the necessity of intellectual oligarchy
the necessity of intellectual oligarchy
The answer to a given philosophical quandary is only understood by a few. There is some number of people who do not have the ability to understand, and there is some number of people who do not wish to understand. Being willing and able to understand how to deal with a philosophical quandary is a necessary attribute of a good leader.
Re: the necessity of intellectual oligarchy
What is your objective standard for "understanding"?Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:26 pm The answer to a given philosophical quandary is only understood by a few. There is some number of people who do not have the ability to understand, and there is some number of people who do not wish to understand. Being willing and able to understand how to deal with a philosophical quandary is a necessary attribute of a good leader.
How do you know that you "understand" anything?
Would it make me a good leader if I were to placate you by telling you that I understand exactly what you mean?
-
commonsense
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: the necessity of intellectual oligarchy
Yes, the will and ability to understand quandaries is a necessary attribute of a good leader. However, when the people select a leader, they may select a leader without this quality—one who is not a good leader.
-
Scott Mayers
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: the necessity of intellectual oligarchy
That's the "Philosopher King" concept of Republics (as from Plato's Republic. Many today are confused at the concept of the Electorial College in the U.S. system. This was deviced with this idea in mind. Instead of the regular masses voting for someone merely based upon emotion, the hope was to have an intellectual capable of understanding the depth of something with presumed qualifications to do the final voting. Unfortunately, one's emotions still elect the particular collegiate's veto and the party's tend to be sure their 'intellectuals' align to party platforms. The "Republican Party" believes that their own such 'intellectuals' are qualified by the pragamatic success measured by the dollar. As such, they tend to fall short of the original intent because they presume one's wealth (or 'ownership' power) is what qualifies as proof of one's intellect.Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:26 pm The answer to a given philosophical quandary is only understood by a few. There is some number of people who do not have the ability to understand, and there is some number of people who do not wish to understand. Being willing and able to understand how to deal with a philosophical quandary is a necessary attribute of a good leader.
Plato, (through Socrates), argued that their existing form of 'democracy' in Athens suffered for tending to favor the emotional rhetoric through those who sell manipulation schemes as mechanical type means to 'win' one's arguments. This was Socrate's "Sophists", something most extrremely represented by those selling how to sell, or, in modern terms, those 'motivational speakers' and business improvement courses, lectures, etc, that themselves treat results as that which matters. Oddly, today's Republican Party favors the "Sophist" type of tactics even if they don't necessarily act like this behind the scenes. This is because they see that rhetoric can/should be used to the 'stupid' population. As such, they intentionally seek someone more 'popular' in terms of the mentality of such persons who 'sell' to the lowest common denominator of intellectualism.
Are you 'republican'?
Re: the necessity of intellectual oligarchy
[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=470511 time=1599796112 user_id=11118]
[quote=Advocate post_id=470400 time=1599751595 user_id=15238]
The answer to a given philosophical quandary is only understood by a few. There is some number of people who do not have the ability to understand, and there is some number of people who do not wish to understand. Being willing and able to understand how to deal with a philosophical quandary is a necessary attribute of a good leader.
[/quote]
That's the "Philosopher King" concept of Republics (as from Plato's [i]Republic[/i]. Many today are confused at the concept of the Electorial College in the U.S. system. This was deviced with this idea in mind. Instead of the regular masses voting for someone merely based upon emotion, the hope was to have an intellectual capable of understanding the depth of something with presumed qualifications to do the final voting. Unfortunately, one's emotions still elect the particular collegiate's veto and the party's tend to be sure their 'intellectuals' align to party platforms. The "Republican Party" believes that their own such 'intellectuals' are qualified by the pragamatic success measured by the dollar. As such, they tend to fall short of the original intent because they presume one's wealth (or 'ownership' power) is what qualifies as [i]proof[/i] of one's intellect.
Plato, (through Socrates), argued that their existing form of 'democracy' in Athens suffered for tending to favor the emotional rhetoric through those who sell manipulation schemes as mechanical type means to 'win' one's arguments. This was Socrate's "Sophists", something most extrremely represented by those selling how to sell, or, in modern terms, those 'motivational speakers' and business improvement courses, lectures, etc, that themselves treat [b]results[/b] as that which matters. Oddly, today's Republican Party favors the "Sophist" type of tactics even if they don't necessarily act like this behind the scenes. This is because they see that rhetoric can/should be used to the 'stupid' population. As such, they intentionally seek someone more 'popular' in terms of the mentality of such persons who 'sell' to the lowest common denominator of intellectualism.
Are you 'republican'?
[/quote]
That was a fair bit of complete change of topic there at the end. Good show. Excellent segue!
I am not. Intellectual oligarchy libertarian socialist/fascist or something like that.
