[NOTE FROM PUMPKIN PERSON: PLEASE PLACE ALL OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS HERE. THEY WILL NOT BE POSTED IN THIS THREAD]
Commenter gregorwayne wrote:
If I may make a request, I would love to see you estimate the IQ of Saul Kripke.
Saul Kripke is often considered one of the smartest people on Earth and the greatest living philosopher. To estimate Kripke’s IQ, I decided to take a historiometric approach, analyzing his biography for evidence of verbal IQ, followed by math IQ. These two estimates were then combined into a composite IQ estimate.
Historiometric estimate of Kripke’s verbal IQ
Kripke’s bio shows much evidence of extreme verbal IQ. According to his Wikipedia article:
Kripke was labelled a prodigy, having taught himself Ancient Hebrew by the age of six, read the complete works of Shakespeare by nine, and mastered the works of Descartes…before finishing elementary school
Some of these achievements are so specialized that it’s hard to compare his abilities to the common man, so I decided to focus on his mastery of Shakespeare, since that’s a common benchmark. A yougov poll in the UK found that about 94% of adults had experienced Shakespeare in some form (i.e. reading a play, seeing a film, being taught it in school) and of these, 58% claimed to understand it. This implies 55% of the UK adult population understands Shakespeare.
Perhaps a higher percentage could have understood him if given exposure. On the other hand, perhaps some claiming to understand him are not being honest. Both sources of error likely cancel out, thus the ability to understand Shakespeare implies an adult verbal IQ in the top 55% of the British distribution, implying an IQ of 98+ (British norms). It’s worth noting that Britain was 87% white as of 2011, so British norms are more or less synonymous with U.S. white norms.
Having read the complete works of Shakespeare by age nine, Kripke at age nine was as capable as an adult with a verbal IQ of 98. Since adult mental age is defined as 16, an adult with a verbal IQ of 98 has a mental age 98% as high as 16, so 15.68. A nine-year-old with a verbal mental age of 15.68 has a verbal ratio IQ of 174, which translates into a deviation IQ of 155 (sigma 15).
This number should be increased by 4 points because verbal IQ, as measured by the WISC Vocabulary test, has been increasing by 4 IQ points over the last half century, so any measure of Kripke’s verbal functioning at age nine that relies on modern data (the recent yougov poll) will be 4 points too low. Thus Kripke’s verbal IQ is 159.
Historiometric estimate of Kripke’s math IQ
According to Wikipedia, Kripke:
mastered…complex mathematical problems before finishing elementary school.[7][8] He wrote his first completeness theorem in modal logic at the age of 17, and had it published a year later. After graduating from high school in 1958, Kripke attended Harvard University and graduated summa cum laude obtaining a bachelor’s degree in mathematics. During his sophomore year at Harvard, Kripke taught a graduate-level logic course at nearby MIT.
According to The New York Times
Mr. Kripke, a rabbi’s son, grew up in Omaha, and by all accounts was a true prodigy, so brilliant and precocious that the so-called prodigies of today are by comparison mere shadows flickering on the wall of our collective cave. In the fourth grade he discovered algebra, which he later said he could have invented on his own, and by the end of grammar school he had mastered geometry and calculus… While still a teenager he wrote a series of papers that eventually transformed the study of modal logic. One of them, or so the legend goes, earned a letter from the math department at Harvard, which hoped he would apply for a job until he wrote back and declined, explaining, “My mother said that I should finish high school and go to college first.”
A lot of these achievements depend on more than just raw math IQ, but interest and motivation as well. Thus, I decided to focus just on when Kripke “discovered algebra” because this is probably the closest datum we have to a developmental milestone. You either grasp the concept or you don’t.
