"The higher man"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

How exactly is intellect measured ?
Is a brain surgeon more intelligent than a mechanic ?
I suppose that would depend on wether you had an anuerism or a blocked carb.. :D
Is the downs syndrome child who plays piano like a demon or can recount all the inportant dates from the last two centuries less inteligent than you or I ?
It's a question of supposed importance and mans need to feel superior to others in the pecking order of life.

Basically it's bollocks ! :thumbsup:

---

You'd be one of those literary critics who say that Shakespeare's genius didn't write his works, Elizabethan/Jacobean England did.

Shakespeare, Newton, Socrates, Mozart, Michelangelo...all of these people managed to transcend the intellectual or artistic limitations of the common man, rendering the great man theory worth a lot more than "bollocks." Some people are just fools, plain and simple, and to say they're equal to a creative genius is just outrageous. All men are born equal, sure...what they do after that, not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt

You'd be one of those literary critics who say that Shakespeare's genius didn't write his works, Elizabethan/Jacobean England did.

Shakespeare, Newton, Socrates, Mozart, Michelangelo...all of these people managed to transcend the intellectual or artistic limitations of the common man, rendering the great man theory worth a lot more than "bollocks." Some people are just fools, plain and simple, and to say they're equal to a creative genius is just outrageous. All men are born equal, sure...what they do after that, not so much.

---

You are delving into the nature versus nurture argument and to a large degree we are products of both genetics and enviroment.

Intellect is not the measure of any man and to assume a position of superiority is the domain of the inadequate.
Theory is fine but in a practical world theory isn't much use.

Nobody has yet made an attempt to answer my question of a what do you consider a failsafe method to quantify and accredit intelligence ?

I consider myself relatively intelligent , some consider me highly intelligent , others consider me a fool, we can't all be right. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

Nobody has yet made an attempt to answer my question of a what do you consider a failsafe method to quantify and accredit intelligence ?

---

Quote:

---

Morality and intelligence must go hand in hand, for without intelligence, morality would be lost on the individual, likewise, without morality, intelligence would be wasted.



Universal morality lies in respect and responsibility.

Respect the free will of others, and use your own free will responsibly, and you will walk a morally sound path.

Neglect your personal responsibility or to respect the freedom of others, and you will walk an amoral path.

---

i guess, then, it would be one's ability to coexist with their peers and environment without forcing their will to change either.

Those who display ease in coexisting MUST be intelligent, for a stupid person wont be able to handle it. HOWEVER, intelligence, being a man made concept, like distance, time, weight, and speed, must be measured with a linear numerical "weight". right now, we have I.Q. points.



i dont think that works, nor is it fail safe, i prefer my example, but ultimately you have to take into consideration the diversity of intelligence.


i kant spell but i noez my maths very gud!


doesnt mean im stupid, doesnt mean im smart, it means i know some things, and dont know others.


i say one's intelligence should be best gauged by their actions, and interactions with the world around them.


those who cause more harm than good are idiots. those who create more happiness and less pain are geniouses!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

You are delving into the nature versus nurture argument and to a large degree we are products of both genetics and enviroment.

Intellect is not the measure of any man and to assume a position of superiority is the domain of the inadequate.
Theory is fine but in a practical world theory isn't much use.

Nobody has yet made an attempt to answer my question of a what do you consider a failsafe method to quantify and accredit intelligence ?

I consider myself relatively intelligent , some consider me highly intelligent , others consider me a fool, we can't all be right. :D

---

You're clearly nobody's fool.

For me, true intelligence is depth. Does a person think deeply about things, have a large capacity for free thought, have an appreciation for the finer things, a spiritual awareness, etc.? Extreme, unequivocal kindness can be a form of this too.

Oh, and by the way, to say a belief in superiority is the mark of the inadequate, isn't that an assertion of your own superiority, that you're above such thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt

You're clearly nobody's fool.

