger, like a super hero. there have been others over the years. they are the fortunate byproduct of a virtual lyceum, where one can let their ballsack swing freely without social consequence.

even though you and I know that sitting across a table in real life, the eyes and the face, the voice and the easy laugh, he would collapse into what he is. just a young man. and we would get along swimmingly. but in the cold light of the web, he becomes something doubly intriguing. i wouldn't change a hair on his head.