Intelligence isn't everything. But this article does mean that women should not be involved in certain decisions. Then again, neither should most men; if we breed an aristocracy of those who match intelligence with moral character, we will have a leadership caste while otherwise we get dumbshits like G.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
Men smarter than Women
- Thread starter 10293847
- Start date
infoterror said:
No offense infoterror, but do you have a clue about genetics? One cannot breed moral character. Aristotle wrote in the Nicomedian Ethics on the heredity of character. Essentially he found that great men like Socrates, Pericles, had immoral children, and immoral or low class men could have moral and ethical children ( and Socrates is one example of the lower class having a great ethical/moral child); hence, he decided that morality and ethics were not hereditary, but learned over the course of ones life. Thats 2,400 hundred years ago, yet you dont seem to be too up on genetics, psychology or life.
If one wants to breed ethical or moral behavior, it must be taught. If say a widely regarded pillar of virtue like say Francis of Assisi or Jesus, etc, were brought up by semi barbaric hill trash in the woods, would they have developed any idea of morality or virtue? No; it is a human, not a natural construct, and more importantly, a learned behavior.
I really agree with you in principle in desiring moral and ethical people, but your way of reaching such a utopian state is not only ridiculous, but impossible.
Dushan S said:I have that file with short work on English History, and as far as I remeber it is not personally his work, but of people connected to him. I do think that this alternative ideas about English History go to far without having solid ground sometimes, on the other hand it is not so "out there" if you do know basics from book.
As far as book goes, he was using a lot of different methods that have given very similar results, and second, there was so many interesting facts about flaws in our concept of history that are obviously true, that book is worth just for that, I think. He pays a lot of attention to Russian History in a book (and it is logical, as it is his homeland) but also to Byzantine and Roman empire history, early medieval history, and biblical "History".
Idea with astronomical "Readings" are really interesting and clever I think. There are lot of sky charts on tomb stones in Egypt, and as we know they were able to get very precise maps of sky, so there is no reason to presume that those maps on tombs and gaves were innacurate. It is just that when checking planetary postitions, those very moments when planets were at those positions are more than thousand years later than historians usually date them, and those combinations of positions are really unique.
He does not rejects all means of Hystorical analysis, he just points at flaws that have caused problems. Mostly fact that there was a basic idea of History already, and that all later historians were just adding to it, ignoring or dismissing everything they were unable to make work with this standard idea of historical line.
We are seriously getting off topic, maybe someone could split the topic?
The more I read about this guy, the more I dislike him. I still find it highly amusing that he thinks astronomical charts--yes astronomical charts by people that believed the sun was the center of the earth and all the planets revolved around it--Ptolemy's spheres idea, is somehow more accurate than 3,000 years of written history. What a schmuck. And even more ridiculous is how he uses the names of kings and their supposed similarity in names for his other method of discovering real history. And then to make matters worse, he uses statistical anaylsis from his highly speculative opiniated findings of the stars and the names of kings to come up with a completely ridiculous Russo centric history.
And shit, if he dug a little bit, he would notice that Russia was a totally powerless idea until Ivan the terrible. It really wasnt until Peter the Great, and the queen before him--Elizabeth I, that the idea of Russia was even feasible. And thats the 1700's. Hell, most of Russia was either a territory of the Vikings, Tartars, or Mongols until then. And, further more, the Byzantine empire was pretty much shot by 1,000 a.d. the time of the crusades. It had already lost most of its territories to the muslims, and it became basically a corrupt kingdom, not a empire. It may have been richer then the western empires, but it was obviously dying, as was realized by the entire catholic west, who wished to loot its treasures, and did in the 1200's with the sack of Constantinople. I feel like giving this guy a smack over the head. Mathmaticians ( especially those practicing statistics) should stay out of history, and historians will in kind, stay out of mathmatics.
He dismisses not only carbon dating and the human record, but irrefutable geological evidence, all in favor of stars and the names of kings. This is the height of idiocy.
speed said:
Disagreed; his other writings contradict this.
