Maybe I have a high IQ. I think I am very smart so you probably think the study in question is proof enough I don't have a high IQ. Maybe the study only shows that people who don't think they are smart score high on the IQ test. I am willing to bet though that most people who score high on it think they are smart and I am more than certain that they people who invented the test thought they were smart. So you have a Godelian problem even here as well

What scientific methods did Napoleon Hill employ? — InPitzotl

Same as every psychological study that has ever been done: observation

Napoleon Hill had perfectly legit reasons to believe that if people tell themselves they are good at something they become good at it through the use of their subconscious. Dunning and Kruger weren't distinguishes people who are prideful and won't use their intellects and people who use Hill's methods. So I reject their conclusion as unscientific.

But I see now that talk of the the Dunning-Kruger effect is a failed attempt by THEM to libel those who have seen through their machinations. — Banno

This isn't difficult. They claim they can measure intelligence and assign psychological traits to people who aren't. I am saying they don't really have evidence

Thanks, will do

The

How else did they determine who was "truly" intelligent than by IQ? The IQ test was obviously invented by people who thought THEY were smart

A well ordered infinity runs smoothly. If Godel has really proven that the Liar paradox lies at the heart of mathematics, then a disordered infinity underlies math, which.I suspected. A disorder infinite series has no center of gravity to keep it logical. Keeping the logical and illogical balanced actually is truly a game. But I had initially wanted an interesting conversation about math. People who know the danc moves of numbers are being scornful because I turned the music off

Do you think Godel proved option 2?

On the Dunning and Kruger thing, is it not obvious they they are defining who is intelligent. Who is to say the IQ test is scientific? To say it is is a massive claim. My twin brother has a 148 IQ and I don't think he is smarter than I. I haven't taken one of those

Today I have been reading Godel Esher and Bach, as well as Hegel's lesser logic

One mistake that math obviously made was to say pi never repeats. It obviously does repeat otherwise all the whole numbers would not remain staggered even to odd for infinity. Infinity is well ordered in the Aristotelian sense. Anyway, some interpret Godel to have proven that you can't avoid contradictions in math

I'm a nominalist so i don't think anything is isomorphic.

And to keep this a legit thread, I point out that you can't defend math without recourse to math. So it Is an unproven field of thought. If anyone wants to thrown in Godel feel free

Dunning and Kruger are easily refuted. So no smart people know they are smart? Pride can make you dumb, but thinking you are smart can also trigger smart thoughts. Think of Napolean Hill. When ever people say "studies prove" I always know it as a signal to go in the other direction. The intelligentsia suck

Who is George?

Me and Sophia in the corner together? Sounds like a fun time

I started with koans when I discovered Zeno. I don't care what math people say. You can descend into a segment for ever and ever and never reach the end. Yet it's finite also in a sense. Therefore infinity and the finite merges illogically to form segments, objects, all magnitude. Maybe something cannot be purely infinite or finite. But keeping control of the balance of finite and infinity in objects really trained my mind in this. Someday I'll figure out why 2+2=9. In fhe meantime you guys can remain normal

At work yesterday I set up three jars and looked in the box and it was empty. On the shelf was all six. The universe has done something nice

I've already critiqued this using Arrow's Impossibility Theorem — InPitzotl

I don't think that theorem has much, if anything, to do with compatibilism. I find in my soul freedom and determinism. Things seemed already planned for me, but I seem most certainly free at the same time. Is the pre-established harmony choices of my own soul that come to the surface for me to see? If that is the case then compatibiism is worthless. I tend to be skeptical about the subconscious or unconscious or pre-conscious making chooses for my ego

There are times when I make the freest of choices when there are obviously only one road to choose and only one desire available. In those moments I too wonder if free will is logical

"A deep connection between quantum theory and psychology was extensively discussed in the writings of physicists Pauli, Niels Bohr and Pascual Jordan. When feminists like Donna Willshire, or intellectuals of the left like Stanley Aronowitz, connect quantum physics with politics and wider social issues, they're treading a path legitimized by the scientific authority of the great quantum physicists, in whose writings we find the roots of the postmodernist excesses of today. Born as well had a book called 'Physics and Politics'..."

I don't see how this is rejecting "reality" while Heidegger is somehow accepting it. — Xtrix

My understanding is that being reveals itself to us (according to Heidegger), while there is nothing to be revealed for a Buddhist

Heidegger has much respect for Hegel and published a great deal of lectures on him. — Xtrix

Where can I get those lectures?

I think the paradox would have been more powerful if it said "the set of all sets that DO contain themselves".

The barber shaves those and only those who do not shave themselves. Actually this is obvious if he is a barber. So the barber's hair grows long, or another barber does shaves him. Where is the paradox with regard to the barber?

Hegel wrote: "Nature has presented itself as the Idea in the form of otherness. Since in nature the Idea is as the negative of itself or is external to itself, nature is not merely external in relation to this idea, but the externality constitutes the determination in which nature as nature exists."