[quote=Advocate post_id=470400 time=1599751595 user_id=15238]
The answer to a given philosophical quandary is only understood by a few. There is some number of people who do not have the ability to understand, and there is some number of people who do not wish to understand. Being willing and able to understand how to deal with a philosophical quandary is a necessary attribute of a good leader.
[/quote]
That's the "Philosopher King" concept of Republics (as from Plato's [i]Republic[/i]. Many today are confused at the concept of the Electorial College in the U.S. system. This was deviced with this idea in mind. Instead of the regular masses voting for someone merely based upon emotion, the hope was to have an intellectual capable of understanding the depth of something with presumed qualifications to do the final voting. Unfortunately, one's emotions still elect the particular collegiate's veto and the party's tend to be sure their 'intellectuals' align to party platforms. The "Republican Party" believes that their own such 'intellectuals' are qualified by the pragamatic success measured by the dollar. As such, they tend to fall short of the original intent because they presume one's wealth (or 'ownership' power) is what qualifies as [i]proof[/i] of one's intellect.
Plato, (through Socrates), argued that their existing form of 'democracy' in Athens suffered for tending to favor the emotional rhetoric through those who sell manipulation schemes as mechanical type means to 'win' one's arguments. This was Socrate's "Sophists", something most extrremely represented by those selling how to sell, or, in modern terms, those 'motivational speakers' and business improvement courses, lectures, etc, that themselves treat [b]results[/b] as that which matters. Oddly, today's Republican Party favors the "Sophist" type of tactics even if they don't necessarily act like this behind the scenes. This is because they see that rhetoric can/should be used to the 'stupid' population. As such, they intentionally seek someone more 'popular' in terms of the mentality of such persons who 'sell' to the lowest common denominator of intellectualism.
Are you 'republican'?
[/quote]
That was a fair bit of complete change of topic there at the end. Good show. Excellent segue!
I am not. Intellectual oligarchy libertarian socialist/fascist or something like that.
-
Scott Mayers
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: the necessity of intellectual oligarchy
[How the hell did your last post print out the code instead of follow the tags? I tried to see the error and cannot! It does it correctly when I tested your copy???? ]Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:06 amThat was a fair bit of complete change of topic there at the end. Good show. Excellent segue!Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 4:48 amThat's the "Philosopher King" concept of Republics (as from Plato's Republic. Many today are confused at the concept of the Electorial College in the U.S. system. This was deviced with this idea in mind. Instead of the regular masses voting for someone merely based upon emotion, the hope was to have an intellectual capable of understanding the depth of something with presumed qualifications to do the final voting. Unfortunately, one's emotions still elect the particular collegiate's veto and the party's tend to be sure their 'intellectuals' align to party platforms. The "Republican Party" believes that their own such 'intellectuals' are qualified by the pragamatic success measured by the dollar. As such, they tend to fall short of the original intent because they presume one's wealth (or 'ownership' power) is what qualifies as proof of one's intellect.Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:26 pm The answer to a given philosophical quandary is only understood by a few. There is some number of people who do not have the ability to understand, and there is some number of people who do not wish to understand. Being willing and able to understand how to deal with a philosophical quandary is a necessary attribute of a good leader.
Plato, (through Socrates), argued that their existing form of 'democracy' in Athens suffered for tending to favor the emotional rhetoric through those who sell manipulation schemes as mechanical type means to 'win' one's arguments. This was Socrate's "Sophists", something most extrremely represented by those selling how to sell, or, in modern terms, those 'motivational speakers' and business improvement courses, lectures, etc, that themselves treat results as that which matters. Oddly, today's Republican Party favors the "Sophist" type of tactics even if they don't necessarily act like this behind the scenes. This is because they see that rhetoric can/should be used to the 'stupid' population. As such, they intentionally seek someone more 'popular' in terms of the mentality of such persons who 'sell' to the lowest common denominator of intellectualism.
Are you 'republican'?
I am not. Intellectual oligarchy libertarian socialist/fascist or something like that.
The topic in meaning is historically the political definition of a republic with respect to electing leaders. If you haven't read Plato's work, I recommend it given you might enjoy how many recognized the same thing as you are proposing. My extension was to express why Plato/Socrates was proposing the Philosopher King. Note that as he wrote it, he recognized other problems of the idea that lead also to the idea that the elected leader cannot want the position. While a good idea, it still tends to collapse eventually, something that Karl Marx raised in his works. [that politics goes in cycles. Oddly, his own proposals of Communism should have been recognized as similarly not able to be maintained.]
