Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Squees Lair. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Poll Only
Who is the smartest person to have ever lived?
Topic Started: Oct 14 2011, 03:12 PM (4,202 Views)
Dantos4
Member Avatar

I have indeed offered an alternative as to defining success: the purpose of the work/art/act.

For example alexander accomplished a lot, yes, but he wanted to conquer the world, didn't he? He didn't manage anywhere near that.


The point I am making is that it is practically un debatable as a subject because the whole thing is inherently subjective. Its like asking who is better: the beatles or lady gaga, elvis or michael jackson, ghengis khan or alexander...

The only alternative I could see for SUCCESS is based on intentions. As for intelligence, as per the original post: financial success or recognition at the time is also a poor factor. Da vinci didn't make millions for his medical drawings or his aircraft designs. Darwin was (debatabley) denied by the christian church as it conflicted with the origins of the human species.

The term intelligence is also an ambiguous term.. Anyone care to define it in a way that everyone agrees upon? That would be a good start to the debate.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Warden of Wisdom
Member Avatar
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
Dantos4
May 10 2012, 08:35 PM
I have indeed offered an alternative as to defining success: the purpose of the work/art/act.

For example alexander accomplished a lot, yes, but he wanted to conquer the world, didn't he? He didn't manage anywhere near that.


The point I am making is that it is practically un debatable as a subject because the whole thing is inherently subjective. Its like asking who is better: the beatles or lady gaga, elvis or michael jackson, ghengis khan or alexander...

The only alternative I could see for SUCCESS is based on intentions. As for intelligence, as per the original post: financial success or recognition at the time is also a poor factor. Da vinci didn't make millions for his medical drawings or his aircraft designs. Darwin was (debatabley) denied by the christian church as it conflicted with the origins of the human species.

The term intelligence is also an ambiguous term.. Anyone care to define it in a way that everyone agrees upon? That would be a good start to the debate.
But ambitions are not the same as intentions, maybe The Beatles wanted to bring peace to the world, but that's not the pure reason or intent of their music they had (at least I don't think).
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Dantos4
Member Avatar

Well no, but in terms of their music it was to entertain and to get their message across. That was the intention when creating the music.

I think most reasoning and benchmarks are going to have holes in them actually, when it comes to this. It may just be a case of finding the measuring stick with the least problems, which would be unfortunate.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Warden of Wisdom
Member Avatar
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
Dantos4
May 10 2012, 08:44 PM


I think most reasoning and benchmarks are going to have holes in them actually, when it comes to this. It may just be a case of finding the measuring stick with the least problems, which would be unfortunate.
...not cheese...think about it... Okay I'll stop now :(
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Squee913
Member Avatar

Dantos4
May 10 2012, 08:35 PM
I have indeed offered an alternative as to defining success: the purpose of the work/art/act.

For example alexander accomplished a lot, yes, but he wanted to conquer the world, didn't he? He didn't manage anywhere near that.


The point I am making is that it is practically un debatable as a subject because the whole thing is inherently subjective. Its like asking who is better: the beatles or lady gaga, elvis or michael jackson, ghengis khan or alexander...

The only alternative I could see for SUCCESS is based on intentions. As for intelligence, as per the original post: financial success or recognition at the time is also a poor factor. Da vinci didn't make millions for his medical drawings or his aircraft designs. Darwin was (debatabley) denied by the christian church as it conflicted with the origins of the human species.

The term intelligence is also an ambiguous term.. Anyone care to define it in a way that everyone agrees upon? That would be a good start to the debate.
Sadly, I don't think Purpose will work simply because we can't know the purpose for a lot of art. For example, what was the purpose for making Twilight? To make money? To make pre-teen girls cry? To promote Sparkly Vampires? Even if we asked the writer, we can't be sure of her answer. On top of that, most things are more complicated then that. Alexander's purpose was not only to conquer the world. He wanted to show the world the might of the Macedonians. He wanted to show the world his genius. He wanted glory in battle. He wanted to be remembered forever. All of these things he accomplished. so he is 4/1 :D

My point is, purpose is far too complex to be easily defined.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Dantos4
Member Avatar

I agree completely, yet simply how popular/famous someone is/was or how much money they made is a vast, vast simplification of the whole issue.

The issue appears to be with the word "successful", as 'achieving a goal' and 'having fame and money' are the two main definitions of the word.

We need to define what we are looking for. Are we looking for intellect or accomplishments, or something else entirely? And when we have that, we should look for how to scale/measure it. E.g. significance in history, difficulty to accomplish, ease of replication, etc
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Warden of Wisdom
Member Avatar
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
Well I personally think art is waaaay to complex to measure with a single factor, Michelangelo, for example, painted to send a message, create beautiful work, promote Christianity, ect. ect.
There's no magic calculator that you scan a piece of art and get test results, it just can't be done. There's just too many things to factor in. Maybe the most beautiful and amazing piece of art was lost forever, just because no one ever saw it does that make it any less good of art? (being theoretical here)
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Warden of Wisdom
Member Avatar
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
Wait! I've come up with the most accurate way to measure arts worth, and no its not cheese. How many bananas the artist ate! It's ingenious!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Chocl8215
Member Avatar
Man of great chocolate
intelligence - noun. the ability to recognize, store, and use information. the more intelligent you are, the more options you have

this is as generalized a definition i could think of, and i'd say it fits our purposes well, all these people had to do just that, recongize what was around them, store the information, and then use it later.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
hjk561
Member Avatar
He rules
Chocl8215
May 11 2012, 07:02 AM
intelligence - noun. the ability to recognize, store, and use information. the more intelligent you are, the more options you have

this is as generalized a definition i could think of, and i'd say it fits our purposes well, all these people had to do just that, recongize what was around them, store the information, and then use it later.
But who did it the best? That is the question :P
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate Section · Next Topic »
Poll Only

Theme Orbital by tiptopolive of Zathyus Network Resources.