In 2012, The New York Times reported:
To our nation’s shame, one in four ninth graders fail to finish high school… Most of the educators I’ve talked with cite algebra as the major academic reason. Shirley Bagwell, a longtime Tennessee teacher, warns that “to expect all students to master algebra will cause more students to drop out.” For those who stay in school, there are often “exit exams,” almost all of which contain an algebra component. In Oklahoma, 33 percent failed to pass last year, as did 35 percent in West Virginia
So it sounds like as of 2012, only 75% of American young adults completed high school, and of those who did, only 2/3rds grasped algebra. This roughly implies only 50% of all American young adults can do algebra, which means grasping algebra requires an adult math IQ of 100 (U.S. norms), or 97 (U.S. white norms). Since adult mental age is defined as 16, then adult IQ 97 implies a mental age that is 97% of 16 or 15.52. Since Kripke had discovered algebra in fourth grade (when he was presumably nine), a math ratio IQ of 172 (15.52/9=1.72) is implied. This equates to a math deviation IQ of 154 (sigma 15).
We should probably add about 10 points because Kripke’s precocity was achieved before 1950, and the Flynn effect has raised math related abilities by 2 (Arithmetic) to 16 (Block Design) IQ points from 1947 to 2001. Thus Kripke’s deviation math IQ might be 164.
Composite IQ
Given an estimated verbal IQ of 159 and an estimated math IQ of 164, and given a 0.67 correlation between verbal and math talent in the general population, Kripke’s estimated composite IQ is 168 (white norms). Only one in 344,000 white Americans have an IQ this high or higher.
Pumpkin Person 
I bet the number of relationships he can hold in his mind at once is huge. And that more areas of his brain operate at the same time to be able better direct information.
I learned recently the stroop test is conflict resolution between two separate areas of the brain. So I can do well on the test because I make these areas have less conflict by giving priority to the area needed at the time. Prioritization resolves errors on the task because it stops fighting of the two areas wanting to do their own task job.
I do not know what Executive function the Stroop test measures. But I estimate from my score of 135 score. I have 128 times the control over these two areas than an average person.
Saul Kripke I conclude, not only has many more areas working at the same time but has strong control of making different areas of his brain do what he wants them to do.
I am so fascinated by people with 170 IQ’s. They create things in the minds so fast.
We know that hippocampus is associated with working memory, and there is evidence to suggest that n-back training can increase working memory size.
I recall reading that working memory is also task-specific, however. It’s fascinating to observe how one’s mind “chunks” a task into pieces, almost like an automatic process (but visible to the cognitive mind) and presents options and arrangements for synthesis. It’s much more complex than just remembering a string of numbers, obviously.
I wonder if one could devise ways to train this more complicated chunking facility.
Renaissance paintings are still being made today. Chucking may be involved but visual spacial perspectivism colors are parallelism drafted nonlinear.
n-back might not get you this:
click to expand larger
What is working memory? There isn’t a consensus at the low moment.
he’s retarded. IQ < 40.
have you ever heard him speak?
Hahahahahaha.
Your most disputable piece of reasoning is when you say two data unknowns factor out. You’re really just guessing when you say most likely. But interesting nonetheless
why kripke? he’s a non-entity.
what was martin heidegger’s IQ?
what was thomas aquinas’s IQ?
both MUCH higher than kripke’s.
50% of americans can do algebra? No wonder jews rule America.
I’ve never read Kripke. I don’t intend to. And nobody understands shakespeare at the age of 9. Its impoosible. Not because he couldn’t understand ye old angle-ish but because emotionally a person hasn’t developed yet.
I mentioned once that in the research we did at the regulator, 50% – 60% of people cannot understand a bank statement.
I think it shows intelligence to adjust to how people actually are.
Donald Trump talks like a 14 year old, because many people have maxed out their abilities at 14 years old.
Since I grew up with a borderline retard Dad, I’m used to it. I sometimes wonder how most people have access to running water and electricity and mobile phones if most people can’t even read a bank statement. Its smart fractions. I don’t know who came up with the concept, but a society probably only needs 10% or so to be competent in intellectual abilities.
And most people have other types of intelligence, or physical attributes. Everyone survived the sabre tooth tiger for a reason.
