I wouldn't call them benefits. It’s more like taking the path of least resistance and tricking yourself into believing there's some almighty force watching over everything from out of nowhere. It basically provides a built-in consolation prize for our mortality, killing off one of humanity's oldest terrors: the fear of death. If you believe hard enough that Heaven is waiting for you—provided you follow the exact, rigid rules laid out by your belief system—everything is settled. There's no room for error, and even if you mess up, there's always confession. Just classic religious demagoguery... they essentially invented a reset button for every mistake you make. Seriously. And get this: if you spent your whole life doing unspeakable things but "sincerely" repent on your deathbed (whatever that even means in this context), it's all wiped clean. Like an eraser. You die in white instead of black. I guess faith is the perfect sanctuary for people who lack the guts or the confidence to actually question the system, let alone shake its foundations and flip the whole thing on its head... Regarding the idea that faith is everywhere, it’s pretty simple: humans are fundamentally the same regardless of where they are, and we struggle with the same existential questions. So, it stands to reason that our ways of explaining the inexplicable would be similar. Blindly following a doctrine is the easy way out. On the other hand, questioning why we believe what we do—and understanding the cause-and-effect links between belief and cultural, social, psychological, or political shifts—is what keeps your mind sharp and aware of how society actually functions. There's also the matter of perspective. Analyzing how beliefs manipulate the masses gives you the necessary distance to view events within the broader context of geopolitics and current affairs. Without that detachment, it's nearly impossible to stay unbiased and think for yourself. There’s a neat analogy in fractal geometry where a tiny fragment of rock shares the same structure as the entire mountain. It’s easy to conclude that the dynamics playing out among three friends grabbing coffee are fundamentally the same as those governing a city, a nation, or humanity itself. They're all driven by people, and people are driven by the same basic motives, just scaled up and made much more complex. It’s not always that clean-cut, but that's the core of it...
I don't think the issue is people using natural resources to get by—to an extent, that's just survival. The real problem is the sheer scale of it. We’re stripping everything bare because we can, driven by pure greed and backed by tech that lets us outpace nature's ability to recover. Take whale hunting, for example. They wouldn't be facing extinction if it weren't for human gluttony and the massive technological power that allows us to wipe out entire species just to pad some bottom line. It’s not about basic needs anymore; it’s about a complete lack of empathy for anything beyond our own immediate gratification. Honestly, if the last man on Earth found a single seed, he wouldn't plant it and wait for it to grow; he’d probably just eat it right then, paranoid that someone might try to steal it... Humans have way too much power and zero maturity. Technology is evolving at light speed while our collective consciousness is stuck in the mud. There's no fixing that. Then again, you have to give the damn species credit for a few things. We've built incredible stuff, created masterpieces, and shown moments of genuine grit. But let's be real, the world isn't going to shift overnight. Some people claim we'll run out of oil and finally pivot to renewables, or we'll kill off all the sharks and realize the ecosystem is broken, or eventually learn that totalitarianism is a dead end... Give me a break. It won't happen. Not now, maybe not ever. At the end of the day, we're just animals with better tools. We've paired advanced technology with minds that aren't ready to handle it, and that’s how we ended up here. It’s like handing a kid a handgun along with enough strength and know-how to strip it, lube it, and fire it. He’s got the technical skill, but he lacks the judgment to understand what that weapon actually does. It's a lethal combo, and there's nothing different about it on a global scale. It's not even "human nature"... it's just the massive gap between our technological progress and our wisdom, or lack thereof.
I think the answer is pretty obvious. No. Why? Because a book isn't just some specific sequence of letters and punctuation marks—which, let’s be honest, is all a book is without context anyway. It’s about the content. And content is fluid. It shifts based on the era, the setting, the author, the genre, the audience, and an endless web of intertextual rules that people can follow, break, or tweak until they actually change the language itself. That’s why trying to constantly reinvent "perfect" grammar is a waste of time. It's just a clumsy, awkward attempt to force hybrid half-phrases into existence when the natural evolution of words means some things simply won't have a direct equivalent in every language... If you’re talking about being limited to a twenty-six letter alphabet, sure, there's a limit in theory, because there are only so many ways you can arrange those characters. If someone writes something using just A, B, and C, those three letters can only be arranged in a few ways: ABC, CBA, BCA, BAC, ACB, or CAB. But nobody writes books just to shuffle letters into combinatorial sequences. Books serve a purpose, and that purpose depends on a million different variables that make the actual arrangement of letters the very last thing on anyone's mind.