Re: the necessity of intellectual oligarchy
[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=470517 time=1599799212 user_id=11118]
[quote=Advocate post_id=470513 time=1599797175 user_id=15238]
[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=470511 time=1599796112 user_id=11118]
That's the "Philosopher King" concept of Republics (as from Plato's [i]Republic[/i]. Many today are confused at the concept of the Electorial College in the U.S. system. This was deviced with this idea in mind. Instead of the regular masses voting for someone merely based upon emotion, the hope was to have an intellectual capable of understanding the depth of something with presumed qualifications to do the final voting. Unfortunately, one's emotions still elect the particular collegiate's veto and the party's tend to be sure their 'intellectuals' align to party platforms. The "Republican Party" believes that their own such 'intellectuals' are qualified by the pragamatic success measured by the dollar. As such, they tend to fall short of the original intent because they presume one's wealth (or 'ownership' power) is what qualifies as [i]proof[/i] of one's intellect.
Plato, (through Socrates), argued that their existing form of 'democracy' in Athens suffered for tending to favor the emotional rhetoric through those who sell manipulation schemes as mechanical type means to 'win' one's arguments. This was Socrate's "Sophists", something most extrremely represented by those selling how to sell, or, in modern terms, those 'motivational speakers' and business improvement courses, lectures, etc, that themselves treat [b]results[/b] as that which matters. Oddly, today's Republican Party favors the "Sophist" type of tactics even if they don't necessarily act like this behind the scenes. This is because they see that rhetoric can/should be used to the 'stupid' population. As such, they intentionally seek someone more 'popular' in terms of the mentality of such persons who 'sell' to the lowest common denominator of intellectualism.
Are you 'republican'?
[/quote]
That was a fair bit of complete change of topic there at the end. Good show. Excellent segue!
I am not. Intellectual oligarchy libertarian socialist/fascist or something like that.[/quote]
[How the hell did your last post print out the code instead of follow the tags? I tried to see the error and cannot! It does it correctly when I tested your copy???? ]
The topic in meaning is historically the political definition of a [i]republic[/i] with respect to electing leaders. If you haven't read Plato's work, I recommend it given you might enjoy how many recognized the same thing as you are proposing. My extension was to express why Plato/Socrates was proposing the Philosopher King. Note that as he wrote it, he recognized other problems of the idea that lead also to the idea that the elected leader cannot want the position. While a good idea, it still tends to collapse eventually, something that Karl Marx raised in his works. [that politics goes in cycles. Oddly, his own proposals of Communism should have been recognized as similarly not able to be maintained.]
[/quote]
To say a good leader would not want the position is to say that not wanting to be doing what you're good at is a good attribute of leadership which is, of course, ridiculous. Likewise a leader should not be humble, they should be Accurate in their ego. There are three baseline necessary attributes for good leadership and none of them have to do with ego. They are knowledge, intelligence, and conscientiousness (presumably above average). Someone with those things could be a total loon in some other sense and still be a great leader.
Plato also had a free other... issues. The Republic wasn't a utopia i'd want to live in. But anyway, i completely support philosoper kings which is to say no more than that the best person should have the job.
[quote=Advocate post_id=470513 time=1599797175 user_id=15238]
[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=470511 time=1599796112 user_id=11118]
That's the "Philosopher King" concept of Republics (as from Plato's [i]Republic[/i]. Many today are confused at the concept of the Electorial College in the U.S. system. This was deviced with this idea in mind. Instead of the regular masses voting for someone merely based upon emotion, the hope was to have an intellectual capable of understanding the depth of something with presumed qualifications to do the final voting. Unfortunately, one's emotions still elect the particular collegiate's veto and the party's tend to be sure their 'intellectuals' align to party platforms. The "Republican Party" believes that their own such 'intellectuals' are qualified by the pragamatic success measured by the dollar. As such, they tend to fall short of the original intent because they presume one's wealth (or 'ownership' power) is what qualifies as [i]proof[/i] of one's intellect.
Plato, (through Socrates), argued that their existing form of 'democracy' in Athens suffered for tending to favor the emotional rhetoric through those who sell manipulation schemes as mechanical type means to 'win' one's arguments. This was Socrate's "Sophists", something most extrremely represented by those selling how to sell, or, in modern terms, those 'motivational speakers' and business improvement courses, lectures, etc, that themselves treat [b]results[/b] as that which matters. Oddly, today's Republican Party favors the "Sophist" type of tactics even if they don't necessarily act like this behind the scenes. This is because they see that rhetoric can/should be used to the 'stupid' population. As such, they intentionally seek someone more 'popular' in terms of the mentality of such persons who 'sell' to the lowest common denominator of intellectualism.
Are you 'republican'?
[/quote]
That was a fair bit of complete change of topic there at the end. Good show. Excellent segue!