Hegel posits nothing and being as the abstract form of the Idea which sublate each other into the world, which is pure becoming (Shunyata). I am very interested in reconciling Buddhism, Hegel, and Heidegger

The essence of Buddhist philosophy of nature is that everything is completely impermanent. These Buddhist thinkers say there is nothing underlying every thing. The principle at the bottom of the universe is that A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A. So a circle. This takes the bottom out of the universe. I'm wondering how far Heidegger would agree with considering that he thinks Being is real

P.S. Being and Time, in my opinion, was written as a response to Aquinas, who had said that actuality is prior to potentiality. Heidegger seems to say that opposite in the book. But saying there is actuality/Being seems to reject Buddhism. I still don't understand what Heidegger's position on nothingness is

I don't think goodness is outside us. It IS subjective, but it is real inside us. So it's a legit question whether a compatabilist universe is good if within it people end up in eternal Hell. That is, whether the universe is kind

Greek epoche = postmodernism

My problem with the Christian position on hell is that God creates humanity knowing the majority of them will end up in hell. He might surely have reason to allow it (so the saved can have greater spiritual benefits), but I thought creation reflects his nature. It seems to me that his nature is defective if he can't create a world where everyone goes to heaven and has all the spiritual benefits they could imagine. I'm working on this question from an atheistic perspective

I got my compatabilism from st. Augustine. I don't see how one can act in a moral way without motive. Thinking otherwise sounds like Enlightenment philosophy to me. It's all quite confusing because we are trying to define what and who we are through introspection when addressing the issue of free will

He even recognizes that his interpretation of a fragment of Heraclitus clashes with the most obvious translation and that it contradicts other fragments of the same author. — David Mo

Heidegger admitted later in life that his book on Kant went too far in that regard

Who did that? — Banno

Hey friend. I think you were referring to me comment "Saying it is eternally wrong to lie is to make something temporal eternal. It smacks of Platonism". Making the temporal eternal and painting our reality into a Renaissance painting is what the statement "objective morality exists" is all about. Did you know Indian art is designed to bring out fear? Western traditional art is the way of beauty. So there's overcoming fear vs loving beauty as the opposite ways of East and West. I use to love Thomism and the West. I can't get into it anymore. Maybe I'm envious of those people, but again it's always greener on the other side

I am going to be 35 in November (am a Scorpio). Life seems harder and harder to fully understand as one gets older. It's almost as if death is saying "give up on truth before it's too late, but not before"

"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms" ---Socrates — Gnomon

Is this even true? I like Hegel and he never defines his terms. He lets you figure the puzzle out for yourself. He wanted clear conceptions though the way Descartes wanted them, although Descartes was far smarter as a mathematician than Hegel. On the other hand, Hume and the Greek skeptics speak of a joy to be found through being very confused that I identify with. I don't know if it's moral to enjoy such a pleasure, but it seems natural to me and is part of my search for wisdom. Like Hegel, I want to know everything and nothing at the same time.

Enough..

I wanted to ask: is post-modernism simply relativism rehashed? Is it simply joy in confusion?

When Heidegger says that we are "ahead of ourselves" (already across the bridge when we start at the beginning), it seems to logical explanation is that we experience time backwards from what it really is. Is this the essence of what "thrown" means?

Saying it is eternally wrong to lie is to make something temporal eternal. It smacks of Platonism

I don't understand what objective morality means. It seems to me it's all contingent on what the conscience tells each person. We are social animals, so morality is a tricky question. But we are a type of animal, and questions like abortion, which some call murder, is difficult. If someone means by saying "this moral opinion is objective" that "we all feel this way", we have to ask if homo erectus felt that way, and if morals evolve. I'm sticking to my argument though that one's soul or karmic state is objective

I don't think it matters whether committing murder is wrong for all humans. Something at least will always bind a person. The state of someone's conscience is not relative, slanted, crooked, or fuzzy. It exists in some sense

I think objectivity in this discussion would be a viewpoint of oneself that is accurate. Going out of yourself and viewing your self. If nothing is true, you are nothing in the worst way, even if for now your having fun, right?


It's like saying "this soccer ball is truly round (sorta)" . It's saying "I am truly this in the battlefield of morality".

The point I made earlier is that scientists can only observe how things move. It's all guesswork about where the power is coming from. My new pimple might literally be in control of dark matter. A model just says what was observed. It's not surprising to me that they can make presictions. The world can be like puffy in our hands. It works in our favor at times. But it is a HuGE leap in logic to say they know anything about what happened in the past. Science can only act, it can never assure us it has a truth. Every thing can change tomorrow just as everything might have changed a million times in the past. What is the active force is beyond science. Therefore I have logically proven that cosmology is science fiction. The way physicists use math especially shows that they have our of control imaginations. Philosophy beats them :)

Wow, lots of posts. I was considering in this thread how we feel bound by moral feelings. All of us. What we choose in those situations sets up our karma. If everything is relative and truth doesn't exists, what happens to the truth of one's karma? What does one have at the end of the day than that? Doesn't denial of the reality of truth then take every from us? It seems almost like a punishment for bad karma for truth to become relative

I think I'm basically saying morality disproves relativism

When physicists say "we are working the math" they are admitting they know nothing of philosophy. Cosmology is all guesswork. It's all fiction. The elephant with the longest toenail is dark matter, duh!