I think the “very stable genius” line isn’t that far from the truth, tbh.
Just a different cognitive style than what gets labelled genius most of the time.
Trump probably “just knows what to do” on a gut-level most of the time, like some kind of intuitive psychic ability almost. Decades of business experience and very highly evolved pragmatic heuristics.
The rest of the time he is thinking in narrative rationality (spinning up stories to guide the decision-making process where formal logic and analysis would quickly run into combinatorial problems) and relying on his eerie ability to tell bad apples from good candidates.
Watching the video now. Kripke is a smart guy definitely.
I have often encountered these issues what philosophers call veridical and falsivical problems. I’m not an analytic philosophy grad, but this topic would have been interesting to me.
Basically there are some things that are true because they work and we might not understand why exactly e.g. genetics. And there are some things that need to be conclusively demonstratably false otherwise we shouldn’t believe in it.
The second one is Popper.
The first one is more me I think.
Its essentially intuition at that level maybe. I don’t need to send a guy to videotape my wife and prove shes cheating if she comes home smelling of sex on Saturday morning.
But its a very interesting question as to ‘when to pull the trigger’. I accept that I jump to conclusions too fast. But in a meta rational way, better to pull the trigger, miss, and correct the aim, than to pontificate at length and the target has run away.
I think the second epistemology approach is needed in very high risk types of problems where you cannot miss, like aerospace engineering.
The first one, is for daily living.
So we have 5 dimensions of abstract problem A: risk, veracity-ness, number of possible attempts, type of problem, and context.
And so, we must modify our approach depending on how the block is set up I think rather than look for a magical mcguyver approach to problems.
Are those cognitive styles you’re describing mappable to Jung’s functions? Ne vs Ni perhaps?
And I agree, I consider the best approach to be aware of different cognitive functions / neural nets / problem optical lenses (ways of organizing context, possibility, risk-tolerance, veracity, etc) – and to be able to deploy them in an integrated way.
I think its all moot anyways. Isnt philophy circular in the end? So for most people, or even all people, its another form of language. You think what you feel and what you are. Thats why philosophy exists, an similar hardware in synthesis with similasoftware. And so realism and memory (long and short term) is pretty much the same thing.
“Its essentially intuition at that level maybe.”
Only on that level and “above”? why not on all levels? The synthesis between two premises seems arbritrary to me. Why wouldnt an duck or kid understand higher mathematics?
Maybe im just an super retard lol. But i suspect most people have different notions of the nature of “truth” and therefore cant cumminicate it in their language, or even in the language of others (which might be impossible if ones language and vision of truth are caused by the same things, caused by everything).
I think having language and feeling of truth be caused by the same factors are what forms “meta truth”, no? Is this why Mugabe would say that the oxford guys are dumb? as they dont understand Mugabes inclinations? Its like if Truth is synonimous with “super ego”, no? Im reaching a bit here, but ithink its ok to speculate.
The penrose triangle is interesting, its several circular arguments having differing conclusions causing cognitive dissonance. But whats more interesting is that you can say “to hell with it” and just create an alternative perspective.
I do think theres going to be an time when science stops progressing, or atleast human understanding of science stops progressing. Though that depends on what you call an human, our phenotype has changed a lot since caveman days. Though the change is also subjective lol.
So we have 5 dimensions of abstract problem A: risk, veracity-ness, number of possible attempts, type of problem, and context.
Am I only one who thinks this is fucking brilliant?
I guess i dont understand. But for me it looks like he pulling of some traits on an problem and making dimentions of them, ignoring that these feelings might occur differently for different people or have different wieghts for different people. The wieght thing could be fixed by having an different multifactored functions for each person. I didnt understan what he meant by “veracity-ness” (if the problem is true? but ofcourse it is, otherwise it wouldnt be an problem, no?) “type of problem, and context”.
