Criticising somebody's actions, or views, or what they say, or what they believe, is open to everyone alike. We can all claim our own actions, or views, or sayings, or beliefs, to be better. Though others may decide that criticising someone else's actions when your own are worse is hypocrisy. Criticising somebody's understanding, meaning their intelligence, when your own is inferior is a different matter. How can we possibly evaluate someone else's intelligence if theirs is at a higher level than ours? Intelligence is the very quality required to evaluate intelligence. If I purported to say that James Joyce or Ludwig Wittgenstein or Bertrand Russell were 'lacking in understanding', it would make me sound stupid, not them.
Well, I think that's pretty flimsy, Pete, really. What you appear to be saying is that you can be inferior in talent and have a view and criticise people of superior talent, but you can't be of inferior intelligence and have a few on the manifestation of someone else's. That doesn't really seem to stack up. It would mean that there should be no literary criticism, or artistic criticism for a start. Then you have the very dodgy issue of judging intelligence. Is Gordon Brown a brighter guy than you or me? Or has he just had a different career path, been more driven, had more experience? Seems to me you have just dismissed all armchair punditry, which pretty much means that the Lounge section of this forum is dead. You criticise Farage (no problem with that personally) but are reluctant to criticise Brown. Is this because of the intelligence you credit one with and the lack of it you perceive in the other? And if so, on what grounds and evidence? You might be right. But it may be values you are criticising, not intelligence. Indeed, there are all sorts of different types of intelligence.
Perhaps with Russell and Wittgenstein the logical (sic) thought is that one schooled the other and therefore a modicum of thought processes where instilled (programmed?) within Russell enabling him to continue along the same path. One mad fecker said to the other mad fecker "Carry on what I have started my dear boy". Mr Joyce was not recognised by all of his "peers" as having a brilliant mind - Finnegans Wake being described as "a 628-page collection of erudite gibberish indistinguishable to most people from the familiar word salad produced by hebephrenic patients on the back wards of any state hospital." So Intelligence is again subjective.
First, if you will permit me to be patronising for a moment, may I say how pleasing and impressive it is to see your really thoughtful, knowledgeable, constructive contribution. I much enjoyed your post. I think you have made the point that there are no bedrocks, terms like "intelligence", "brilliance", etc can be used with different meanings. I respectfully agree. Famously any kind of a discussion with a philosophical aspect can soon turn into a debate about meaning, and regress into a sterile argument about definitions. You say, "Intelligence has been described as the intellectual ability to understand ideas in comparison to the general population." That is indeed the sense in which I was using it. You also allude to Asperger's Syndrome. Well OK, you got me there. And Gordon Brown as well, probably. So what? Boris Johnson is highly astute. He has artfully managed to manoeuvre his dishevelled public persona into such a position that people identify sympathetically with him; any embarrassing incidents which ostensibly make him look foolish only enhance that identification and thus his popularity. This requires a level of political nous a whole order of magnitude higher than most politicians. As for Joyce, I love Ulysses, but I have to admit Finnegan's Wake is so far beyond my capacity to understand it that I do not feel competent to express an opinion. I would not, however, use that fact as a basis for asserting that Joyce "lacks understanding".
No I'm not. Somebody made certain criticisms of Brown which appeared to me unjustified, or at least unbalanced, so I sought to refute them, introduce some facts, and restore balance. If somebody praised Brown (or Farage, or anybody else) in terms I thought excessive, I might try to refute the praise. And if somebody posts some comment which appears to be based on lack of knowledge of the facts (regardless what the comment is "for" or "against") I might try to supplement those facts; that doesn't mean I am "against" or "for" whatever the original point was. Obviously.
As far as I care about this load of cr*p with that hypocritical shit Alastair Campb*ll sticking his nose in as well; is that it is another prime example of what happens when immigrants arrive in the UK.............. ...........never grateful for being allowed into the UK, just run it down; or if they don't run it down, others of the same ilk do it for them or accuse everyone else except themselves of being racist etc etc....... ..........effing troublemakers, them and the bl**dy left..........
Oh, give it a f**ing break for God's (or Allah's or Yahweh's) sake!! It's beginning to look like there are even more 'useful idiots' than Lenin thought.....
alot off grumpy feckers about the now iv noticed it,my apprentice has noticed it also. must be the change of season. think i am gonna up my prices and be more selective.
Since smiley Tony won in 1997, the general election is now run like X Factor, If you are bumbling buffoon with good sense of humour, then you are a man of the people and fit to run the country, doesn't matter that you are actually a extreme right wing elitist who actually despises anyone who is proletariat enough to have to manage on a monthly salary.
Quote: Finnegans Wake being described as "a 628-page collection of erudite gibberish indistinguishable to most people from the familiar word salad produced by hebephrenic patients on the back wards of any state hospital." Isn't English a beautiful thing?
I don't think he's a buffoon. He quite likes pretending he's a buffoon - but that endears him to voters in sea of smarmy humourless nonentities. Having a good sense of humour is a prerequisite in any well-rounded human being in my view. I don't think there is really much evidence for his "despising the proletariate". I would say that much of his current job is about trying to make their lives easier. I expect he is elitist, but then, I don't really have a problem with that, as a desire for excellence is a good thing. Eton and Oxford may seem elitist (though in my experience, Cambridge wasn't particularly elitist - most students were extremely normal and at least half of them must have come from state schools) but maybe they just strive to be excellent. Until excellence becomes run-of-the-mill, you are always going to get the elitist slur. As I say, I probably don't agree with many of his views - notably his one on Europe - but at least he's a politician I can relate to, and the only one who doesn't send me to sleep.
Strangely it is ok to be classist if you are having a pop at the private school, upper class types. So many digs at the politicians that went to Eton etc but never a comment about Old Smiffy or whoever that went to the local comprehensive. Having a pop at the elite is just as bad as having a go at people at the other end of the scale surely. To use a question asked of Diamond Dave this week, did you have to go to a state school to know the price of a loaf of bread ? And suppose he had known, would that really make any difference to his ability to run the country ? This is not a party biased issue as the 4 leading parties, based on recent polls, all have private school & privileged background members. Nice of me to include the lib dems by having the top 4 wasn't it.
