Geniuses Are Different (And That's Not Bad)

"In this thought-provoking video, we dive into the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer and explore why smart people often don’t care about being social. Schopenhauer, known for his pessimistic worldview, argued that solitude is not only necessary for deep thought but also a form of liberation from the superficiality of social interactions. We’ll break down his ideas about human nature, the burden of social expectations, and why intelligent individuals often prefer the peace and introspection of their own company. If you’ve ever felt out of place in social situations or wondered why some people seem indifferent to socializing, this video is for you. Join us as we discuss how Schopenhauer’s insights can help us better understand the nature of social interaction and personal fulfillment."

Click on the link below for the video:

Why Smart People Don't Care About Being Social | Schopenhauer

 

Where Did Modern Science Come From?

Western philosophy originated in Ancient Greece in the 6th century BCE with the pre-Socratics. They attempted to provide rational explanations of the cosmos as a whole.[43] The philosophy following them was shaped by Socrates (469–399 BCE), Plato (427–347 BCE), and Aristotle (384–322 BCE). (link)

- - - - - - - - -

Platonists and Aristotelians differ in their views on the nature of reality, the role of observation, and the ideal form of government.

Platonists believe that abstract forms are the most real and that the material world is inherently distrustful. They emphasize the ultimate reality of abstract forms. Their philosophy is abstract and utopian.

Aristotelians believe that concrete things are the most real and that the observable world is the basis of knowledge. They emphasize the tangible world and the pursuit of knowledge through observation and analysis. Their philosophy underlines the empirical, practical, and commonsensical. (Link)

- - - - - - - - -

It is clear to this blogger that modern science essentially came from Aristotelian thinking.

It also is clear to this blogger that philosophers who are resistant to the full acceptance of modern science are most influenced by Platonist thinking.

Who Created God?

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception.[1][2][3][4][5] It is the application of a double standard.[6][7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading)

Click on the link below for a great rebuttal to religious apologists claiming that God created everything:

Kent Hovind Thinks He's Really Clever

You Don't Have Free Will, But You Still Are Responsible

" - - - some imagine that denying free will amounts to absolving oneself of responsibility. Maybe these are the same sort of people who would be murderers if not for fear of eternal punishment by a god. Why does anyone need the crutch of free will to behave responsibly? As a member of a social species, irresponsibility on my part is not well tolerated by my band, nor by the community of life. It has consequences. I also happen to value some things, so that I act according to those values—which act as weights in evaluating competing neural outcomes. An amoeba values food, and acts to secure it. More sophisticated values likewise stimulate sophisticated responses. It is these values that counter nihilism for me, not belief in free will."

Click on this link for more on the concept that responsibility is compatible with no free will.

Philosophy And Science: A Dialogue

Below please find a dialogue between me and one of my best Facebook friends one year ago regarding the nature of philosophy and science:

If you disagree, please tell me how to validate any philosophical claims.

Jay Feldman

We can have quite a philosophical discussion about this!

Reply
Tom Rafferty

Jay Feldman, will you take my challenge? Outside of logical syllogisms, how can any other philosophical belief be verified/justified?

• 1y
• Like
• Reply

Jay Feldman

Tom Rafferty the problem is you posed two quite different questions: “verifying” a belief vs. “justifying” a belief. Moreover, there’s a definitional (or semantic) issue with these terms: belief, verify, justify, and - when combined - you create an entirely new problem: i.e., what is meant by a “philosophical belief?” Until we may agree on these definitions (which can be so agreed upon as limited to the purpose of our discussion), we can’t really have a meaningful discussion…can we?

• 1y
• Like
• Reply

Active

Tom Rafferty

Jay Feldman, your response is consistent with others to whom I ask a question such as this. I fail to see a distinction that makes a difference between the two words. Science has no problem with these words, but the philosopher and/or the religious apologist seems to.

• 1y
• Like
• Reply

Jay Feldman

Tom Rafferty I have a somewhat different question: which came first, science or philosophy? Now you would immediately advance the notion that philosophy came first (because science requires the scientific method?). I don’t agree. Observation, hypothesis and experimentation are built into our Darwinian survival process, so I suggest that science preceded philosophy. Your thoughts?

• 1y
• Like
• Reply

Active

Tom Rafferty

Jay Feldman, yes, I agree. Science means "knowledge", thus, the basic search for it is science. Before modern science, philosophy was humanity's first attempt to ask questions and form hypotheses. Then science evolved from natural philosophy to develop a method to systematically actually find the answers that philosophers were asking AND TO VERIFY/JUSTIFY its findings.

• 1y
• Like
• Reply

Jay Feldman

Perhaps man’s first impulse toward reasoning was sentience, followed by or almost simultaneously with curiosity. Coming before those two manifestations of humanness were the basic impulses that drive all living creatures: the need for sustenance and procreation (promoted by hunger and sexual desire). Into the mix were fear and anger. Exactly when love, sharing and self-sacrifice entered the picture is a mystery. Communication among the first humans probably did not include language (although sounds would have been involved, as well as visual and olfactory cues and touching). But I see curiosity — inquisitiveness — as a primary starting point toward intellect. Certainly many other sentient creatures exhibit this trait, but it remains one of mankind’s most fundamental thinking qualities which led to our higher intellect.

• 1y
• Like
• Reply

Jay Feldman

Tom Rafferty the above suggests to me that indeed science came first, because the need to know, to understand, to question (curiosity) was our first step into intellectualism. Philosophy attempts to answer those questions. It is part of the process of science, whereas science is the overarching process itself. There can be no philosophy absent curiosity. Agree?

• 1y
• Like
• Reply

Active

Tom Rafferty

Jay Feldman, this point (science is prime) is lost on the magical thinkers. They ONLY view science as an overreaching intellectual enterprise of the elite that is attacking society's values.

• 1y
• Like
• Reply

Jay Feldman

Tom Rafferty I wonder what these people think science is…

• 52w
• Like
• Reply

Jay Feldman

Tom Rafferty if we define “science” broadly as “the application of reason to reality,” I believe we must not omit one key ingredient: provisionality, meaning that our conclusions are always temporary and or incomplete, and we always remain prepared to modify our conclusions as new and more accurate data are presented.

• 52w
• Like
• Reply

Write a comment…