If i understand, its not genous. Becuase of some factors not being elaborated enough and the type of interaction not testable. Its bassically saying that theres interaction and making an hypothesis. While there not being an hypothesis ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Logic in philosophy is the closest you get to ‘verbal math’ and lego block building.
I don’t think Kripke gets the notion that if we could reduce everything to robot statements, we wouldn’t have developed language possibly. Or it would be far more rudimentary.
For example ‘rudimentary’ is a fairly complex word we use to say ‘simple’ but theres a different ‘flavour’ to the word’, that you can’t use modal logic with.
Logic seems to be a serialization of analog, right-brain reality into constrained left-brain modalities. Western logic focuses heavily on the concept of bivalence, but there might be other programs possible.
Don’t quote me on that – it’s pop-neurosci as a conversational trope, not a rigorous empirical stance.
Left brain/right brain is a myth.
RR,
Reading comprehension.
Please explain. I couldn’t comprehend your comment.
I’m aware. He made it clear that he was being speculative. Also it’s not as much of a myth as you think.
If you wonder why aspergers people can’t read poetry. Its because they talk in ‘if/then’ terms. The brain seems to be wired like that.
So having flavours in the words seems redundant.
A lot of philosophy is a projection of how a philosopher interprets the world neurologically.
For example, Niethsche had dementia praecox, or in modern terms – schizophrenia. If you wonder why the images in his writing are lurid and fantastical – its a lot more to do with how he sees things neurologically than logically.
Same for me i suppose.
Yes, neuro-phenomenology, or subjective ontology as I like to call it, is a kicker. We expect some kind of “objectivity” – only to find that next guy sees reality in different ways, and we can’t put our finger on why he’s “wrong” exactly.
My thesis is it’s an interplay between left-brain programs and the right-brain direct experience of reality, and that’s is culture/language-mediated to a large degree (cf Julian Jaynes).
I mean, different cultures around the world experience time in different ways, for instance – google polychronic time.
It would be a strong version of Sapir-Whorf, but the way I see it linguistics is just a subset of what I’m talking about here, reality has more ways to program the brain than just language.
Interesting example with the time thing. Sapir-Whorf seems like common sense to me. wierd that im biased that way…
“It would be a strong version of Sapir-Whorf, but the way I see it linguistics is just a subset of what I’m talking about here, reality has more ways to program the brain than just language.”
That sounds like my thoughts, but maybe you concluded that in an manner much different from me. Your thesis for example is something i woulndt join into, but that feelings and logic is intertwined sounds adjascent to something i would agree with.
Nietzsche had problems with cognitive functioning later in life — not his entire life. It is thought he had syphilis, but now the belief is that he probably had cancer. If he had brain cancer, that would explain a diagnosis of “dementia praecox,” which could well have been made in a slapdash way in that day. (Not that psychology has made such great leaps now, in this age of anti-depressants and anti-psychotic drugs.)
A good question is (a) whether putting flavours on words is itself a type of logic and (b) if you notice, when you programme a robot its a lot easier to programme if/then logic than ‘crawling like a crab on the seafloor’ ‘logic’ statements.
Machine Learning would be a move toward “flavor logic”, then.
I think labelling is a type of logic, but its not logic in itself. So I used the word ‘flavours’ to describe how words can mean the same thing but in a different way. Why did I use flavours, why not ‘hues’. I find language to be a lot closer to cooking than painting.
The choice is a labelling decision. But the labelling is predicated on logic I think. As in the logic of language is to cooking > painting, is a ‘veridical statement’.
The analytics are probably right that language is predicated on logic. But they get it wrong that you can’t use language to express or say things that are beyond simple logic statements. This is why philosophy is written in words and not numbers.
I would say that language attempts to map reality, it’s a symbol-stream that tries to describe reality (whether perceptual or imagined).
Logic is a sub-set of this, it’s the chaining together of bivalent causal statements. Ie X leads to Y if and only if Z. And de Morgan’s laws describe the possible chainings that can happen, and some patterns that arise out of that.
Thoughts? Am I missing something?