You can breed moral character, like you can breed any other trait.
Dushan S
Member
As you begin your post with "The more I read about this guy", I guess that means that you did not read the book? So then your opinnion is based on assumptions, and it is impossible to have conversation in this case, right?speed said:
If you are talking about that .txt file I have also found on the internet, what can I say, even if there is name of Fomenko, during the the text he is adressed as him, and metiones as "Fomenko and his work". Also, any of this is part of the book I have, so it is not clear to me who is really author of that document.
Again, I have known some things about flows in usual historical line already, so few things mentioned in the book were not new for me.
Old civilizations have had very precise skymaps btw, so I don't get your first part, really. Also it is hard to not have doubts if you can put side by side two very long lines of rulers of ancient rome for instance, and see that the number of rulers is the same, times of rule are the same, nicknames and some of the names are similar, similar things were happening during the time of rule, same causes of death, similar wars of the same duration etc. So it is not really about simple similarity
Also, I am not from Russia too and have failed to see any kind of russo-centric stuff in the book. Historical book written by English scientist could probably also pay a bit more attention to happenings in his own country, but I would not call that Anglo-centric. Even if most of the history is already heavily euro-heleno-centric, but it seems that people are so used to that and it is accepted as normal that world was always turning around europeans.
And about second part of your post... I really fail to see connection between what you have wrote and the book, because there is no collision between what you have mentioned and the new possible history line, mentioned in the book.
Not that I feel like being advocate to the Fomenko work, but can't really understand what is inspiring you to be that much negative about something you didn't actually read?
And About Byzantine empire, a lot of what we learn about that part of the history is actually bullshit, apart from this book.
Whole idea that small number of wild Turkish tribes can somehow got the idea to make organized state within just one century, then destroy Byzant power and multiply in great numbers that soon most of the people in small Asia are Turks is what is fantastic to me.
Or hystorycal concept that south Slav nomad tribes came wondering from the Asia (how could they if they had agriculture, and this needs for people not to move often, and were often vegetarian because of matters of faith) destroy all the Ilirs and eradicates them (and If I remeber well in Herodots history, he writes they are bigger in numbers after people of India) easily beats Byzant and takes their holdings on Balcans. They are in constant war with greeks but somehowe this is one and only moment in history that one group takes religion and allows to be "civilized" by their mortal enemies.Hundred years later uncivilized tribesman have feudal states jumping over hundreds of years of development. It does not sounds historical but funny to me but nevertheless, it is history we learn in school.
And even in last century, when we have films, books, media , living witnesses, still historical truth is twisted by the victorious and powerfull for their causes and small number of people understands what is really going on.
Compared to all that Fomenkos work is really quite logical and rational to me, at least no one that has read the book have given me rational explenation where is flow there. I do belive more to mathematics and other exact sciences and I don't think it is strange. For instance in the case of Ottoman empire, it was the interest of christian church to have empire of Turks on the west, solid and islamic, so they have made such a picture even if most of grand Vezier's were Slavs, and there was only few Turkish veziers. History was always based on interests and in hand of small number of powerfull, and in big part, modern "scientific" history is just an extension of that, based on premises and documents already written in ancient times with clear political causes.
Russia has been a failure since the outnumbered Rus bailed for Central Europe. It's probably time to simply carpet-bomb it and try again!
Ahem infoterror, here is a pretty direct passage from book two I of Nicomachean ethics
I
Virtue, then, being of two kinds, intellectual and moral, intellectual virtue in the main owes both its birth and its growth to teaching (for which reason it requires experience and time), while moral virtue comes about as a result of habit, whence also its name (ethike) is one that is formed by a slight variation from the word ethos (habit). From this it is also plain that none of the moral virtues arises in us by nature; for nothing that exists by nature can form a habit contrary to its nature. For instance the stone which by nature moves downwards cannot be habituated to move upwards, not even if one tries to train it by throwing it up ten thousand times; nor can fire be habituated to move downwards, nor can anything else that by nature behaves in one way be trained to behave in another. Neither by nature, then, nor contrary to nature do the virtues arise in us; rather we are adapted by nature to receive them, and are made perfect by habit.
