So I go into Starbucks today to get some coffee....

[xburbman]

Hmmmm, I side with Ken on this one: Morality requires us to consider others for their own sake and not because they may benefit us. There seems to be something wrong with aiming to behave compassionately, kindly, and honestly because this will make me happier. KenP disagrees wholeheartedly.

- In other words, don't go around bein a 'do gooder' and puttin up a front just cause it makes you feel good. - And besides that, Ken offered 3 kind, compassionate and helpful words prior to my honeymoon in Italy. They were: Get Married First. - He B rite! I now completely understand and appreciate his words of wisdom.

[KenP]

I look forward to our discussion for it will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.

Now each man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge. And so the man who has been educated in a subject is a good judge of that subject, and the man who has received an all-round education is a good judge in general. Hence a young man is not a proper hearer of lectures on political science; for he is inexperienced in the actions that occur in life, but its discussions start from these and are about these; and, further, since he tends to follow his passions, his study will be vain and unprofitable, because the end aimed at is not knowledge but action. And it makes no difference whether he is young in years or youthful in character; the defect does not depend on time, but on his living, and pursuing each successive object, as passion directs. For to such persons, as to the incontinent, knowledge brings no profit; but to those who desire and act in accordance with a rational principle knowledge about such matters will be of great benefit.

These remarks about the student, the sort of treatment to be expected, and the purpose of the inquiry, may be taken as our preface

[xburbman]

Originally Posted by KenP

I look forward to our discussion for it will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.

Now each man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge. And so the man who has been educated in a subject is a good judge of that subject, and the man who has received an all-round education is a good judge in general. Hence a young man is not a proper hearer of lectures on political science; for he is inexperienced in the actions that occur in life, but its discussions start from these and are about these; and, further, since he tends to follow his passions, his study will be vain and unprofitable, because the end aimed at is not knowledge but action. And it makes no difference whether he is young in years or youthful in character; the defect does not depend on time, but on his living, and pursuing each successive object, as passion directs. For to such persons, as to the incontinent, knowledge brings no profit; but to those who desire and act in accordance with a rational principle knowledge about such matters will be of great benefit.

These remarks about the student, the sort of treatment to be expected, and the purpose of the inquiry, may be taken as our preface

Indeed! Your knowledge and wisdom on these things speaks clearly to my mind and I too look forward to exchange of thoughts of variant subject matter which be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. Now fine and just actions - Yeah; Italian women R fine and actionalble. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects - or in my case(being on my honeymoon) merely viewing said subjects, but Oh to be King!
with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline - their clothes covered the truth roughly (albeit tightly), however their smooth and soft outlines were of an hourglass nature. Now each man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge. - I know of these things well however am confounded still from time to time.
And so the man who has been educated in a subject is a good judge of that subject, and the man who has received an all-round education is a good judge in general. - AHHHH! Education! Being taught of the differences - great and small, of the nuances between lust and love, only to be brought back to the port of indecision, wherein we must stand and ...pardon me 'I digress'! And it makes no difference whether he is young in years or youthful in character - I B the latter;
but to those who desire and act in accordance with a rational principle knowledge about such matters will be of great benefit. - I wish to act in accordance with all that I have learned in order to give my wife child - although it is difficult at times (when my wife calls during a meeting to tell me she's ovulating and that I need to come home); it will be well-worth the outcome(pardon the pun) when we are able to raise the child, Indeed, it will be of great benefit. -

I thank you for your continued ponderance and thought provoking words.

[JamesT]

I am so lost in with this thread.

In hope of sounding even remotly as inteligent as ya'll let me contribute this:

WTF are you talking about?

[CO Hummer]

Originally Posted by JamesT

I am so lost in with this thread.

In hope of sounding even remotly as inteligent as ya'll let me contribute this:

WTF are you talking about?

James,
Sorry about that. Hope this clears it up.....

There are basically two camps on the theory of intelligence: those who believe in one unilinear construct of general intelligence (g), and those who believe in many different intelligences. Binet founded the French school of intelligence, in which intelligence tests were regarded as a practical means of separating the bright from the dull. Intelligence quotient (IQ) was regarded as simply an average of numerous dissimilar abilities, not as a real thing with definite properties that could be studied. Galton founded the English school of intelligence, in which it was believed that intelligence is a real faculty with a biological basis and could be studied using reaction times on simple cognitive tasks.
The English school took a huge step forward with Spearman's invention of factor analysis. Using this technique, Spearman found that all tests of intelligence have positive correlations (loadings) on the general factor and called this factor general intelligence. However, Thurstone later disputed the prominence assigned to general intelligence by rotating the factors. In this way he found several primary mental abilities, instead of the one found by Spearman.

[JamesT]

Oh. I see now. Thanks.

I agree with the first part but only if the second part holds true on days that it rains. In that case I would have to agree with the third thing ya'll said BUT I reserve the right to change my mind.

Why is there blood coming out of my ears?

Can we discuss something more on my level please? How about favorite colors? I like blue. My favorite number is 17.

Ya'll are nutz!

[KenP]

Originally Posted by CO Hummer

James,
Sorry about that. Hope this clears it up.....

There are basically two camps on the theory of intelligence: those who believe in one unilinear construct of general intelligence (g), and those who believe in many different intelligences....