Just a few questions to pass the time. Do you view philosophy as an end in itself, or just a tool to reach something else? If it’s a tool, what’s the ultimate goal? And if it’s the goal, why does that matter? Also, when you say things like "I was left all alone with myself," who are you actually talking about? There seem to be two subjects there—which one is which?
I used to think it was pretty straightforward: philosophy is a path toward a specific destination. Maybe that destination is God, or some spiritual reality, or an ultimate truth buried deep in our minds or spirits that we need to unearth. It felt logical—if you start moving, you have to be heading somewhere. Why bother moving at all if you aren't aiming for something concrete? But after spending a lot of time digging through books on Hinduism and Buddhism, my view shifted. Not only did I start accepting the idea that the journey *is* the destination, but I also started wondering if any of it is even real... or if it's just a pile of pseudo-mythological fairy tales where ancient people tried to make sense of the world. Everything always circled back to God. We go through certain experiences in certain bodies to understand God. We deal with karma, and so on. From that angle, philosophy—and everything happening to us—is just a way to reach a goal. However, once you step back and look at it like a detached observer, you realize nobody will ever know for sure. There’s always going to be friction between conventional science and spirituality. In that sense, philosophy is both the tool and the goal, but it isn't an end in itself. It forces you out of your own mental bubbles and makes you question how you perceive reality. That helps prevent people from getting stuck in rigid thought patterns, which opens the door for actual creativity and decent discussion instead of everyone grabbing weapons or starting fights the second someone disagrees with their dogma. A little distance from blind belief allows for some actual, sober thinking...
As for being "alone with yourself," I don't think that means being in the company of another version of yourself. I think it comes down to the fact that in society, we’re always trying to present a better, more attractive version of ourselves than what’s actually true. Like when some guy brags about benching 225 lbs just so girls will notice him or guys will respect him. Being "alone with yourself" is that moment when you’re lying on the bench in an empty gym and you have to face the fact that you can barely push 200, let alone 225. It’s a raw example, but you get the point. People are full of self-doubt—doubting whether they’ll meet the expectations set by society, their parents, or even themselves. Those doubts turn into fears, and everyone deals with them differently. Some guys puff out their chests and try desperately to prove they’re the man, a total badass, or some kind of god among men. Others shut themselves away, terrified they won't even be able to count their change at a Starbucks without causing a cosmic catastrophe that leaves them humiliated in front of their "perfect" community. But eventually, you have to face the facts, usually when you're alone and the outside noise dies down. You're that guy on the bench. You can talk your ass off about hitting 225, but the fact remains: you hit 200. It's the same with everything else. But honestly, it's good to reach a point where we can question ourselves and just accept it. I ran into a quote by that Indian figure Meher Baba once: "More than anything else, we need to be what we are and to be fully accepted as such."
I could probably write a whole novel about my take on priests and organized religion in general, but I won't start a war or spit venom right now since it's not really the topic, though let it be known... To address the question of whether this girl was a hero: people love throwing around big words way too easily. Suddenly everyone is a hero, from pro athletes😕 to fallen firefighters who probably had to burn alive just to be celebrated as martyrs (again, stripping away the emotion, the reality is they were just doing their jobs and likely died because someone cut corners on their gear just to line their own pockets), so now some football player running around on grass is somehow on the same level as a person who died burning up while trying to save lives and nature from a disaster😕. This girl is simply a victim. Removing the sentimentality, it's just a web of tragic circumstances. I'm not even sure how much her family and friends care about the fact that she maintained her dignity, purity, honesty, and righteousness—and maybe saved some whales in the process—according to what the priest said. Of course the priest had to say something, but calling her a great woman, a hero, Joan of Arc... give me a break. She’s just a victim. Do you honestly think she was thinking about anything other than pure instinct, doing whatever it took to stay alive in those moments? For God's sake. When you're in that situation, you don't know which way is up. You have no clue what you're doing or what you should be doing. Thinking about preserving her "purity" in the way the church defines it, or fighting for "sacred" ideals, is somewhere around the 1,776th priority, somewhere between wondering what's for dinner and checking the New York Stock Exchange. You fight for survival. You react on instinct. You don't have time to think about anything at all. People just can't accept that some things in life are just senseless shit that hits you every once in a while. There's no grand reason for her death. A tragic accident. A life wasted. A victim. That's it.
