CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Society › Philosophy › Common sense...

Common sense...

Started by William Gonzalez3 · · 👁 7 views · 78 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants William Gonzalez3Jack Harris3Larry Bailey2Justin Torres5wanderingmoose11placidwalker53Jonathan Brooks8Alex Parker8Lisa Rodriguez84rustymaker5James Brown8crimsonmoose3wanderingdrifter46Brenda Cook4AEthan Parker7Charles Taylor10Michelle Williams17Lawrence Bailey77Mark Torres14Casey GomezSamuel Parker
William Gonzalez3 William Gonzalez3 RegularOP
276 messages
joined May 2009
#41 ·
So, if we’re going by your logic, what would you say is a better way to define intelligence?
I mean, who actually qualifies as being smart?
And how exactly does having an awareness of one's own limitations preclude someone from being intelligent?
wanderingdrifter46 wanderingdrifter46 Member
26 messages
joined Jul 2006
#42 ·
They are completely mutually exclusive! You’re either going to argue that some brilliant autistic person is capable of true self-awareness—and I won't even go down that rabbit hole—or you'll claim they lack intellect simply because they're on the spectrum.

Besides, the mere concept of actually knowing one's own potential is so deeply frustrating that it’s no wonder we see such a staggering number of mass shooters who were nothing more than deranged scientists or total losers.

I refuse to be conscious of my own capabilities!
William Gonzalez3 William Gonzalez3 RegularOP
276 messages
joined May 2009
#43 ·
I’m not really talking about exceptions here—I’m talking about the rules.

So, I'm not interested in discussing people with autism, or eccentric scientists, or even mass shooters.
What I actually care about is what being intelligent means for those of us who are just average—and whether being smart, or even just appearing and sounding smart, actually matters as much as I seem to think it does.

That said, I don't think having an awareness of your own limitations is such a foolish thing to do.
The reality is—whether you want to admit it or not—you have boundaries. You have certain capacities that you simply cannot exceed.
And even if you aren't aware of those limits, they still exist. For instance, you still can't breathe underwater, regardless of what you believe.
Being unaware of your own constraints might only help you in the sense that it gives you the courage to try more things.
If that brings you any satisfaction, then by all means, go ahead.
wanderingdrifter46 wanderingdrifter46 Member
26 messages
joined Jul 2006
#44 ·
Even a basic invertebrate without gills knows you can't breathe underwater, so I fail to see how that has anything to do with intelligence.

Besides, the entire modern world is built on scientific consensus, yet it falters whenever someone decides to play the fool and claim the Earth is flat.
If it makes you feel better, you can just stay stuck on your own little plateau of ignorance.
William Gonzalez3 William Gonzalez3 RegularOP
276 messages
joined May 2009
#45 ·
What is the actual cost of being unaware of your own limitations?

Do boundaries even exist if you aren't conscious of them?

p.s. That whole thing about not being able to hold your breath underwater—that’s just one example of a boundary you might be oblivious to, yet it remains very much real. If you ignore that limitation, you're essentially putting your life at risk.
The same logic applies to driving, too.
For instance, if you overestimate your skills behind the wheel, you might end up in a ditch.
It’s the same story when it comes to drinking.
If you overdo it, you’ll likely end up in a ditch as well.
And honestly, this goes for a million other things—situations where I would go so far as to say it is both useful and wise to know your limits and act accordingly.
rustymaker5 rustymaker5 Regular
352 messages
joined Mar 2008
#46 ·
I honestly feel like anyone with half a brain wants others to actually notice that intelligence and give them some credit for it. It doesn't really matter if that sharpness comes from a lucky genetic lottery, years of hitting the books, constant self-improvement, or just whatever... at the end of the day, it’s the crowning achievement of someone trying to build themselves into the best version of themselves possible. Anyone claiming otherwise is just lying to themselves, because let’s be real, nobody wants to be labeled as an idiot or slow-witted.
The idiots don't even lose sleep over it because they aren't smart enough to realize what they're missing.

Then again, having all the brilliance in the world doesn't guarantee you'll be happy. But hey, that's a whole different conversation, isn't it?
wanderingdrifter46 wanderingdrifter46 Member
26 messages
joined Jul 2006
#47 ·
William Gonzalez3 said:What exactly do you gain by refusing to acknowledge your own limitations?