“thoughts?”
I think this too!
“Am i missing something?”
An comment. Theres no reason to think that all of the mechanisms causing an state of conciousness are exaclty the same during two instances. That being one reason why evolution selects for picking up heuristics instead of “true values” (True values being very predictive models of understanding the world) (with the most pertinent reason being cost efficiency). And so can you ever think the same things two times? This might seem irrelevant for most memories, but different memories are differently volitile in their “structure” thanks to them being “stored” differently, giving huge leeways for incoherency.
This in synthesis with bias could be postulated to give insane results.
Life is adaptation, before life appear as ”form” it appeared as ”expression”/behavior or adaptation. This ”explain” why all life forms are absolutely adaptation styles.
Adaptation is the copy of fundamental features of given environment to stablish a reciprocal channel, or adaptation.
Our breath is a knowledge itself, about the atmosphere we are. Adaptation is a copy or mirroring of given environment or knowledge of it.
To know is to be empathetic [to another reality], abstract or concrete. Memorize is learn that is copy, retrieve and express memorized information when’s necessary.
I think this also explains why VIQ is more g loaded than PIQ. PIQ is a more ‘rudimentary’ logic. Crabs along the see floor, has more nuance.
However I think people can get a lot better than normal at PIQ than you can get at VIQ. I.e. Stephen Hawking is a lot better than the janitor at math, than Saul Kripke is at philosophy.
I would have enjoyed philosophy in college much more than economics.
Philosophy has the “feel” of wanting to apply a function of mathematical aesthetics to non-mathematical problems. Ie elegance and simplicity as a way of unlocking utility (with some exceptions – Nietzsche strikes me as writing in a different “genre” than most Western philosophy)
Modern economics has the feel of wanting to tell stories with many variables and question marks. Adam Smith and other classical economists has a different feel to it – more common-sense and showing universal patterns (same with Austrian economics / praxeology).
The liberal cognitive style also strikes me as similar to modern economics – preferring narratives with many loosely-coupled variables, many interpretations, and fundamentally ending with a question mark.
I don’t know, I like to think of different fields as being different literary genres. A narrative is fundamentally a symbol-stream that describes reality – and there are differences in style.
YES!! Very good. I suspect this correlates (and are thus cuased in some sequence) by things like urbanization, religion, morality, mode of production, reading habits, education, parenting etc. Thus the savage (im not trying to be insulting) cant speak to an civilized person (again, im only saying this to prove an point). People in europe used to be confused and agitated about “0”.
What do you think about: https://pumpkinperson.com/2018/02/28/saul-kripkes-estimated-iq-a-historiometric-analysis/comment-page-1/#comment-104870
to hard to interpret? (which would most likely be my fault, not trying to be insulting)
You’re fucking smart, bro. Please keep commenting.
Simply put, the accuracy of one model does not need to negate the accuracity of another if both are empirical. Theres different ways to include empirical stimuli inside an argument as an premise, causing different methods of study. Sometimes these methods share an prediction, causing what you call “genres”.
This is obvious lol. Who doesnt think this?
I bet Kripke avoids the more ‘value judgement’ fields of philosophy like politics, morality, aesthetics, or metaphysics/theology.
Black is better than blue > ??
If you accept an “aesthetic teleological utility function” that tells you what is good and beautiful and true, you can start to develop new patterns, and since they are grounded in an acceptance of some goodness / badness standard, you can move further without running into the feeling that it’s all subjective.
Things like natural law (for instance) are visible as a result of accepting a certain “lens” to view the world through, which makes some patterns better than others.
This allows one to bust out of the box of only being able to speak in terms of logic and empirical statements.
I think Kant was trying to say something along those lines with the synthetic a priori, but I’m nowhere near 100% certain on that – just a hunch, based on some cursory reading at this point.
Need to organize my thoughts better, and I might be able to express it better.
