Sure, have at this part:

IMO, (certain tests) (are) far more useful to society as a criterion for disqualifying idiots from being allowed to squat in high places — 180 Proof

I filled in the parts in parenthesis. Are these tests actual IQ tests?

Sure, whatever floats your boat. Call it a stupidity test as you did, whatever that means.

So, since you use the term, "high aptitude" I suppose you see this as non relevant to academic achievement? I mean, the correlation is pretty strong between the two.

Predictive of what?

So, I take it your not happy with the test...

But, you do agree that what you describe as a competency test doesn't amount in any manner to psychometric IQ testing?

What your basically asking for is a competency test, no @180 Proof?

It wouldn't be an intelligence test if it was about, as you say, "

deplorable state of many developed societies (re: climate change, WMD proliferation, human trafficking, neoliberalization, etc) — 180 Proof

"

So, your argument is a non sequitur, no?

I don't know man. It's Jack fucking Nicholson, so who gives two shits?

So, essentially your not happy with the test or criteria?

I've heard that Von Neumann was to brilliant people as brilliant people are to normal people, and it's the brilliant people who said so (and who else would be in a position to do so?).

Probably Von Neumann would or did destroy an IQ test, but that's trivial compared to the work he did, which is what surely impressed those brilliant people who could half-understand him (or rather understand him by taking much longer than he did to arrive at the thought.) — hanaH

Yes, he was called Johnny by his peers at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project.

It's amazing how quickly he understood the implications of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem's right after his seminar.

That is probably true, although we cannot get them to do a test. I have read that Einstein's IQ was "only" about 160, but I don't know if he was tested or if it is an estimate. — Janus

Yes, that's what I heard also. He actually is often quoted with saying that the cult of individualism is so highly regarded that he found it close to or actually grotesque.

Similarly, Newton stated he was peering through the shoulders of giants before him in his own discoveries.

Have you heard of John Von Neumann?

It would be strange to say that a pragmatist would argue against inquiry or thinking when only presented with problems.

I suggest you take a look a Chris Langan's "CTMU Theory". The highest IQ in the world, or at least in the US.

It's quite remarkable. — Manuel

Ah, I haven't spent too much time reading it; but, I think I might look into it.

What are your thoughts about it?

Yeah, I notice you usually post interesting things about anything philosophy related.

Hmm, LSD and psilocybin, I tried microdosing LSD at college, and it definitely pushes you in 'some' direction to try harder or encourages some kind of creativity in effort towards aims and goals. I also took Psilocybin after college to reduce anger in my life. I'm pretty sure it helped with that.

I'm not sure how much of IQ is navel gazing or just ego inflation. I tend to think that the cult of individualism comes off as inflated in human civilization. Yet, it seems true that Newton, Spinoza, Shakespeare, and Aristotle had very high IQ's.

Idk, it's kind of strange that when you look at philosophy, you definitely encounter something of a unconscious urge to get smarter.

Would Plato have still produced his works with an average IQ?

I wonder, because the counterfactual almost doesn't obtain when you reduce their IQ's.

Your version of pragmatism is lacking in strength or verging on the utilitarian aspect of function and utility.

My take on your OP was that this would be quite close to quietism once all these issues become trite or redundant for you.

Again, is this the Aristotelian conception of arete or virtue? Also, there are preferred indifferents.

As a side issue of this thread, do you think apatheia is a natural conclusion of Stoicism or even quietism?

Then why your glum OP? — baker

Because I'm not very happy about apathy in Stoicism. It seems like a natural result of Stoicism.

the philosophy of the Stoics isn't the philosophy of someone who has given up on life, it's not quietism; it's also not the philosophy of someone who is simply trying to develop a soothing narrative for their troublesome life. No, it's the philosophy of someone who is proactive; someone who seeks to be in control, but who also recognizes the limits of it. And who never gives up. The best description I can think of for this is "ambitious".

(This also seems to be the aspect of Stoicism that is so appealing to modern enterpreneurs among whom the philosophy of Stoicism has a mesure of popularity.) — baker

I think in line with the above we have to consider that Stoicism is a philosophy of rationally guided behavior (especially after reading about the divine logos guiding us all, women and men alike). This is what stands out as perhaps most appealing in Stoicism.

Shakespeare also incorporated a lot from Stoicism...

Somewhere at 12:30 he suddenly says SHIT-BRICKED, and this was beautiful in front of an academic audience.

It's a derivative of Wittgenstein's beetle in a box.

I think I shall read something on Stoic logic.

https://www.historyoflogic.com/logic-stoics.htm

What would you refer me to read, @Amity?

As you were/are/will be. — Amity

Of course I regard Chrysippus laughing at the donkey eating figs and then suggesting that it should have some wine with it as someone worth reading.

If Shawn registers - might be interesting to compare thoughts. — Amity

*Wallow wallow*



It's a pigs life.

Stoicism occurs naturally when all passion is spent, (...) — unenlightened

I never viewed the Stoic as a Carpe Diem entity. I always thought Jordan Petersons lobster eating SSRI taking bloke was closer to what can be conceived as a Stoic.

Well you are the expert in this, but you don't read satisfied. — unenlightened

It be a sulken sort of satisfaction. My memory commands me not to desire or fear too much as things are happening as they do with or without my influence on their happenings.

Santa loves Coca Cola.

Must have been a conspiracy then.

Desire and fear are the push-me-pull-you pet of the failed stoic; they relate to the future. To be fearful of desire, or desirous of escaping fear is to be caught up in the world. — unenlightened

I have my concerns over this, with respect to finding little motivation or desire to become this way with respect to my fate or destiny or whatever nature or God has in store for me. I'm cautious and quite apathetic about these current events.

Be caught up in the world, therefore, while you can. There will be time enough to be a stoical corpse. — unenlightened

I say this with trepidation; but, isnt the lofty minded philosopher concerned with other more valuable or dare I say important issues than being caught up with the world?

One can be satisfied in their depression or current apathy, no?

According to Kripke it's this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_theory_of_reference

Not sure if it's a theory of truth altogether...

With that said, Santa's baptism is still undocumented, with him thus being a myth, yes?

Regarding Stoic apathy, there's a very well known dictum of the Stoics to not demand that life happen as you wish it would; but, just the way that it does, and you shall go on well.

I find this reminder hard to accept at times, even though I'm a sage at Stoic apathy now due to it, jokingly.

See,
http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html
And, Marcus Aurelius Meditations.

In regards to Stoicism, and this will come off as trite; but, modern day living is taxing on the Stoics mind.

By which I mean that it takes quite a lot of effort to quell the anxiety of making money enough for one's needs or taking care of a family or making time in one's schedule for appointments and family, AND on top of all this behaving in accordance with virtue.

That's mostly what I have in mind.

I guess the plain old simple truth is that I'm a depressed guy that has sought solence in Stoicism; but, the scale was tilted towards attaining Stoic apathy out of my natural disposition towards life and depression. That's about all I can say as the motivating factor of this thread, @Amity...

Are you trolling me? — TonesInDeepFreeze

Not at all. If people struggle with understanding that 0.999... is 1 then, 0.999... exists inside the sequence of [(10^n)-1]/(10^n) when starting from 1 to n approaching infinity.

You can see the infinitesimal hiding there.

What? .999... is not a sequence. It's a number. That number is 1. — TonesInDeepFreeze

How about:
[(10^n)-1]/(10^n) As n approaches infinity from 1?