Again, of all the things that come to us by nature we first acquire the potentiality and later exhibit the activity (this is plain in the case of the senses; for it was not by often seeing or often hearing that we got these senses, but on the contrary we had them before we used them, and did not come to have them by using them); but the virtues we get by first exercising them, as also happens in the case of the arts as well. For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them, e.g. men become builders by building and lyreplayers by playing the lyre; so too we become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.
This is confirmed by what happens in states; for legislators make the citizens good by forming habits in them, and this is the wish of every legislator, and those who do not effect it miss their mark, and it is in this that a good constitution differs from a bad one.
Again, it is from the same causes and by the same means that every virtue is both produced and destroyed, and similarly every art; for it is from playing the lyre that both good and bad lyre-players are produced. And the corresponding statement is true of builders and of all the rest; men will be good or bad builders as a result of building well or badly. For if this were not so, there would have been no need of a teacher, but all men would have been born good or bad at their craft. This, then, is the case with the virtues also; by doing the acts that we do in our transactions with other men we become just or unjust, and by doing the acts that we do in the presence of danger, and being habituated to feel fear or confidence, we become brave or cowardly. The same is true of appetites and feelings of anger; some men become temperate and good-tempered, others self-indulgent and irascible, by behaving in one way or the other in the appropriate circumstances. Thus, in one word, states of character arise out of like activities. This is why the activities we exhibit must be of a certain kind; it is because the states of character correspond to the differences between these. It makes no small difference, then, whether we form habits of one kind or of another from our very youth; it makes a very great difference, or rather all the difference.
I am familiar with his statements in his Politics that some are naturally suited for slavery and some are suited to rule. But as for actual moral character, his whole point is that happiness, and virtue are a life long learning process. I mean, that is the central idea behind his ethics.
I
Virtue, then, being of two kinds, intellectual and moral, intellectual virtue in the main owes both its birth and its growth to teaching (for which reason it requires experience and time), while moral virtue comes about as a result of habit, whence also its name (ethike) is one that is formed by a slight variation from the word ethos (habit). From this it is also plain that none of the moral virtues arises in us by nature; for nothing that exists by nature can form a habit contrary to its nature. For instance the stone which by nature moves downwards cannot be habituated to move upwards, not even if one tries to train it by throwing it up ten thousand times; nor can fire be habituated to move downwards, nor can anything else that by nature behaves in one way be trained to behave in another. Neither by nature, then, nor contrary to nature do the virtues arise in us; rather we are adapted by nature to receive them, and are made perfect by habit.
Again, of all the things that come to us by nature we first acquire the potentiality and later exhibit the activity (this is plain in the case of the senses; for it was not by often seeing or often hearing that we got these senses, but on the contrary we had them before we used them, and did not come to have them by using them); but the virtues we get by first exercising them, as also happens in the case of the arts as well. For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them, e.g. men become builders by building and lyreplayers by playing the lyre; so too we become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.
This is confirmed by what happens in states; for legislators make the citizens good by forming habits in them, and this is the wish of every legislator, and those who do not effect it miss their mark, and it is in this that a good constitution differs from a bad one.
Again, it is from the same causes and by the same means that every virtue is both produced and destroyed, and similarly every art; for it is from playing the lyre that both good and bad lyre-players are produced. And the corresponding statement is true of builders and of all the rest; men will be good or bad builders as a result of building well or badly. For if this were not so, there would have been no need of a teacher, but all men would have been born good or bad at their craft. This, then, is the case with the virtues also; by doing the acts that we do in our transactions with other men we become just or unjust, and by doing the acts that we do in the presence of danger, and being habituated to feel fear or confidence, we become brave or cowardly. The same is true of appetites and feelings of anger; some men become temperate and good-tempered, others self-indulgent and irascible, by behaving in one way or the other in the appropriate circumstances. Thus, in one word, states of character arise out of like activities. This is why the activities we exhibit must be of a certain kind; it is because the states of character correspond to the differences between these. It makes no small difference, then, whether we form habits of one kind or of another from our very youth; it makes a very great difference, or rather all the difference.
