Anti-intellectualism

[Whaleboy]

Occam's razor in this instance dictates that we do away with any notion of absolute value and forget the conclusion altogether.

Indeed. Relativism, to be precise, states that all is equally meaningless in the absense of a subjective measure (and accordingly, perception) to judge. In other words, we are all objectively equally untalented unless someone comes along and says "intelligence/intellect is...", and his view will become stratified. That does not mean it holds for others. Which is nice!

Look - now he's booted some innocent poster out of his sig space.

Hehe, the innocent poster was me flaming Kant.

[Enigma_Nova]

...
Another thing I'm exceptionally poor at is Memorising facts.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

based on experience

Which seems to contradict others

Yeah, good point. Since your experience is obviously more valid than mine, you really oughta just ignore everything that I've got to say.

being an arrogant twit...condescending blowhard

Case in point... LOINBURGER!!! . You're demonstrating what I'm trying to show.

What am I demonstrating -- that you're a condescending blowhard?

There are not different languages in class for those that spending their lunch times reading, and those that spend them rolling around in the mud with their heads between another mans buttocks!!

The rolleyes have slain me!

There are certainly different ways of expressing things. For example, it's possible to say "...those that spend them engaging in sport," or to instead say "...those who are such craven neanderthals that they spend all of their time rolling in the mud." Similarly, there is obviously a difference between the way that some peopel ask/answer questions in class, else there's no good explanation for why I don't receive flak while others do.

We are left to conclude that everyone is equally talented, though in different ways, until proven otherwise.

You're free to bastardize language all you want, just don't expect everybody else to jump on the boat with you. If you believe that everybody is equally athletic (despite all evidence to the contrary), or equally intelligence (despite all evidence to the contrary), or equally humble (etc.), then I certainly can't make you listen to reason.

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
I smile meekly, due to the low emotional aptitude of some of the meatbags I know.

Apparently everybody doesn't have equal worth -- you're an "intellectual," they're "meatbags."

It may already BE relevant, but not catalogued.

This is still just an argument to future evidence.

Nor did I say that they were meaningless; I said that they were not absolute.

If they're not meaningless, then it is possible (in general) to reasonably state that somebody is more/less intelligent/competent/athletic/etc. than somebody else. You claim that this is not at all possible, thus rendering the terms meaningless.

[Agathon]

Isn't the answer to this question that people are quite prepared to defer to expertise in the sciences, medical arts and so forth; but almost everyone either thinks he is an expert when it comes to philosophy, politics, ethics and the good life or wants to deny that these things can be the subjects of expertise (usually by means of some facile relativism).

And on the subject of elitism, is it not the case that if you train as a doctor you are likely to become exasperated at the semi-mediaeval claims made by the general public? Why is that any different from a philosopher getting annoyed at the low level of public argument or an economist getting riled up at the millions of people who believe that the government can just print money to solve its economic problems?

In any case a good education is supposed to teach you how hard it is to prove anything, and also how many of our beliefs rest on informed conjecture rather than proof. Surely this explains why educated people are inclined to go over the top when it is a case of something that has actually been proved.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by loinburger

There are certainly different ways of expressing things. For example, it's possible to say "...those that spend them engaging in sport," or to instead say "...those who are such craven neanderthals that they spend all of their time rolling in the mud."

Look, I'm an egalitarian but most people believe that some of their fellows are, for want of a better word, "Neanderthals".

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
True, which is the fault of the intellectual for attempting to communicate with those that do not want to listen.

This betrays a mindset:
"I are smart. I say things worth to listen to. I don't think I have to listen to people less smart than me".

You may want to deny the above, but it's clear to me that your gut instinct is to see "communication" with non-intellectuals like that.
Would you say "the fault of the intellectual for attempting communicate with those that do not want to talk" ?

Edit:

Originally logically deduced by Drogue
So an arrogant snob is someone who feels they are better than other people, and expects other people to agree with them and do what they say.

See where I'm going to?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Agathon
Isn't the answer to this question that people are quite prepared to defer to expertise in the sciences, medical arts and so forth.

Except when the fundies get concerned and try to bash the scientists for being heretics for studying cosmology, evolution or paleontology.

BTW: it is properly spelled neandertal nowdays.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Odin

Except when the fundies get concerned and try to bash the scientists for being heretics for studying cosmology, evolution or paleontology.

BTW: it is properly spelled neandertal nowdays.

Isn't "thal" just the German word for valley - i.e. it's the name of the place that the remains were first discovered.

[Spiffor]

Nope, "Tal" is the German word for valley.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Nope, "Tal" is the German word for valley.

I stand corrected.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
I spend much time figuring them out for myself, because most people can't be assed to figure themselves out.
And of course, in the act of judging others, some folk see me as pretensious (presuming 100% truth in one's own judgement).

I -would- explain this to people, but A. They're not intersted and B. They don't get it. They're content to sit in their ignorant box and live out their lives without much thought as to "Why is that guy who he is?".
Yes, it sounds arrogant, but it's true; a factor of the Thinker's inherent frustration with those who 'Don't get it'.

Did you took into consideration the fact that your "analyses" might also be wrong? You speak about how the ignorant masses should "get it", as if your message had universal truth in it, something that should be understood as true, rather than simply denied / ignored.

Obviously, this shows no arrogance from you, nosirree.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Nope, "Tal" is the German word for valley.

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

[Provost Harrison]

I never stand in judgement of people myself though...I think people think I am analysing them and hatching plans against them and ways to manipulate. Fact is, I don't...I have better things to do with my time. Only exception to that is revenge

[Odin]

We can argue all day, but that doesn't remind us of the fact that we are all have acted like arrogant snobs at some time or another, me included.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
This thread brings up a very important question, namely, why do I spend so much time on a forum that is jam-packed with insufferable *****?

Because it is fun watching us?