For me, true intelligence is depth. Does a person think deeply about things, have a large capacity for free thought, have an appreciation for the finer things, a spiritual awareness, etc.? Extreme, unequivocal kindness can be a form of this too.

Oh, and by the way, to say a belief in superiority is the mark of the inadequate, isn't that an assertion of your own superiority, that you're above such thoughts?

---

Certainly not , I am often guilty of arrogance as opposed to balancing my pride in my achievements against the recognition of my short comings.

Of course there are always the favoured subjects that I excell in but by the same token there are fields of knowledge that I know absolutely nothing about.

YouTube - Monty python - universe song

Is there any question in life the Monty Python boys can't answer ? :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

Certainly not , I am often guilty of arrogance as opposed to balancing my pride in my achievements against the recognition of my short comings.

Of course there are always the favoured subjects that I excell in but by the same token there are fields of knowledge that I know absolutely nothing about.

YouTube - Monty python - universe song

Is there any question in life the Monty Python boys can't answer ? :thumbsup:

---

Oh, I hear that. My mathematical skills are pretty pathetic.

I'm a huge Python fan, by the way.

Yesterday, or the day before (i dont remember) while i was being a "higher (in this :jointsmile: sense) man", i think i figured out what Nietzsche did mean with "higher man".
Most people are very immersed in their own humanity, in their daily concerns, and feel, behave, live and die as humans without never stop to think about it, that they are humans, and everything they are and do are not "the life", "the world", "the reality" . but only and just only human things.
But some people are able to view things past their humanity, to percieve the traits of behavior of us human beings, like to view things from a outsider perspective, like if they were, for example, aliens watching how the mankind lives and behaves, and so they can notice the limitations and arbitrarieties and the general folly of our usual human lifes and concerns.
Most (if not all) of the "great men" were of this kind, and thats why they were different of the "normal" people that lived with them but were not great as them because they were just "normal". Being "higher" allowed them to notice things that the normal people didnt, do things that normal people didnt and be more than normal people were.
And in this case i think there is no gradation of highness. Or a person can get out from its own humanity and percieve the world "from above", or it cant, so or a person is a "higher man" or it isnt.
If it were what Nietzsche did mean, then i agree with him.

Coelho, i think almost all hippies and stoners are "higher" individuals, and i do not mean that for puns.


I believe that anyone who's ever altered their perception of the world, weather through drug or meditation, has opened their mind to that "outside-looking-in" perspective which allows us to take a look at our lives and selves.



I am one of these kinds of people, you describe, as being able to observe humanity, as though from the outside. i have been since i was 12 years old; i took one look at a $5 my dad gave me and kind of snapped, tore it up to shreds, on the thought-impulse that if we dont have money, we cant have anything.

The thought that earning money was more important than servicing life drove me insane, and i have never actually recovered. Stupid humans.

But nevermind that, it's not like i am going out and killing people, no matter how much i think you people deserve it for being so stupid as to consensually rely on inanimate, unloving representations of quantum wealth.

Rather than living life for quality, you live for quantity.



I have news for you:

Quantity =/= Quality.

More is not necessarily better.


All things are beneficial in moderation, harmful in excess.



If every single human being could, at all times, easily acquire at least $5, any time, any place, then money would be universally beneficial.

Doesnt work that way and never will, right? So how is money actually any good? It only holds us back from necessities and convinces us that we've "earned" luxuries.

No one i've spoken to who hasnt been stoned before can understand WTF i am talking about.


ALMOST No one on these forums has a hard time relating.



WE are higher than our former selves.

Depends what criteria you decide upon to make up this "higher man" to hold to. If its watching and listening to the top 10 list on the radio and not smoking pot to that person, it would be as if they were the "higher man" all along. You might be the one thinking your higher in certain ways to the other, partly in reason because you read Nietzsche. So on and so on. Maybe its just in mans nature to think of himself so highly.

I thought a high man would be a nicer man like smarter kinder the new man