Noah Sanchez7 said:I won't berate you; I'm just going to talk this through with you, son. 😉 I’m going to take this apart piece by piece, paragraph by paragraph, until your whole theory falls apart. A tripod has more stability than that. First off, marijuana isn't some synthetic chemical, though it does contain THC. No one invented THC or cooked it up in a lab; it’s been around just as long as humanity itself, if not longer. Everything we eat contains various substances, like lycopene, and each one plays its own specific role in how our bodies function. 😍That’s exactly how it should be. God doesn't make mistakes. Your theory—which seems to be the current consensus among governments worldwide and, unfortunately, most people—is that substances affecting the physical body are useful and necessary (not all of them, obviously), while anything that touches the psyche, the soul, or the spirit is considered harmful and should be banned, destroyed, and the users arrested or even beaten. What else can I say besides, forgive them God, for they know not what they do? If you take even a moment to look closer, you'll see how upside down everything in this world really is. It’s all backwards. I figured that out back when I was fifteen. It cost me quite a few gray hairs before I finally realized that on a global scale, our spiritual evolution has only just begun—up until now, it’s mostly been about physical progress. It’s really just a matter of time before everything falls into place. A little something. I'm as certain about what I'm saying as I am that I have five fingers on my left (and right) hands. And I'm just as sure that you're wrong. I’m not trying to talk myself up here—don't get me wrong—it's just the reality of it. I think I might just be an old soul compared to you, that's all. Look, you’re starting to build this argument based on some pretty narrow, old-school conservative scientific viewpoint. I have several different sources of information on this topic, but I trust my own experience above all else—which mostly involved a lot of trial and error through self-experimentation. THC definitely has a specific effect, and one of its main manifestations is heightened sensory perception—unless, of course, you’ve never actually tried it. My logic is that by sharpening the senses, we're taking in more information and sensations, which essentially trains the brain to handle atypical situations. It's like a workout where you aren't building biceps, but rather strengthening the brain itself. Bodybuilders can obviously lift heavier weights than non-bodybuilders, so there’s really nothing negative about that. Then you have religions, like the Rastafarians, who use marijuana as a tool to reach truth or enlightenment, or whatever you want to call it. Bob Marley was probably the most famous representative of the Rastafarian movement, and I think it’s pretty redundant to comment on what kind of man he was. Indian hemp originates from India. Indian religion—or philosophy, if you prefer—is perhaps the closest thing to the truth; it’s also quite psychedelic, which makes me wonder if they leaned into it a little too hard. 😛 I heard somewhere (though I don't know if it's true) that even the Bible mentions marijuana as a plant that boosts intelligence. Personally, I think Jesus smoked. Native Americans, who mastered many disciplines that we still respect today, used herbs as frequently as an average American smoker uses cigarettes nowadays. Not to mention the Mayans, or maybe even earlier civilizations. What were Native Americans like? I don't know everything, but I know they were at least peaceful, and I believe they followed ethical codes at least three times more strictly than we do today. And the Rastafarians? They are "Peace Brothers." Just take it easy. Isn't that enough? As for the "India" crowd, I won't even go there. Deep meditation. Maybe they were the ones who invented skanking?! 😁 Finally, I know what I become when I get high. In an era where mere existence has taken priority over the meaning of life, weed, by its very nature, isn't just a "friend"—it can be a savior, provided you are incredibly strong. Weed, "likely" due to heightened senses, made me a more sensitive being, which implies empathy and many other naturally good qualities, though from a superficial modern perspective, weed made me a weaker being. That is why I say it's all a paradox. You need the strength to avoid blindly following the "masses" and instead remain true to your own critically acquired knowledge. That's when the whole "me against the world" thing starts; whoever pulls that off, more power to them.