I am not. Intellectual oligarchy libertarian socialist/fascist or something like that.[/quote]
[How the hell did your last post print out the code instead of follow the tags? I tried to see the error and cannot! It does it correctly when I tested your copy???? ]
The topic in meaning is historically the political definition of a [i]republic[/i] with respect to electing leaders. If you haven't read Plato's work, I recommend it given you might enjoy how many recognized the same thing as you are proposing. My extension was to express why Plato/Socrates was proposing the Philosopher King. Note that as he wrote it, he recognized other problems of the idea that lead also to the idea that the elected leader cannot want the position. While a good idea, it still tends to collapse eventually, something that Karl Marx raised in his works. [that politics goes in cycles. Oddly, his own proposals of Communism should have been recognized as similarly not able to be maintained.]
[/quote]
To say a good leader would not want the position is to say that not wanting to be doing what you're good at is a good attribute of leadership which is, of course, ridiculous. Likewise a leader should not be humble, they should be Accurate in their ego. There are three baseline necessary attributes for good leadership and none of them have to do with ego. They are knowledge, intelligence, and conscientiousness (presumably above average). Someone with those things could be a total loon in some other sense and still be a great leader.
Plato also had a free other... issues. The Republic wasn't a utopia i'd want to live in. But anyway, i completely support philosoper kings which is to say no more than that the best person should have the job.
-
Scott Mayers
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: the necessity of intellectual oligarchy
Something is wrong with either your computer and/or this software Advocate. I cannot tell what it is. But the code should not be printing what we see there when I cannot duplicate the same problem. See how my response before this appropriately worked but your follow up post didn't?
WARNING: Advocate's above response is possibly a hack. The revealing of our tag numbers getting exposed can inform bots or others whose numbers align with whom and risks revealing more afterwards. If anyone else is reading this, look for similar posts. The underlying code for the posts is ignoring the normal 'submit' response and appears to remove the post link command!!
WARNING: Advocate's above response is possibly a hack. The revealing of our tag numbers getting exposed can inform bots or others whose numbers align with whom and risks revealing more afterwards. If anyone else is reading this, look for similar posts. The underlying code for the posts is ignoring the normal 'submit' response and appears to remove the post link command!!
Re: the necessity of intellectual oligarchy
[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=470520 time=1599800973 user_id=11118]
Something is wrong with either your computer and/or this software Advocate. I cannot tell what it is. But the code should not be printing what we see there when I cannot duplicate the same problem. See how my response before this appropriately worked but your follow up post didn't?
[size=150][color=#FF0040]WARNING: [/color][/size]Advocate's above response is possibly a hack. The revealing of our tag numbers getting exposed can inform bots or others whose numbers align with whom and risks revealing more afterwards. If anyone else is reading this, look for similar posts. The underlying code for the posts is ignoring the normal 'submit' response and appears to remove the post link command!!
[/quote]
That code is available to anyone who chooses the quote option, mr. paranoid. There is zero evidence of any wrongdoing, potential harm, or malfeasance and you need to remove that comment straight away. There's a setting that every normal user has which prevents parsing the code. You can set your own.
Something is wrong with either your computer and/or this software Advocate. I cannot tell what it is. But the code should not be printing what we see there when I cannot duplicate the same problem. See how my response before this appropriately worked but your follow up post didn't?
[size=150][color=#FF0040]WARNING: [/color][/size]Advocate's above response is possibly a hack. The revealing of our tag numbers getting exposed can inform bots or others whose numbers align with whom and risks revealing more afterwards. If anyone else is reading this, look for similar posts. The underlying code for the posts is ignoring the normal 'submit' response and appears to remove the post link command!!
[/quote]
That code is available to anyone who chooses the quote option, mr. paranoid. There is zero evidence of any wrongdoing, potential harm, or malfeasance and you need to remove that comment straight away. There's a setting that every normal user has which prevents parsing the code. You can set your own.
-
Scott Mayers
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: the necessity of intellectual oligarchy
I mentioned this to you yesterday two posts up but you bypassed responding to it. So, how are you bypassing this and, if I am the one being merely 'paranoid', why would you be so concerned to do it yourself? You have to admit it looks suspect, right? Bypassing the site's commands in these windows should not be permitted and any switches to alter that beyond the allowed code is risky behavior for the site, if NOT for particular guests.Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 2:51 pmThat code is available to anyone who chooses the quote option, mr. paranoid. There is zero evidence of any wrongdoing, potential harm, or malfeasance and you need to remove that comment straight away. There's a setting that every normal user has which prevents parsing the code. You can set your own.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:09 am Something is wrong with either your computer and/or this software Advocate. I cannot tell what it is. But the code should not be printing what we see there when I cannot duplicate the same problem. See how my response before this appropriately worked but your follow up post didn't?
WARNING: Advocate's above response is possibly a hack. The revealing of our tag numbers getting exposed can inform bots or others whose numbers align with whom and risks revealing more afterwards. If anyone else is reading this, look for similar posts. The underlying code for the posts is ignoring the normal 'submit' response and appears to remove the post link command!!