Do your boundaries just vanish simply because you aren't aware of them?

P.S. That bit about not being able to hold your breath underwater is just one example of a boundary you might be oblivious to, yet it remains a physical reality; ignoring it puts your life at risk.
The same logic applies to driving a car.
For instance, if you overestimate your skills behind the wheel, you’re going to end up in a ditch.
It’s the same deal with drinking.
If you overdo it, you’ll find yourself in a ditch too.
This goes for a million other things where it isn't just useful—I'd go as far as to say it's smart—to know your limits and act accordingly.


Those are just roles imposed on us by time or whatever else... and what does that have to do with intelligence?
You're just playing a part shared by millions of others, blindly following established norms...

Where is the actual self-fulfillment in that? Where is the bohemian audacity to step forward, only to find yourself camouflaged by artificial constraints forced upon your own intellect?
placidwalker53 placidwalker53 Member
25 messages
joined Aug 2003
#48 ·
wanderingdrifter46 said:these roles are just things imposed by time or whatever... and what on earth does that have to do with intelligence?
you’re essentially sharing that role with millions of others, simply adhering to pre-established social norms...

where is the actual self-fulfillment in that—that sense of bohemian audacity required to step forward, solely because you've allowed yourself to be camouflaged by the artificial constraints placed upon your own intellect?

I fail to grasp why you insist on constantly countering William Gonzalez3 with arguments that aren't particularly brilliant to begin with... I have no desire to bicker or attempt to prove the unprovable, but I truly believe this discussion should aim toward some semblance of a conclusion rather than circling the drain while trying to convince individuals who are perpetually tripping over their own baseless assertions.

if you find yourself unable to comprehend what a person is actually attempting to convey, perhaps try reading what they wrote twice (or even three times, if necessary).

your logic is frankly all over the place.

no offense intended😉
wanderingdrifter46 wanderingdrifter46 Member
26 messages
joined Jul 2006
#49 ·
placidwalker53 said:I honestly don't get why you're constantly pushing back against William Gonzalez3 with arguments that lack any real substance... I'm not looking for a fight or trying to prove the impossible, but I really think this discussion should be moving toward a conclusion rather than just trying to convince individuals who are constantly "posturing" with what I consider to be completely hollow points

If you can't grasp what the man is actually saying, try reading his post twice—or maybe three times if that helps you catch up.

Your logic is a complete mess.

No offense intended.😉


What kind of world would we live in if everyone were actually intelligent?!😁
Or heaven forbid,😲 if everyone actually had a right to their own opinion!!!😲

Absolutely pathetic!!!😲 🤣 🤣 🤣
William Gonzalez3 William Gonzalez3 RegularOP
276 messages
joined May 2009
#50 ·
rustymaker5 said:I suppose any intelligent person feels a need to have their intellect recognized and validated by others. After all, external recognition serves as a sort of final seal on the achievements of someone striving to build themselves up in the best way possible. Anyone claiming otherwise—well, they're probably just kidding themselves.

rustymaker5, Annie
😘 👋 👋 😘 👏 👏 👏
She really is quite wise, isn't she?

So, let's see what my great (though perhaps overly dramatic) mentor has to say about this:

Damir Barbarić said:A certain amount of recognition is necessary for anyone. A total lack of it can easily breed resentment or resignation—much like how excessive "fame" can quickly lead one toward shallow vanity and a rather superficial disposition.


Quinn:
But then again, all the intelligence in the world isn't necessarily the key to happiness. Though, that's a whole different conversation, isn't it?
I certainly hope you aren't expecting me to start an entirely new thread... regarding what actually makes a person happy.
hmmmmmm
Then again, maybe we could dive into that too.
Lisa Rodriguez84 Lisa Rodriguez84 Active Member
175 messages
joined Jul 2006
#51 ·
You're preaching to the choir. If everyone actually had a brain, nobody would want to do any real work—everyone would just be chasing some "mental" career path... and then everything would just go straight to hell.
That’s why it’s actually a good thing when people recognize their own limits (and let's be honest, their laziness) and find a job that actually fits them.
William Gonzalez3 William Gonzalez3 RegularOP
276 messages
joined May 2009
#52 ·
wanderingdrifter46 said:Are these roles just things imposed on us by the passage of time—or maybe something else entirely? And I wonder, what does any of that actually have to do with intelligence?
You’re essentially sharing this role with millions of others—just following the established norms and playing by the rules that have already been set...