Humanity has made great progress, but regarding consciousness and awareness, it feels like we've been walking a path of reverse evolution.
I'm inviting everyone to learn, or if they can't, to trust those who actually know, rather than everyone making up their own stories and creating confusion that produces nothing new, leaving the status quo unchanged. I believe this is for the ultimate benefit of everyone on this planet.
I'm not offended, obviously. We're just talking. I read your post carefully. It’s an interesting take, and sure, that whole "me against the world" mentality—searching for something higher than just basic survival—is usually fine, but I think people jump to conclusions too fast. I used to devour books on Hinduism and philosophy. I lived for it. It felt great because it gave you this sense of being deep in spheres that the average Joe doesn't touch. Maybe it's true, maybe not, but at some point, I had to pull back. I stepped away from that blind faith and the habit of viewing everything through a "spiritual" lens. Now, I look at everything—spirituality, science, philosophy, and those messy attempts to mix them—from a distance. What kind of distance? I'm too skeptical to just swallow whatever someone serves up without deciding if I actually want it... Everyone has their own angle and their own way of processing info, but I prefer keeping my distance from "instant wisdom" or anything someone else wants me to believe. You should study everything, take what works, and move on. That's why I didn't get stuck on Hinduism or Eastern religions; they started feeling predictable. Of course, you'll believe some caricature of a wise man meditating on a mountain top for fifty years like he's not even part of this world. Who wouldn't? And trust me, I was there once. But let's be real. It's all just iconography in the end. Do you really think some bearded guy in the jungle is more valuable than someone grinding at a job, dealing with family, living on a meager salary, and stressing over how to feed their kid or keep from getting fired and ending up in a psych ward? Those are two completely different lives... When people talk about renouncing materialism, they're talking about letting go of everything—including pleasure—so a person can realize they're a spiritual being, a fragment of a higher consciousness using this body like a vehicle to experience, process, and discard things. Still, it's just like any other religion—myths and beliefs tied to a specific culture. I'm not saying there isn't something to it. There might be. But you shouldn't follow these things blindly as if they hold all the answers. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But it's just as stupid to chase gurus thinking they'll lead you to God as it is to cling solely to science and refuse to think about anything else. That's the distance I keep. I respect both, but I won't be a mindless follower of anyone without deciding for myself if it's worth it. What I wrote earlier about substances affecting brain chemistry is just a fact of biology and anatomy. I'm not judging anyone for using anything. It’s just tragic if a person—and more people are doing this lately—thinks they can reach wisdom, or what I call "living in harmony," only through a chemical reaction in the brain. It's sad because I truly believe people are capable of distinguishing between what's productive and what's useless, but the world has been set up for so long that reconciling spirituality with materialism feels almost impossible... The world today is built on possession. Look at politics, for example. It's all just a front for lining pockets under the guise of programs that nobody mentions again once the election is over, unless they need to recite a script for the news cameras. People have the right to believe and act however they want, provided they aren't hurting anyone else. There are always multiple ways to look at things. Nothing is inherently good or bad; it's about whether a person thinks about their actions. You need at least a shred of critical consciousness regarding the world you live in. You have to decide for yourself, weigh the pros and cons, and avoid falling for marketing gimmicks. If you can think soberly and freely about your actions and their consequences, then man, do whatever you want, with whoever you want... as long as you aren't causing damage to the world around you.
A guy and a chicken are sitting there, smoking weed and drinking juice. Finally, the guy asks, "Hey, you feeling anything yet?" The chicken says, "Nothing." A little while later, the guy asks again, "Yo, you feeling anything?" "Nothing," says the chicken. After another bit, the guy asks one more time, "Man, you feeling anything at all?" The chicken replies, "Nothing. I can't feel my wings, my beak, or my feet..."
