When Genuises Are Certain

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I feel persoanally insulted when people like Not Ready have the audacity to believe they have the right to think their differing opinions with him should be taken equally seriously about ANY subject that Russell studied and was certain about.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll debate Russell anytime, anywhere on religion as long as he tries to stand by the garbage he wrote in Why I'm Not a Christian. Anyone with an IQ above 100 could trounce him on the idiotic things he said there.

He wins any math contest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hah! Based on NotReady's posts, I would have paid money to watch BR run circles around him.

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll debate Russell anytime, anywhere on religion as long as he tries to stand by the garbage he wrote in Why I'm Not a Christian. Anyone with an IQ above 100 could trounce him on the idiotic things he said there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a poor subsitute, but I'll take the part of Russell if you like. I'll try to stick to what Russell might have meant by what he said, which may not be the same as what you think he meant.

I'm not saying I agree with what he says but it might be interesting to debate it. It will have to be after I finish with the 'my problem with some religons' thread.

Fancy it?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

"Why I'm Not A Christian" or anything he wrote on the history of Western Philosophy is not really taken seriously by students of Western Philosophy. His "genius" is not in the field of religion, ethics, or history.

I also don't think Sklansky would argue that "Why I am not A Christian" is a good book. I don't think it is anything that a 10th grader in the States could not understand. I am also not saying that I think he is "wrong" or "right" in these essays.

craig

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Why I'm Not A Christian" or anything he wrote on the history of Western Philosophy is not really taken seriously by students of Western Philosophy. His "genius" is not in the field of religion, ethics, or history.

I also don't think Sklansky would argue that "Why I am not A Christian" is a good book. I don't think it is anything that a 10th grader in the States could not understand. I am also not saying that I think he is "wrong" or "right" in these essays.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and wouldn't judge Russell much on the basis of a, probably hastily prepared, lecture to a friendly audience.

Against that, he clearly put some thought into theology, studied religous philosophy and was brought up as a christian.

It seems generally agreed that the older he got the stranger some of the writings but at 50ish I doubt he said anything stupid. (he did live to nearly 100)

chez

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Why I'm Not A Christian" or anything he wrote on the history of Western Philosophy is not really taken seriously by students of Western Philosophy. His "genius" is not in the field of religion, ethics, or history.

I also don't think Sklansky would argue that "Why I am not A Christian" is a good book. I don't think it is anything that a 10th grader in the States could not understand. I am also not saying that I think he is "wrong" or "right" in these essays.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and wouldn't judge Russell much on the basis of a, probably hastily prepared, lecture to a friendly audience.

Against that, he clearly put some thought into theology, studied religous philosophy and was brought up as a christian.

It seems generally agreed that the older he got the stranger some of the writings but at 50ish I doubt he said anything stupid. (he did live to nearly 100)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree with you. I was just saying that his "genius" is in other areas of Philosophy. Even his political ideas (generally on the far left) are not taken seriously (but probably more seriously than his ideas on religion).

craig

[ QUOTE ]
I agree and wouldn't judge Russell much on the basis of a, probably hastily prepared, lecture to a friendly audience.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that the book was a lecture is a good point. I think the book avoids many better arguments that are more esoteric and philosophical in nature, but these concepts may be tougher to convey orally to a general audience.

[ QUOTE ]
Bobby Fischer's IQ has been shown to be 190 or thereabouts and he believes the Jews are solely to blame for everything that's evil in the world.

What if I were to get offended by someone daring to claim expertise on the same issue (that he has also studied extensively), who had a much lower IQ (say 130-140 or so)?

Would that be OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is interesting that no one else was able to come up with an example of a genius going against the tide. I guess Sklansky has got something here but this particular case seems to have scared him away from the thread. I wonder why.

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bobby Fischer's IQ has been shown to be 190 or thereabouts and he believes the Jews are solely to blame for everything that's evil in the world.

What if I were to get offended by someone daring to claim expertise on the same issue (that he has also studied extensively), who had a much lower IQ (say 130-140 or so)?

Would that be OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is interesting that no one else was able to come up with an example of a genius going against the tide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chomsky? Einstein? I know there is a lot about Chomsky's linguistics that post-structuralists will dispute, but he still revolutionized the field.

craig

[David Sklansky]

I only glanced at Why I am Not a Christian. I think I remember reading his dissatisfaction with the sexual teachings of Christianity and I remember thinking that that has nothing to do with anything.

The point I was making related more to religion in general and the fact that the vast majority of gifted analytical people who study the subject would say that any specific religion is much much more likely to be wrong than right.

Spatial relations is an important part of intelligence. It is not an important part of analyzing arguments.

Bobby Fisher is disqualified by my own critera.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bobby Fischer's IQ has been shown to be 190 or thereabouts and he believes the Jews are solely to blame for everything that's evil in the world.

What if I were to get offended by someone daring to claim expertise on the same issue (that he has also studied extensively), who had a much lower IQ (say 130-140 or so)?

Would that be OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is interesting that no one else was able to come up with an example of a genius going against the tide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chomsky? Einstein? I know there is a lot about Chomsky's linguistics that post-structuralists will dispute, but he still revolutionized the field.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

craig,

Can you translate what you just said for the layman (me). Just a brief discription of what you said and what (who) refers to what?

Thanks,

RJT

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bobby Fischer's IQ has been shown to be 190 or thereabouts and he believes the Jews are solely to blame for everything that's evil in the world.

What if I were to get offended by someone daring to claim expertise on the same issue (that he has also studied extensively), who had a much lower IQ (say 130-140 or so)?

Would that be OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is interesting that no one else was able to come up with an example of a genius going against the tide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chomsky? Einstein? I know there is a lot about Chomsky's linguistics that post-structuralists will dispute, but he still revolutionized the field.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

craig,

Can you translate what you just said for the layman (me). Just a brief discription of what you said and what (who) refers to what?

Thanks,

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not get far enough in my philosophy studies to completely understand "structuralism" (though I am sure there are people on here that could explain it). But, Noam Chomsky is considered a genius (technically..not just by his peers or philosophers), who not only changed the entire field of linguistics (his basic premise was that humans were genetically predetermined to "learn" language..obviously it is more complicated than this). But, he was also an activist in the 60's and has written (and is still writing) countless books on American foreign policy. He is also an anarchist (by his own admission, so this is also up for debate). He was very respected (whether one agrees with him or not) in the field of linguistics, just like Russell was in the field of Math and Logis. And just like Russell who "went against the grain" he also did. Also, not suprisingly, Chomsky still has a poster on his wall in his office, where he teaches at MIT, of Bertrand Russell. He is also the 6th most cited person in the humanities (I can't remember if the Bible or Marx is #1).

The reason I mentioned Einstein (another genius) was because he was very much behind the Atom bomb, but later apologized and was somewhat a "peace" activist.

craig