And where is the actual sense of self-fulfillment in all this—that kind of bohemian audacity required to just step forward, simply because you’ve decided to shed the camouflage? Artificial. It feels like we’re constantly hitting the ceiling of our own cognitive limits—sort of like being trapped by the inherent boundaries of our own intellect. I guess there's just a certain threshold to how much any one person can truly grasp or process at once. It's a bit of a humbling thought, really—that we're all essentially working within the constraints of our own mental capacity.

That is exactly the point I’m trying to make—it really comes down to that.

The constraints I'm talking about—they aren't some arbitrary set of rules, nor were they just forced upon us by the passage of time.

Those limitations are really just the reality of things—they exist because, at the end of the day, we're only human. We are inherently limited by our own bodies, and I guess you could even say by ourselves.

I suppose there are ways to step outside the boundaries we're given—to push against those predefined limits—but I feel like we always have to keep our own personal constraints in mind while doing it.
I mean, if you think about it—we can technically breathe underwater, provided we bring an oxygen tank along with us.
Well, it looks like we’re facing yet another round of those restrictions—which, if we’re being honest, are really just an extension of the old ones—the kind of stuff we could have actually learned about back during Baywatch.
I suppose we can only stay underwater for as long as there’s oxygen left in our tanks.
One shouldn't just rush in headfirst—it’s probably better to avoid making any sudden moves.
You really have to stay mindful of those underwater hazards—the kind that can trap you and just... prevent you from surfacing. It’s easy to overlook, I guess, but being careful about what's lurking beneath the surface is everything if you want to make it back up for air.
So, I suppose those restrictions are still hanging over us—which, honestly, probably makes sense to follow.
Of course—that kind of logic only really works for people whose primary goal is simple survival. I suppose if someone prioritizes something else entirely, then their definition of what is "smart" shifts to match that new objective. It’s all relative, I guess.
William Gonzalez3 William Gonzalez3 RegularOP
276 messages
joined May 2009
#53 ·
Lisa Rodriguez84 said:You have a point there. If everyone were actually smart, nobody would want to do any manual labor—everyone would just be chasing those "mental" roles... and then everything would just fall apart.

That is an interesting way you framed that.
The idea that if everyone were smart, no one would want to work, and we’d all just be aiming for intellectual careers.

So, by that logic, mental—or rather, intellectual—jobs aren't really considered "work."

But, I suppose I have to ask: what makes you conclude that people in intellectual fields are inherently smarter than those doing physical labor?

The metric I tend to use is whether someone truly understands their own abilities and acts in alignment with them.
To me, an incompetent painter—someone who isn't actually putting emotion onto the canvas but is just churning out products designed to sell—is much less intelligent than a skilled carpenter or a gardener who performs their craft with genuine insight and passion.
Lisa Rodriguez84 Lisa Rodriguez84 Active Member
175 messages
joined Jul 2006
#54 ·
I was being general on purpose. Calling mental labor "work" is a trap because people immediately frame it as an either-or choice:
Either you’re hitting the books or you’re getting your hands dirty. But I’m not saying someone in a white-collar office is inherently smarter than a guy working construction; they might just be more resourceful, or maybe just better at navigating the system.
There aren't any set rules here.
William Gonzalez3 William Gonzalez3 RegularOP
276 messages
joined May 2009
#55 ·
That seems like the logical sequence of events, yet we find ourselves witnessing the exact opposite.

If you take a closer look at the world around us, I think you could argue that many skilled tradespeople are actually far more resourceful than your typical computer nerd.

p.s. For truly intelligent people, physical labor and mental exertion aren't mutually exclusive—they actually complement one another.
People who focus solely on the mental aspect, or purely on the physical, don't really strike me as whole or even healthy individuals.
We often hear the phrase "a sound mind in a sound body," but I suppose people repeat it so frequently they've forgotten what it’s actually supposed to mean.