I am familiar with his statements in his Politics that some are naturally suited for slavery and some are suited to rule. But as for actual moral character, his whole point is that happiness, and virtue are a life long learning process. I mean, that is the central idea behind his ethics.
Dushan S said:As you begin your post with "The more I read about this guy", I guess that means that you did not read the book? So then your opinnion is based on assumptions, and it is impossible to have conversation in this case, right?
If you are talking about that .txt file I have also found on the internet, what can I say, even if there is name of Fomenko, during the the text he is adressed as him, and metiones as "Fomenko and his work". Also, any of this is part of the book I have, so it is not clear to me who is really author of that document.
Again, I have known some things about flows in usual historical line already, so few things mentioned in the book were not new for me.
Old civilizations have had very precise skymaps btw, so I don't get your first part, really. Also it is hard to not have doubts if you can put side by side two very long lines of rulers of ancient rome for instance, and see that the number of rulers is the same, times of rule are the same, nicknames and some of the names are similar, similar things were happening during the time of rule, same causes of death, similar wars of the same duration etc. So it is not really about simple similarity
Also, I am not from Russia too and have failed to see any kind of russo-centric stuff in the book. Historical book written by English scientist could probably also pay a bit more attention to happenings in his own country, but I would not call that Anglo-centric. Even if most of the history is already heavily euro-heleno-centric, but it seems that people are so used to that and it is accepted as normal that world was always turning around europeans.
And about second part of your post... I really fail to see connection between what you have wrote and the book, because there is no collision between what you have mentioned and the new possible history line, mentioned in the book.
Not that I feel like being advocate to the Fomenko work, but can't really understand what is inspiring you to be that much negative about something you didn't actually read?
And About Byzantine empire, a lot of what we learn about that part of the history is actually bullshit, apart from this book.
Whole idea that small number of wild Turkish tribes can somehow got the idea to make organized state within just one century, then destroy Byzant power and multiply in great numbers that soon most of the people in small Asia are Turks is what is fantastic to me.
Or hystorycal concept that south Slav nomad tribes came wondering from the Asia (how could they if they had agriculture, and this needs for people not to move often, and were often vegetarian because of matters of faith) destroy all the Ilirs and eradicates them (and If I remeber well in Herodots history, he writes they are bigger in numbers after people of India) easily beats Byzant and takes their holdings on Balcans. They are in constant war with greeks but somehowe this is one and only moment in history that one group takes religion and allows to be "civilized" by their mortal enemies.Hundred years later uncivilized tribesman have feudal states jumping over hundreds of years of development. It does not sounds historical but funny to me but nevertheless, it is history we learn in school.
And even in last century, when we have films, books, media , living witnesses, still historical truth is twisted by the victorious and powerfull for their causes and small number of people understands what is really going on.
Compared to all that Fomenkos work is really quite logical and rational to me, at least no one that has read the book have given me rational explenation where is flow there. I do belive more to mathematics and other exact sciences and I don't think it is strange. For instance in the case of Ottoman empire, it was the interest of christian church to have empire of Turks on the west, solid and islamic, so they have made such a picture even if most of grand Vezier's were Slavs, and there was only few Turkish veziers. History was always based on interests and in hand of small number of powerfull, and in big part, modern "scientific" history is just an extension of that, based on premises and documents already written in ancient times with clear political causes.
Well I completed this article: A.T.Fomenko, G.V.Nosovskij
NEW HYPOTHETICAL CHRONOLOGY AND CONCEPT OF THE ENGLISH HISTORY.
BRITISH EMPIRE AS A DIRECT SUCCESSOR OF BYZANTINE-ROMAN EMPIRE
And from it, I have based my criticisms. You are defending his skymaps and the similarity of ancient and medieval kings. how can one defend such historical techniques but dismiss carbon dating, the classics of western literature, geological dating, etc? This is simply madness.