To further that:
Scientific knowledge is judgement about things that are universal and necessary, and the conclusions of demonstration, and all scientific knowledge, follow from first principles (for scientific knowledge involves apprehension of a rational ground). This being so, the first principle from which what is scientifically known follows cannot be an object of scientific knowledge, of art, or of practical wisdom; for that which can be scientifically known can be demonstrated, and art and practical wisdom deal with things that are variable. Nor are these first principles the objects of philosophic wisdom, for it is a mark of the philosopher to have demonstration about some things. If, then, the states of mind by which we have truth and are never deceived about things invariable or even variable are scientific knowlededge, practical wisdom, philosophic wisdom, and intuitive reason, and it cannot be any of the three (i.e. practical wisdom, scientific knowledge, or philosophic wisdom), the remaining alternative is that it is intuitive reason that grasps the first principles.

Practical wisdom on the other hand is concerned with things human and things about which it is possible to deliberate; for we say this is above all the work of the man of practical wisdom, to deliberate well, but no one deliberates about things invariable, nor about things which have not an end, and that a good that can be brought about by action. The man who is without qualification good at deliberating is the man who is capable of aiming in accordance with calculation at the best for man of things attainable by action. Nor is practical wisdom concerned with universals only-it must also recognize the particulars; for it is practical, and practice is concerned with particulars. This is why some who do not know, and especially those who have experience, are more practical than others who know; for if a man knew that light meats are digestible and wholesome, but did not know which sorts of meat are light, he would not produce health, but the man who knows that chicken is wholesome is more likely to produce health.


Political wisdom and practical wisdom are the same state of mind, but their essence is not the same. Of the wisdom concerned with the city, the practical wisdom which plays a controlling part is legislative wisdom, while that which is related to this as particulars to their universal is known by the general name 'political wisdom'; this has to do with action and deliberation, for a decree is a thing to be carried out in the form of an individual act. This is why the exponents of this art are alone said to 'take part in politics'; for these alone 'do things' as manual labourers 'do things'.

Practical wisdom also is identified especially with that form of it which is concerned with a man himself-with the individual; and this is known by the general name 'practical wisdom'; of the other kinds one is called household management, another legislation, the third politics, and of the latter one part is called deliberative and the other judicial. Now knowing what is good for oneself will be one kind of knowledge, but it is very different from the other kinds; and the man who knows and concerns himself with his own interests is thought to have practical wisdom, while politicians are thought to be busybodies.

[JamesT]

Originally Posted by KenP

To further that:
Scientific knowledge is judgement about things that are universal and necessary, and the conclusions of demonstration, and all scientific knowledge, follow from first principles (for scientific knowledge involves apprehension of a rational ground). This being so, the first principle from which what is scientifically known follows cannot be an object of scientific knowledge, of art, or of practical wisdom; for that which can be scientifically known can be demonstrated, and art and practical wisdom deal with things that are variable. Nor are these first principles the objects of philosophic wisdom, for it is a mark of the philosopher to have demonstration about some things. If, then, the states of mind by which we have truth and are never deceived about things invariable or even variable are scientific knowlededge, practical wisdom, philosophic wisdom, and intuitive reason, and it cannot be any of the three (i.e. practical wisdom, scientific knowledge, or philosophic wisdom), the remaining alternative is that it is intuitive reason that grasps the first principles.

Practical wisdom on the other hand is concerned with things human and things about which it is possible to deliberate; for we say this is above all the work of the man of practical wisdom, to deliberate well, but no one deliberates about things invariable, nor about things which have not an end, and that a good that can be brought about by action. The man who is without qualification good at deliberating is the man who is capable of aiming in accordance with calculation at the best for man of things attainable by action. Nor is practical wisdom concerned with universals only-it must also recognize the particulars; for it is practical, and practice is concerned with particulars. This is why some who do not know, and especially those who have experience, are more practical than others who know; for if a man knew that light meats are digestible and wholesome, but did not know which sorts of meat are light, he would not produce health, but the man who knows that chicken is wholesome is more likely to produce health.


Political wisdom and practical wisdom are the same state of mind, but their essence is not the same. Of the wisdom concerned with the city, the practical wisdom which plays a controlling part is legislative wisdom, while that which is related to this as particulars to their universal is known by the general name 'political wisdom'; this has to do with action and deliberation, for a decree is a thing to be carried out in the form of an individual act. This is why the exponents of this art are alone said to 'take part in politics'; for these alone 'do things' as manual labourers 'do things'.

Practical wisdom also is identified especially with that form of it which is concerned with a man himself-with the individual; and this is known by the general name 'practical wisdom'; of the other kinds one is called household management, another legislation, the third politics, and of the latter one part is called deliberative and the other judicial. Now knowing what is good for oneself will be one kind of knowledge, but it is very different from the other kinds; and the man who knows and concerns himself with his own interests is thought to have practical wisdom, while politicians are thought to be busybodies.

Hey wait a minute. Are you cut/pasting this stuff?

[Hmmm2]

Originally Posted by JamesT

I am so lost in with this thread.

In hope of sounding even remotly as inteligent as ya'll let me contribute this:

WTF are you talking about?

Ohhhhh hahahahahahahaha ...it's bizarre, isn't it?

[DennisAJC]

Originally Posted by Hmmm3

Ohhhhh hahahahahahahaha ...it's bizarre, isn't it?