So, those who neglect their bodies while pushing their minds to the limit will likely end up unhealthy.
The same goes for those who ignore their intellect and only focus on physical training.
The ideal, in my view, is Arnold Schwarzenegger in that movie where he plays the twin brother to that little Italian guy.
image
A true Renaissance man.
rustymaker5 rustymaker5 Regular
352 messages
joined Mar 2008
#56 ·
William Gonzalez3 said:You know, I was thinking about this the other day... there’s this one incompetent painter I know, someone who doesn't actually put any soul or raw emotion into their work, but instead just churns out these hollow pieces designed specifically to please the masses just so they can move units... and honestly, in my book, that person is significantly less intelligent than a decent carpenter or even a gardener who approaches their craft with genuine understanding and actual love for what they do... it’s just about the depth of the connection to the work, really...


If that painter is actually pulling in a massive paycheck, it really makes me wonder if he’s just fundamentally dim-witted... I mean, seriously, if a gardener can't even scrape by off the things they pour their heart and soul into creating... then what are we all even doing here...

I’ve been thinking about this, and honestly, I don't see how much intelligence actually plays into the whole love equation... It just doesn't track. Love is this raw, visceral feeling that hits you from the gut, whereas being smart is an entirely different cognitive process altogether... They aren't even in the same universe.
Lisa Rodriguez84 Lisa Rodriguez84 Active Member
175 messages
joined Jul 2006
#57 ·
William Gonzalez3 said:
The perfect comparison is Arnold Schwarzenegger in that movie where he plays the twin brother of that little Italian guy.

Danny DeVito.

Look, the only thing Arnold Schwarzenegger actually knows is how much he's smart—but just like he admits in that film, he’s all theory and zero practical application. Honestly? I think the little guy is going to fare way better. Sure, he isn't "educated" or some genius, but he's a thief, a hustler, and incredibly resourceful. He might actually end up doing better in life than Arnold, who's probably going to struggle just trying to get his bearings...
William Gonzalez3 William Gonzalez3 RegularOP
276 messages
joined May 2009
#58 ·
rustymaker5 said:If that painter is actually making decent money, I have to wonder if he’s—well, maybe—not all that bright. And if a gardener can't make a living from their hand-crafted work, created with such care...

I suppose intelligence doesn't really have much to do with love. Love is a feeling, whereas being smart is something else entirely.

Intelligence might be separate from love, sure, but does money actually correlate with happiness?
And honestly, what good is all the money in the world to that painter if he isn't happy?
Besides, I'm not quite sure what would need to change for a gardener to finally be able to live off of the things they create with so much heart.
rustymaker5 rustymaker5 Regular
352 messages
joined Mar 2008
#59 ·
William Gonzalez3 said:Intelligence doesn't have anything to do with love, but does money have anything to do with happiness?
And what good is all the cash in the world to some painter if he isn't actually happy?
I mean, I don't even know what kind of catastrophe would have to strike for a simple gardener to be unable to make a living from the things he crafts with love...


You were talking about intelligence, not happiness...

As for the idea that money doesn't necessarily make a person happy, I'm with you there, though I’d probably go a step further and say that having money certainly helps a person stay happy...
William Gonzalez3 William Gonzalez3 RegularOP
276 messages
joined May 2009
#60 ·
arna said:You were talking about intelligence, not luck.

And regarding the idea that money doesn't necessarily make a person happy—I agree, though I might add that having money certainly helps a person stay happy.

Oh, I know....
but lately, I’ve been feeling pretty confused. It's like I'm at war with my own brain.
It just jumps around so much that even I have trouble keeping up sometimes.
One minute it's logic, then it's pure emotion—switching from love to hate, from joy to sadness, from a total binge to complete sobriety... I feel like I go through twenty different moods in twenty seconds.
So, I've actually isolated myself for a bit, because right now, it feels impossible for anyone to keep up with me.

I think it might be about time I start doing some sort of meditation.
But, you know, more like a Christian-style reflection—nothing too "Eastern" or anything.
What do you think? Would it actually be smart to start meditating now, and would it really be any better than just trying to survive this constant state of mental chaos?

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads