ForumLegacy.com

yeah i think i explained it in an awful way, i may have been drinking at the time haha. When I said sharing deep philosophical and scientific thoughts, it was supposed to be a generalization. See when I can share deeper thoughts on a topic i'm passionate about with someone else who's passionate about the same thing, i get a lot of enjoyment out of it, as well as drive to learn even more about the topic. it definitely doesn't have to be science or philosophy, i enjoy talking about music, history, even on occasion my own favorite tv shows and movies if there's something worthy in them to discuss. I didn't convey the idea very well, but I meant it as someone could be happy sharing their thoughts with other like-minded individuals, or even people who think differently but are still interested in the subject.

When I said it's ugly to see people only discussing what's on TV, it does sound somewhat judgemental, and honestly it probably is a little bit judgemental. I try not to judge people for the things they are interested in, because I believe to each his own. I still can't help but feel like society would advance more quickly if more people cared about furthering their own abilities and knowledge. It isn't for everyone, but I think a basic understanding of how the world works is important in shaping the way the next generation views and changes the world around us, whether that may involve technology or even the types of entertainment that we enjoy. Take, for example, the idea of opera. I know opera still exists, but I know only one opera singer out of all the music students I worked with in school. Operas don't exist in my home city, and if they did I don't think there would be very many people in attendance. However you could go to a dub-step rave and the place will be packed. This isn't a bad thing necessarily, but the values of the people (and mainly the youth) is what shapes our culture, and I do hope somewhat for a more intellectually-based value system. That doesn't mean we can't still enjoy ourselves by any means.

I do believe that everyone should do whatever makes them happy. Happiness generally trumps reason, intelligence, and logic. A prime example is watching someone do something really stupid (or what an outside observer may consider stupid) for someone they love. It happens all the time and we are probably all guilty of it. It makes us happy at the time though and that's what matters. I just see a link between intelligence and happiness over the long run. Look at the teens we knew in high school that had it all, the popularity, the looks, and the inner circle. Some of these people were intelligent, but more often than not they'd forego the intelligence because intellectual values have no place in the system they've set up for themselves. Then they grow up, and they realize that they have nothing to say because all the things they found important as teens have little value in the real world. This is a good example of why people should generally have a basic level of intellect. Intelligence isn't everything and it certainly isn't going to be the direct cause of a person's happiness, but it should be valued in order to continue progressing.


I wasn't offended I just think I took what you said the wrong way, and wasn't sure how I should be taking it. Considering how I explained myself though it's easy to see why you came to the conclusion that you did.

Alright, let's just chalk it up to a bit of miscommunication on both parts.

Anyway, tastes change over time. Opera isn't very big anymore, and I would say that maybe it never was that big. I think mostly people from a certain exclusive cultural background attended. I'm not an expert on opera, but I don't believe it was ever for the common man. Before dub-step raves it was rock & roll and disco parties that they attended. How do you see opera having a positive influence on people's values and intelligence?

It's just not everybody's cup of tea. Most people will rather go to something where they can dance and socialize with other people than sit in a theater and listen to somebody sing, I bet. When all is said and done, people would rather do something they enjoy in their free time than something they don't.

I agree, and people should definitely do what they enjoy. I just think people don't value education as much as they should. I enjoy partying and drinking as much as the next guy, and I don't think anyone should do something they don't like. To me, personally, learning, reading, all that stuff is fun. Maybe I just can't wrap my head around it simply because I DO find those activities exciting, but I think it's something that nearly everyone could enjoy. The fact remains that if you're not into it, why do it, but I believe that in some capacity, we all enjoy learning. It's what you're learning about that reflects your level of intrigue. For example, I have no desire to learn about this season's hottest fashions, but someone else might be all over that. *, they might even be extremely intelligent in regards to that particular topic, whereas someone like myself would be considered ignorant or stupid. It's all perspective, I guess.

That being said, I'm only trying to state my opinion that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Intelligence and happiness go hand in hand if you're educating yourself on topics that interest you. That doesn't mean we all need to have the same form or same level of intelligence to be happy.

I would never spend countless hours of my own spare time studying just for the sake of "being more intelligent" whether in comparison to myself or someone else. There's no fun in that. But I will read an article about something I like and educate myself more on the subject and find pleasure in that. The pleasure doesn't come from knowing that I now know more about said topic than I did before, it comes from the interest in learning.

During Mozart's time, Opera was huge. It was starting to get away from the clean cut Baroque period dominated my J.S. Bach (who wrote the book on music theory) and towards a more aurally pleasing experience as demonstrated by Beethovan, who bridged the gap between Classical and Romantic. Mozart was full classical, but still had lots of fun with his music and people loved it. Mozart was pretty much a rock star. Even wrote a song called Leck mich im Arsch which translated means Lick Me in the *.

Now, I value my intelligence quite highly. Sometimes too much, but that is just part of who I am. I gain happiness from my intelligence in this way, and I understand that not everyone is like this. However, I agree with WA in that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. It is unfortunate that young parents are using TV and video games to babysit their kids while they do whatever else. I believe this is preventing that child from reaching his full potential. Now, this doesn't guarantee he will be miserable, but I certainly feel that this restriction will hinder him in life, which can and has lead to unhappiness. It can manifest in stress (not knowing how to deal with a situation properly), terrible jobs (perhaps dropped out of high school and just works low wage jobs), or a general feeling of being trapped (can't move out of parent's house or can't move out of trailer).

Okay, I agree that you may value your intelligence highly and that doesn't mean you're getting happiness from it, but pride. I still don't understand how intelligence could cause happiness. In fact, I believe our happiness may actually be held back by our intelligence. The more intelligent we are, the more we are able to think of negative consequences to our actions, and the more likely we are to choose the safe route over a route that could potentially make our lives more fulfilled. In many situations it's best to just shut your mind off and go for it. I definitely wish I had that ability.

You say that games and TV are keeping children from reaching their full potential, but this is vague. What is their full potential? How do you decide it? Can you name actual people that have reached their full potential?

You know, I've been thinking about this subject recently... And the advancement of the human race has made our lives longer, easier and more comfortable, but not necessarily happier. It's possible that the simple life our ancestors had was a lot more satisfying.

FF!!! wrote:You know, I've been thinking about this subject recently... And the advancement of the human race has made our lives longer, easier and more comfortable, but not necessarily happier. It's possible that the simple life our ancestors had was a lot more satisfying.

Agreed. Whereas it may have been a struggle to actually live, the simple things brought them the most enjoyment. This I find is not the case in today's world. Any "fun" comes at quite the cost typically. And by cost I literally mean money. Money is a manifestation of the human condition and intelligence I would say without a doubt is why our system exists in such a way. Now I realize that blaming the human condition in this way is quite a generalization, I really only have one proposition that may be correct to defend my position (It's up for discussion really). Animals (Now obviously some animals are deemed "intelligent"). I think I'd rather live for survival than convenience. My thoughts are kinda scattered right now and I don't think I'm really portraying what I'm thinking properly. Nonetheless, it seems animals (generally) care about survival and not generating philosophies about their surroundings. Furthermore I don't believe they generally think about being happy or intelligent, rather just to live. A quote I once thought up was that perfection is only achievable to beings or objects that do not know the meaning of perfection. I think nature is perfection for it knows not what perfection is. Somewhat relates to what I'm saying but in a very abstract way haha. Once again I will state my thoughts are scrambled. I guess back to my initial thought is i'd rather live to survive than live to be happy or intelligent or to even conceive the meaning of such emotions or what have you.

FF!!! wrote:You say that games and TV are keeping children from reaching their full potential, but this is vague. What is their full potential? How do you decide it? Can you name actual people that have reached their full potential?

"Reaching one's potential" is definitely a vague thing to say, but here is the general definition I was able to find about it. Reaching one's potential involves several of the following things:

- To chase dreams.
- To live one's dreams.
- To spend it for something that will outlast it.
- To matter: to count, to stand for something, to have made some difference that you lived at all.
- To expand one's potential in life.
- To become the person you've always wanted to be.
- To become the best version of yourself.
- To seek happiness and flourish.
- To be a true authentic human being.
- To be able to put the whole of oneself into one's feelings, one's work, one's beliefs.
- To follow our destiny.
- To submit to our destiny.
- To create your own destiny.
- To achieve eudaimonia, a flourishing of human spirit.


After reading these, I find a lot of them to be vague in their own right. To follow and submit to our destiny? Keep in mind these seem to be just the most common of people's general thoughts on realizing their potential. I believe that a lot of these may centre around being intelligent. Many may only centre around searching for happiness in life. Some involve both. Living one's dreams may require intelligence, in the sense that one can't sail around the world without knowing a decent amount about running and maintaining a sailboat.

I realize now what tman is getting at though, asking if we were better off before when we didn't have so many distractions to entertain us. When we were primal, we didn't need to sail the world, or travel across the planet, or into space or to the depths of the ocean to feel a sense of accomplishment. We didn't need to watch the news to see what's going on in Baghdad or see movies or play video games, because everything at that time was new to us. Exploring the forest behind your home was an adventure, and killing an animal to feed yourself may be the only enjoyment you require.

I don't really necessarily believe that nature is perfection in the way you're talking though. Animals live in order to survive, this is true. However, animals play all the time in the wild. Not just infants, either, adults enjoy screwing around as well. Both intelligent and unintelligent animals still find ways to entertain themselves that aren't related to their survival. I know you're saying that the simpler things bring more enjoyment, which is true. An unevolved man could splash in the water and enjoy it far more than a spoiled sedentary modern child could enjoy playing Xbox. I'm just trying to make the point that animals probably wouldn't play and have fun if they didn't think about being happy. I doubt they have any capacity to desire intelligence, though.

We as humans have always been determined to push things a little further than the previous generation. To have a better understanding of our universe, to explore further, etc. If you're saying this inherent need to know everything is what holds us back from true happiness, I can't say I disagree. I do value my education and my intelligence, but I am fully aware that if we were all simply animals with the sole desire to survive and to achieve happiness with the resources available to us, then we would have far fewer problems in this world to worry about, and those who don't die of starvation will probably be content.

The main reason I feel that way is because of how little we really know. Humans have existed for over 12 thousand years, and in that time we have made some enormous leaps in science and discovery. Unfortunately it could potentially be another 5 thousand years before anyone ever really understands our existence. So, instead of pondering philosophy, we could just survive and be happy if we were only capable of such a thing.