As for the Turks they picked up the pieces of the Seljuk empire, which covered most of Persia and Anatolia, and even included Baghdad. Minority tribes ruled persia for some time remember, so this is not a huge surprise. By 1070, the Byzantine empire had been kicked out of Italy, most of the levant, and lost a number of its possesions in Asia Minor. It was weakened by internal corruption, weak emperors, etc. Why does it surprise you that an empire the Ottoman turks created out of the huge seljuk empire easily conquered Byzantium? They were highly advanced people, and had already accepted the idea of jannissaries.
Dushan S
Member
Yes, I know, and I am not sure that this article is relevant, and I am not sure that this article is work of Fomenko personaly, because at some points article adresses Fomenko and his co-workers as "Them", for instance
" An important step to the reconstruction of real ancient
chronology was made by publication of a book [3] written by
A.T.Fomenko, V.V.Kalashnikov and G.V.Nosovskij. In this book the
true date of compilation of a famous ancient scientific
manuscript, the Ptolemy's "Almagest", was (approximately)
determined as a result of statistical analysis of numerical
astronomical data in the "Almagest". Traditionally it is assumed
that the "Almagest" was compiled not later than in 2nd c. A.D. In
[3] it is proved that the real date of it's compilation belongs
to the time interval from 7th century to 13th century A.D.
Later, in 1992-1993, A.T.Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskij applied
new statistical methods to Russian history. In Russian history
there also were discovered chronological shifts and duplicates.
It proves to be very much different from well-known version of
Russian history which was suggested in epoch of Romanov dynasty
reign in Russia. The book "Chronology and General Concept of
Russian History" by A.T.Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskij is being
printed (in Russian)."
Personaly, I am finding that some stuff in this article is too much out there, but point remains, it is not possible to understand any of methods used by Fomenko at all from that article.
Hehe.
I am not defending anything. You should understand and actually read someones work, to attack his methods, right? Only then I could eventually defend it. I was just pointing out that you have no informations about fomenko's methods at all, and that you are acting emotionaly. I didn't liked that article too, but one person whose opinion I respect suggested I should read book, and I was very pleasently surprised.Difference is bery obvious one. This article you keep on mentioning has nothing substancial to prove their points. On the other hand book is all about proving their points going very detailed into things (at least that is case with the original version I have that is scinetific work, popular "light" version of the book that you can find on Amazon may be different, I don't know)
And finaly, don't get angry in advance without even reading something, you don't have to read any book you don't want
I am not surprised, I was just pointing that they were Ottomans, not Turks. Ottomans were rulers, would it be different if they were of christian faith, wearing different clothing? What means they "picked the pieces"? There were some non-Turkish people at those location, probably more of them than Turks. How many people from city of Rome was in Roman empire at its peak? Not too many. So most of the people in Ottoman Empire were same people that were there during the Byzantine rulership, ethnicity does not changes with changes of rulers. But it was interest of western Christian church to have mortal enemies (if nothing else it has put enormous efforts in weakening Byzantine empire, even before Ottoman empire) in the east and then send crusades to burn and loot advanced and rich lands in the east, all that justified by the matters of faith., relligion made the borders. (christian religion actually, as there was much more religious tollerance in the east at that time) Name "Turkey" for this country is relatively new, and completely another thing.
As I have said, I was just giving you one of the many stories that are served to us and are not logical in any sense. So what I basically liked about Fomenko's work (and I mean really his work, not that .txt file from the internet, that may be not valid, I don't know for sure) is that is first time I have heard or seen any kind of logical explanation for many of hystorical inconsistencies that have troubled me. If I find better one, I will recommend that books instead of Fomenko ones.