Look. These debates always split into two predictable camps. One side wants a total ban because drugs are "evil"—whatever that even means—and the other side fights tooth and nail for the freedom to use, mostly not because they're trying to reach enlightenment or save the whales or whatever "love thy neighbor" nonsense people spout. They just want to get high. Period. The fact that it might have some positive or weird effects on your brain is secondary, even if it makes for a convenient excuse. It’s way too easy to wrap those experiences in this pseudo-intellectual ego trip where you pretend you’re some chosen genius who was destined to meet Marijuana at the perfect moment. I hate that cult-like, wannabe artist vibe just as much as I hate the idea that drugs are pure evil and anyone who touches them—even accidentally—deserves the same punishment as a major cartel boss. What does that actually achieve? We'll just end up filling jails with kids who smoked a joint after graduation while the actual dangerous dealers walk free... Like everything else, we need to find some middle ground. It's honestly hilarious when someone gets high and immediately thinks they've unlocked the secrets of the universe. If I'd known it was that easy, I wouldn't have wasted my time in school; I would've spent it at carnivals and dive bars instead.
Sure, you could look at it that way, even if intelligence is somewhat measurable through human tools. If you’re looking at scientists like Hawking or Einstein, there’s zero doubt they possess massive amounts of knowledge, know how to wield it, and have achieved a ton in their fields (I won't say they hit the absolute ceiling, but maybe they reached the limits of what human intellect can grasp through standard learning). But what kind of intelligence are we actually talking about? Reading through these threads, this seems likely: If we define intelligence by the sheer volume of absorbed facts and comprehension, then anyone with a deep well of general info, or intense specialized expertise—or someone who just knows how to use that info skillfully—is undoubtedly smart. Where I was trying to steer this discussion is toward the context of how that knowledge is applied. That’s really just a reflection of an individual's consciousness and morals. Whether they're using what they know wisely given the circumstances...
When I dive into this stuff, I always hit a wall. On one hand, there's the rigid, science-heavy side—the part that’s usually pretty skeptical of anything irrational or "emotional." It views the transcendental or mystical as something reserved for a chosen few, or maybe just those who've been struck by a Godly bolt from the blue. On the other hand, I'm open to all sorts of possibilities; things can be true without needing to be verified by our little human "tools," whether they're mental or technical. When I stick strictly to an intellectual, "rational" mindset, I always end up at this question: Is it not true that something exists the moment it's discovered? Existence doesn't need someone to perceive it just to exist. Putting humans and our tech at the center as the ultimate way to perceive reality is too egotistical to be considered objective. Just because something hasn't been discovered doesn't mean it isn't there. That leads to the real issue. If something exists but we haven't found it yet, it exists regardless of our discovery. But then again, we can only theorize based on what we actually know, stretching our logic as far as it goes to create hypotheses about how things might work within our bizarrely stretched, yet still human, frameworks of understanding. At the end of the day, though, it's all just theories and maybes. On the flip side, I live by the fact that we all have the right to act, live, and do whatever we want, as long as our actions don't hurt anyone or anything else. It leads to a pretty simple conclusion: just as I have the right to cover myself in a million piercings as long as it doesn't bother anyone, I have the right to think and believe in whatever I want, provided I'm not causing harm. It's a safe bet that there's some form of intelligent—or even non-intelligent—life out there in the universe. We don't have proof within the reach of human capability... yet. But if there is life, or some kind of consciousness or intelligence out there that we can't, or won't, or perhaps will never grasp, it doesn't change the fact that it exists. It just means it's inaccessible to us for some reason. Still, I think you have to find that fine line between pure rationalism and total metaphysical fantasy, while staying open to everything.
