We all carry the burden of the universe upon our shoulders. For this reason we all need to keep a macroscopic perspective together with our microscopic personal one. People who obsess with matters that do not aid in guaranteeing them the best life possible, are not smart, and these things they deal with are trivial.Scott Mayers wrote:Define 'trivial'. Whatever your personal idea of what this is is highly subjective.
If you don't reach out to the world and grasp it in all the ways you can, you are neglectful on behalf of your own life. If a major crisis were to arise and you haven't paid attention to the news, you might very well succumb to it for reasons that could've been avoided. Also, people who are able to get a lot of money by some behaviour, may not be able to get a happy life along with it, because they've sacrificed too much to get there, therefore this success becomes trivial since it does not serve any higher goal of a good life. Imagine the woman who marries a rich man she doesn't really like, just for his money, now in most situations, particularly in the west, I'd call that really stupid.
I'd call it experience from afar.I'm confused by your own wording here. It appears as innuendo.
Intelligence does not depend upon what is either normal nor any motive, still disagree on that one.I am not promoting 'stupidity'. I said that intelligence requires a motive and that it is NORMAL not to seek and learn where it APPEARS relevant to them. Many people get through a university degree with little actual 'intelligence' because they don't internalize (reflect) upon what they learned. Often they are just good at memorizing (rote learning) and relatively clerical. "Intelligence" can't be forced. It is something that comes from real life challenges.
Whether intelligence comes from real life challenges or not is not a subject of philosophy, I'd ask a neurologist specializing in early to mid human development for the answer to that question.
okayThe 'contemporary justification [for people choosing to prefer stupidity]' refers to many today who purposely support 'stupidity' as a type of rebellious act. See "Jack Ass" or https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCR3Cho ... fcn87wMJag among many contemporary examples of risk seekers wanting to do absurd stunts or highly risky things. I only mentioned these types of 'stupidity' since they are often about entertainment or fun, not necessarily one being 'stupid' by accident or neglect. So I was dismissing this form of 'stupidity' for what I was meaning.
You can do something wrong, even if it's not natural to you.As to those who are accidentally stupid, these people are what I'm saying are NOT doing anything WRONG
Nobody has this lack, this is untrue.because they just lack the NEED to invest in intelligence.
Nobody has this lack either, this is also untrue.It doesn't mean that they could or should try to be more intelligent where necessary. For instance, I think someone like Tony Robbins, is 'stupid' by default of lacking a need to actually think with logic.
Not seeking out new knowledge also makes you not smart. Seeking out knowledge is a critical part of being smart, therefore one can say somebody is smart because they just lack the resources to do things better, but not for choosing not to use resources that are available.But he is 'smart' because he uses what he is limited in his knowledge effectively as he makes a lot of money for his advise. [He could be 'secretly' intelligent too. But then he's just a con using it to separate other gullible people from their money.]
You're saying you can't solve problems without reflection? Or is that just a poorly written sentence?Here's where you would do good to reflect. An ability to solve problems IS a product of reflection.
Nope. Intending to do things does not make you smart nor intelligent. Succeeding makes you smart and intelligent. It does not make sense to call loosers for intelligent, because they intended something.If you simply learn the rules of chess, this doesn't qualify you with sufficient intelligence. But if you've played many games, AND LOST a lot, this may instigate a willingness (motive) to try to think with more intent. It is THIS that makes one more intelligent.
If you don't pursue smartness, you're still going to suffer eventually when you run out of luck, as happens most times. Whether you like it or not, you're here arguing for basing ones life on luck instead of robust securing of joys for said life, which requires smart activities.If you are a handsome or beautiful model who succeeds well without having to try hard, you lack the motive to question why you are not getting precisely what you ARE getting.
You can still loose it. You have to always assume there's a risk, and look for risk factors, or you're not being a very smart person. You are being extremely generous with your view on being smart and being intelligent here. It seems to me you are making everyone smart and intelligent, and that seems kind of pointless to me.If you are born into wealth, for instance, do you require learning "how to become wealthy"? You might perhaps want to learn how to prevent yourself from becoming poor by losing your wealth. But if you haven't even perceived this risk, what purpose does it serve to entertain learning how to get what you've already got?