Dushan S said:Yes, I know, and I am not sure that this article is relevant, and I am not sure that this article is work of Fomenko personaly, because at some points article adresses Fomenko and his co-workers as "Them", for instance
" An important step to the reconstruction of real ancient
chronology was made by publication of a book [3] written by
A.T.Fomenko, V.V.Kalashnikov and G.V.Nosovskij. In this book the
true date of compilation of a famous ancient scientific
manuscript, the Ptolemy's "Almagest", was (approximately)
determined as a result of statistical analysis of numerical
astronomical data in the "Almagest". Traditionally it is assumed
that the "Almagest" was compiled not later than in 2nd c. A.D. In
[3] it is proved that the real date of it's compilation belongs
to the time interval from 7th century to 13th century A.D.
Later, in 1992-1993, A.T.Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskij applied
new statistical methods to Russian history. In Russian history
there also were discovered chronological shifts and duplicates.
It proves to be very much different from well-known version of
Russian history which was suggested in epoch of Romanov dynasty
reign in Russia. The book "Chronology and General Concept of
Russian History" by A.T.Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskij is being
printed (in Russian)."
Personaly, I am finding that some stuff in this article is too much out there, but point remains, it is not possible to understand any of methods used by Fomenko at all from that article.
Hehe.
Difference is bery obvious one. This article you keep on mentioning has nothing substancial to prove their points. On the other hand book is all about proving their points going very detailed into things (at least that is case with the original version I have that is scinetific work, popular "light" version of the book that you can find on Amazon may be different, I don't know)
And finaly, don't get angry in advance without even reading something, you don't have to read any book you don't want
I am not surprised, I was just pointing that they were Ottomans, not Turks. Ottomans were rulers, would it be different if they were of christian faith, wearing different clothing? What means they "picked the pieces"? There were some non-Turkish people at those location, probably more of them than Turks. How many people from city of Rome was in Roman empire at its peak? Not too many. So most of the people in Ottoman Empire were same people that were there during the Byzantine rulership, ethnicity does not changes with changes of rulers. But it was interest of western Christian church to have mortal enemies (if nothing else it has put enormous efforts in weakening Byzantine empire, even before Ottoman empire) in the east and then send crusades to burn and loot advanced and rich lands in the east, all that justified by the matters of faith., relligion made the borders. (christian religion actually, as there was much more religious tollerance in the east at that time) Name "Turkey" for this country is relatively new, and completely another thing.
As I have said, I was just giving you one of the many stories that are served to us and are not logical in any sense. So what I basically liked about Fomenko's work (and I mean really his work, not that .txt file from the internet, that may be not valid, I don't know for sure) is that is first time I have heard or seen any kind of logical explanation for many of hystorical inconsistencies that have troubled me. If I find better one, I will recommend that books instead of Fomenko ones.
I do find the idea behind history being largely fictional as quite fascinating; I mean I do find this guys work to be interesting. I just totally disagree with his findings. I ordered the 1st vol of his 2 vol book you are mostly referring to.
Oh and on this topic I read a book last year called Where Troy Once Stood, by Iman Wilkins. The book asserts that Britain was Troy, and the Trojan war was fought by the Celts not the Greeks, and that Homer was telling a celtic story that was revised into Greek. Now while I dont put too much stock into his research, there are a number of highly interesting findings that are historically accurate and do make some sense. Tin from Cornwall was part of a very ancient trade route that went back to the Minoans. So, I do find these kinds of things interesting.
speed said:
Ah, so you're making a context error.
Happines/virtue may be the quest, but the ability and degree to which it can be attained is regulated by genetics.
Furthermore, he does not see happiness/virtue in an individualistic sense, as it is dependent (interdependent) on the world around the individual.
All this is clear when you look at the whole of the ethics and stop trying to cram 1-page quotes into your own belief system; however, thanks for posting that text (do you have a link to an etext of the whole?).