I wouldn't say being "smart" is some unreachable concept. Intelligence is just playing around with data and facts. It's a different beast entirely when you look at how someone processes those facts, interprets them, and actually decides whether to act on them... Real intelligence isn't just hoarding information; it's about internalizing what you know and reacting in a way that actually produces results. Figuring out which pieces of info are worth keeping and how to use them effectively—that’s where wisdom comes in. That's where ethics, morals, and the whole spectrum of long-term versus short-term thinking play a role. You should be using what you know based on that kind of reflection.
Everyone’s gonna come for me after this, but honestly? I don't give a damn. Anyway. How is nobody talking about the one obvious fact staring us in the face? Smoking, using any kind of chemical, weed (let's be real, it's just inhaling chemical compounds), whatever—it all messes with your brain. The brain reacts, either fighting back or just riding the wave of the chemical reaction between the substance and your brain chemistry. It changes how your neurotransmitters work, shifts your thought patterns, alters your perception. There’s nothing inherently wise or spiritual about it. It’s just basic chemistry. You get drunk and the room spins because your brain is reacting to the alcohol hitting your system. You overeat and get sleepy because your blood rushes to your stomach to handle digestion. It’s the exact same deal with marijuana or any other drug, hard or soft. Sure, the subjective experience might feel good or spark some "new" ideas, but calling it universal spiritual wisdom? Give me a break...
bluebison70 said:Exactly! Just look at our own history here in the States. Are the leadership of Ante Pavelić and the NDH positive historical facts or not? Some people would immediately exalt them, while others would spit on them. I guess in some textbooks, it's written from a positive perspective, whereas other books question everything. Some people proudly call themselves members of that movement, while others are absolutely horrified by it. So, I suppose, you just have to be smart about it.
Back when the whole world—well, most of it—was fighting fascism and Nazism, and the Mediterranean was basically squeezed between fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and let's not forget Joseph Stalin whose version of communism wasn't exactly peaceful either, Pavelić decided to side with the occupiers. He stood with the oppressors in a country that was actually resisting them. Nazi Germany was nothing more than an internal enemy. It was a fake construct, sugarcoated with this delusion of creating a single, "true" American state, all by clinging to the very people who were terrorizing half of Europe. While the rest of the world was trying to put a stop to the Nazis and fascists, this little pocket of occupation popped up right inside a nation fighting that exact fight. Sorry, but that isn't patriotism. It’s just selfishly pushing a private agenda using the power of an aggressor, without giving a damn about the majority who were out there trying to end the atrocities...
It’s funny how people struggle to see things—and folks—in context. It isn't about playing the victim card or nursing old wounds from some dead regime forever, but because taking things out of context creates this massive, noisy mess when you look at different situations. There’s a big difference between cracking a joke about Hitler today, nearly eighty years after WWII ended, and actually pushing Nazi or fascist ideology. One is a joke; the other is just as dangerous whether it's 1939, 1945, 2008, or right now. The problem is that people are incredibly easy to manipulate. If someone tosses out a claim that Hitler was some kind of genius, plenty of mindless, incapable people will grab those two words—"Hitler" and "genius"—and run with them, linking them directly to the horrors of the Nazi regime without thinking twice. You have to realize that Nazism, neo-Nazism, and nationalism (and I mean the "some races are better than others" kind, not simple patriotism) don't just give people an ego trip. I don't care if someone thinks they're superior as long as they aren't hurting anyone, but more often than not, that mindset escalates into violence and stripping away basic rights from anyone who doesn't fit their twisted, "perfect" mold.
bluebison70 said:We don't have to like Hitler, but the fact remains that he was a brilliant statesman and military leader. He had an unprecedented level of intellect.
Why didn't anyone else show that kind of brilliance? Well, maybe it's just because they didn't have it. Hitler is a historical figure. And the remark about Jews isn't entirely fair, I guess. Why weren't they smart enough to foresee the course of events and organize a proper response to what was coming? They had money—which equals power—but they lacked a brilliant leader, someone as sharp as Hitler. It's not just Hitler's fault...
What separates a genius from a fool? It's a thin line, really. Einstein didn't suck up all the intelligence in the world.
Hitler is a historical figure, but far from being a positive one (we can argue all day about how much of a mess the Jews have on their hands, but the fact is they aren't the ones who shoved Germans into camps—it was the other way around).
