WTF?! REALLY YOUNG PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!22222two22!!!

THE GENERATION GAP

“Why do young people suck so badly?” They Say Old People Are Getting Worse and Worse, But It’s Young People

What, if anything, can philosophy usefully say about the mutual antagonism between the generations? What is presupposed in the poster’s claim? Is he referring to fundamental differences in the generations or are such differences based merely on superficial and transitory attitudes? The answer lies in what is presupposed in the poster’s claim. Let me explain.

Presupposed in the poster’s claim is the view that intelligence is age-specific, that there is a radical disjuncture between the minds of the young on the one hand and the old on the other. But is this true? It depends crucially on how one understands the concept of “intelligence” itself. So how is intelligence to be understood?

In standard philosophical manner, we must first look at counter-examples, at that of which intelligence does not properly consist. Consider the Intelligence Quotient, the “I.Q.” What is the I.Q.? The I.Q. is simply a number which denotes the ratio of a given person’s performance on the I.Q. test to the average performance of others on the same test. In other words, the thorough-going empiricist would say that intelligence is that which the I.Q. test measures. But this is just being circular. The nature of intelligence itself is not engaged.

In the same way, dictionary definitions of intelligence are likewise circular. For example, The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines “intelligence” as “intellect, understanding” but defines “intellect” as “the faculty of knowing & reasoning; reasoning,” so we’re back where we started. Commonsense tells us that intelligence exists but we still don’t know that of which it consists. So where do we go from here?

We must go to clear examples of intelligence in action, to those manifestations of intelligence we encounter in everyday life. While such manifestations might appear in flickering, sporadic form in others, it is to oneself that one’s scrutiny must be directed. One must introspect the contents of one’s own mind and its tangible products in the world of extra-mental reality. I believe that this post constitutes an instance of such a manifestation, of such tangible evidence of intelligence.

So philosophy can do what it usually does. It clears away the conceptual underbrush so that the issue stands forth in its unobstructed form. The conclusion is that while intelligence itself is a constant it is made manifest based on superficial and transitory attitudes which are generation-specific.

Thank you very much.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: The Flyspeck (5:52PM)

I want you to know that I sympathize with the bitter chagrin you must feel when comparing your (very) modest academic attainments with my unparalleled achievements, at least on this site. It must burn bitterly in your belly.

I also want you to know that I would be happy to work with you in order to help alleviate your distress which, clearly, has arisen from what can only be a profound psychological disorder. You must let me know. In the meantime you must seek out professional help.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

WHAT IS INTELLIGENCE? THE CENTRALITY OF STRUCTURE

” Commonsense tells us that intelligence exists but we still don’t know that of which it consists.” (Montrealman, 04/12, 10:03AM)

At the end of his post (“The Generation Gap,” 04/12, 10:03AM) Montrealman concluded that in order to determine that of which intelligence consists, “We must go to clear examples of intelligence in action, to those manifestations of intelligence we encounter in everyday life.” But presupposed in such an endeavour are the criteria in terms of which such examples of intelligence in action themselves are made manifest. In other words, how is one to recognize such manifestations of intelligence in everyday life? What are its unmistakable signs?

Taking the comments on the various bitches as an instance of “everyday life” there is one distinguishing criterion which clearly marks those which are intelligent from those that are not. That criterion is structure. But what is structure?

Structure is to writing what the skeleton is to the body. Without the skeleton the body collapses into a heap of warm flesh, perhaps with a hair sticking out here and there. No, for a body to assume its full majestic shape, it must possess a skeleton. In the same way, for a written comment to assume its proper form, it must possess structure. But what does that mean?

Montrealman has previously pointed out that intelligence resides in the ability to make distinctions and such distinctions, of course, are what constitutes structure. However, in the vast majority of cases the comments on the bitches are flat, one-dimensional opinions, often consisting of only one or two sentences in the misguided belief that brevity is the soul of wit. It may be the soul of wit but it is never the soul of intelligence. Such comments consist of little more than what I have elsewhere called “brain farts.” Sadly, such brain farts predominate in the ordinary run of comments and, in addition to being boring, demonstrate the lack of intelligence in their authors. By contrast, the comment which embodies structure is, at the same time, conceptually analytical and cumulatively sequential. But what does that mean?

Look at the present post. Look at the paragraphs. What do they indicate? Paragraphs are the visible embodiment of structure. They are expressive of those distinctions in terms of which conceptual analysis is made manifest. But, and this is important, they are not static. They are sequentially cumulative, building up from an initial state of perplexity and ending in its gradual resolution. This dynamic movement within a clear conceptual structure is what bestows upon (very, very few) comments the accolade of intelligence. In brief, the present post is a clear example of such intelligence in action, a manifestation which we routinely encounter in everyday life.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!