and again i didnt read all answers to this thread but....definitly there is more difference between men and woman than only the difference that woman have pussys and men cocks (as i saw in one thread)..but i think its because men want us woman to be like we are sometimes , and woman try to comfort man everytime . i dont want to sound oldfashioned but to me for example it would seem very wrong if my man cooks for me or would clean while i sit on the couch watching tv ( besides i only own one cause i must get news , but never i watch smth else as youll get to know when you read other upcoming threads). but that doesnt make of me a stupid woman , i only know my limitation .. may some woman must think im crazy , but theres truth in what im saying . mens body is in most cases stronger than that of a woman and can take more , exept the fact woman must bear birth-pain when they get children , i know that cause i have one son . i met more intelligent men than woman in my lifetime and i think still it has smth to do with how some woman get treated by men . we must still give much effort to be accepted . but its not that what woman seek , they seek to become better than man , they love saying men are stupid which they can never be i think . does that sound like i want us woman to stand only in the kitchen and bring up children ? no , but woman can for example only be better in some situations with children than man , logical when you think of they born them , they breastfeed them and so on , the must be in a way closer to them . me and the father of this my son are sharing it , im to snuggle with this child and i can feel more sorry if he has pains , but he can teach him other things a man must know later , it works somehow and he will grow up to be an intelligent and respectful male surely .
so we as girls , women or whatever must give much effort to be able to be equal to men when it comes to intelligence . but may thats why relationships work , woman and men have different qualities and that makes of two people may kind of a team too strong to be broken into two .
so we as girls , women or whatever must give much effort to be able to be equal to men when it comes to intelligence . but may thats why relationships work , woman and men have different qualities and that makes of two people may kind of a team too strong to be broken into two .
Valerie
¯\(ã)/¯
- Aug 29, 2005
- 6,765
- 4
- 38
I don't believe it's fair to measure intelligence between men and women. Intelligence should only be measured on an individual scale, though there are two sexes, there is only one species, though there is only one species, there are billions of different people. I don't believe an article like this should imply that it's ok to assume some random man is more intelligent than some random woman.
Yes, women and men have had their pre-determined roles in life, but this is the 21st century. Things obviously aren't the same since the beginning, expanding, and growing of the human race. Most husbands don't go out to hunt an animal to bring home for the wife to cook. Most wives don't stay home all day and do only domestic work.
Like has been said before, men and women rely on eachother, they can't exist without eachother, therefore this... "competition"(for lack of a better word) to try and prove (through whatever means) that one sex is superior to the other, is very pointless, and unnessecary.
Yes, women and men have had their pre-determined roles in life, but this is the 21st century. Things obviously aren't the same since the beginning, expanding, and growing of the human race. Most husbands don't go out to hunt an animal to bring home for the wife to cook. Most wives don't stay home all day and do only domestic work.
Like has been said before, men and women rely on eachother, they can't exist without eachother, therefore this... "competition"(for lack of a better word) to try and prove (through whatever means) that one sex is superior to the other, is very pointless, and unnessecary.
Demiurge
This user has no title
infoterror said:
The MIT classics page has almost every work of Classical literature/philosophy.
I wholly disagree with your comment on genetics; in fact, I would like to see a quote from Aristotle that supports this claim. He makes specific mention of how genetics is not a good measure of how a child will turn out as an adult. Which in turn leads to your idea that happiness is dependent on the world around the individual. Still, it is obvious from Aristotle, that he thinks everyone can have eudamonia, as he believes it can be universally understoof except in a variety of instances that he makes specific mention of. Thus, one if they have knowledge of what is good and will lead to happiness, can in turn, discover happiness on their own volition. Thats how I would interpret him.
Demiurge
This user has no title
LadyValerie said:
Intelligence considered by itself(not relative or in the context of other things) is so meaningless that "measuring" it at all isn't worth the time or effort. That's not to mention that I fail to see such an endeavor as even possible. How can we measure an individual thing on a scale if we pretend that there is only this individual thing?
derek
Grey Eminence
Demiurge said:
I have also thought the idea of measuring intelligence a problematic endeavour. I think we can all recognise intelligence or lack there of, but i don't think it exists as a quantifiable thing. Distinguishing levels of intelligence seems to me, at least, as pointless at best and utterly stupid at worst.
Measuring intelligence individually is helpful when children are in school, and you want to make a more specific teaching plan in addition to the curriculum. In fact, it is absolutely vital if someone has some learning difficulities and you need to plot it exactly to be able to help as much as possible.
Similar threads