As for Hitler's intellect, that's debatable. The guy just happened to be in the right place at the right time and was loud enough to grab the masses. Also, look at Goebbels and Göring. They were basically the masterminds behind Nazi propaganda, from Hitler's own design and uniforms to the flags, color schemes, and messaging... Every leader has a massive crew of advisors and assistants without whom they'd be nothing. If Hitler hadn't been in the "right" place at the "right" time, been loud and "charismatic" enough (I'd call him psychotic and schizophrenic instead) to exploit a Germany reeling from WWI, and if everyone wasn't already living on the edge even without his Ubermensch ideas, Hitler would've just been another face in the crowd. What made him a defining figure of the 20th century, besides the massive global conflict he triggered, was the specific circumstances he stepped into, a population ready for a loudmouth, and a solid backbone of people working behind the scenes for him.
Why weren't Jews smart enough to foresee the course of events and organize an appropriate response to what was coming? They had money equals power, but they lacked a smart leader, someone as sharp as Hitler. It’s not just on Hitler...
I have to quote this again. Why didn't they foresee the direction things were going and organize resistance? To me, that sounds like blaming a rape victim for being raped. Like, why the hell was she walking through a parking lot at night if she didn't want to get screwed? Look, even if she wanted to be "loose," she certainly didn't want it with a rapist. Even if she knew there was a hypothetical danger, that doesn't mean she should have stayed locked in her house forever (I won't comment on clothing, because a rapist would have done his business whether she was naked or dressed to the chin). Is the victim at fault or the perpetrator? Even if the Jews lacked someone to lead them and organize resistance, that absolutely does not make them responsible just because some insecure lunatic decided he needed to slaughter them. Without getting into Hitler's actual motives for such an act, the Jews cannot bear the guilt for the Holocaust.
The idea that the line between genius and idiot is thin is mostly true, but a man is defined by his actions. Einstein didn't suck up all the intelligence in the world, but the difference is that Ada Hićo did a lot more damage than Albert Einstein, regardless of how brilliant he might have been. Hitler was a product of his time, his circumstances, and the historical moment...
I’d say you can split intelligence—real knowledge—into two camps: general knowledge, which is just that broad, often shallow "common culture" stuff everyone picks up, and specialized knowledge, the deep dive held by people who actually call themselves experts in their field. Hopefully, that second group actually knows their stuff. There’s also this other huge factor: how you actually handle what you know. Knowledge itself is just a pile of memorized data points. What makes it worth a damn is what we do with it—whether we use it or let it sit there, and whether we actually draw logical conclusions from those facts. Being able to form your own opinions, pivot when you're wrong, and weigh someone else's ideas against rational, objective logic is what makes knowledge functional. It's what makes it valuable. To quote Einstein: Any fool can know. A point is to understand. And I’d take it a step further: and Use that Understanding efficiently in Your Life. That’s it. Just adding a little extra to a thought from one of the greatest minds ever. But I think I'm onto something...
bluebison70 said:I don't think that's a fair way to put it. Hitler was actually a very intelligent man. He was humane. He really loved people and animals. He was a vegetarian. He wasn't a womanizer, nor was he an alcoholic or a drug addict.
Yeah, sure. And those 6 million Jews he supposedly killed were just collateral damage while he was busy trying to solve hunger in Africa. Meanwhile, he spent the whole World War meditating in the Himalayas, while his evil imaginary twin brother started the biggest conflict in modern history because he missed his big brother's love...
Just a few more "profound" thoughts on that guy Ada Hićo.
Hitler was just your average, broken-ass psychopath who happened to be in the right place at the right time. He was loud and charismatic enough to rally a nation trashed by WWI and unemployment, telling them they were superior beings. It kicked off a war that let the military-industrial complex thrive, which basically gave everyone a job...
On a different note, someone said it right. Knowledge is just accumulated info, but intelligence is how fast you connect the dots and actually get it. Reminds me of Einstein's quote: Any fool can know. The point is to understand.