I’ve noticed a lot how people with really high VIQs turn their attention to pretty basic conceptual problems like ‘what is morality?’ or ‘what is truth?’, rather than ‘why should we do this?’ or ‘when is that necessary?’.
‘What’ seems to be a surprisingly esoteric notion to high level thinkers. Its interesting.
You are a lot more likely to see a complicated dictionary reading philosophy than a manifesto.
agree
I call those problems “plumbing problems” – they are interesting, but they are not exactly using intelligence in its problem-solving capacity. Cf a programmer who is obsessed with idioms and framework mechanics rather than building a cool app.
I used to be like that, kinda still am. But i stopped thinking about “what” and “why” since it involved to much intuition to understand, which is irrelevant since im a nihilist. There is no reason to think this world even exists, just say cognito ergo sum becuase its fun.
I think i need more philosophy if i want to delve deeper into intelectualism, but right now i am where im at.
I think this is because a lot of them would say value statement are not logical.
At the end of the day, a swedish woman in a bikini looks better than a papua new guinean.
Its a fact. Why it is a fact is from lack of effort at understanding. What principles you could take from exploring it and then predicting when a woman will look hotter is the key.
I don’t think its a waste of time making value statements at all. Most of the things that are important are life are value statement kind of topics.
As Eliezer Yudkowski, that direct experience of hotness is what it feels like to be inside a neural algorithm.
System 1 direct value-judgements supersede System 2 (linguistic-logical-deliberative) ones
A lot of what is wrong with Western philosophy is that it lacks regard for this direct-experience aspect of cognition – cf Buddhism which puts it as a first-class citizen
* As Eliezer Y puts it
Supersede as in “contain info which is not fully expressible in the serialized format”
Interesting point. But i think the phenomenology german philosophers do talk about this topic. Im not sure. I havent read their matrrials at this point.
We’re Caucasoid, so the supposed ‘objective beauty’ of other races isn’t something we can judge like that (I think)?
Isabelle Adjani is for me insanely hot, more than any Swedish woman (who have nice bodies but round, Babushka faces). Kabyle father, Bavarian mother.
Unreal.
According to a study by the Facebook App ‘Are You Interested’ of 2.4million interactions the overwhelmingly most popular group is Middle Eastern women.
I’m not Middle Eastern, but she is smoking hot to me.
The most popular men are White men.
The least popular female group is Black women… so maybe you have a point about the Papau New Guinean.
The least popular male group is South Asian men.
I think that all humans groups on avarage (with some deviations) prefer universially preffered traits for the repsective genders, the things all attractive men and women have in common (like symmetry, high cheekbones, no submental fat, small eyelids, facial proportions, thick necks, lenght etc) between all ethnic groups while culture and most importantlly racial demographics in social groups during childhood and adolescence affect ones preferences, as one gets to associate certain racial and accessory traits with the universially prefered traits and socially accepted aesthetics (i think racism can have an large impact on peoples dating choices, idk about attraction though, but also note that certain types of body morphologies and acessories were differently preffered at different times, also consider the diversity of beauty standards in tribal Africa). I also think that exposure makes people ignore the falws of the groups they regurarly engage with ot of conveniance, and there is evidence that faces easier for the brain to process are generally deemed more attractive. i also think that different people have different proclivities into how they learn their sexuality, as some are obviously more xenophilic than xenophobic.
There could be differences in universially prefered tratis between different races, which would make it easier to get brain washed to the supperior group, maybe. some claim certain skin colours are easier to learn to like, or blue eyes, or prognathism.
All of the data we have is only in america, and we all know how america is…
Good job !
Maybe you can use Leiter reports. The guy ranks all philosophy departments and all philosophers. He is read by professional philosophers.
I just discover he made a poll to rank the worldwide best philosophers since 1945. He uses the primitive Facebook-picture method of comparing each philosophers by duo and choosing the best one. 300 person participated. I suppose all philosophers . Kripke was the first one and Chomsky the 7th. He wins by an enormous margin to Quine, 141 to 74. For example Chomsky loses 96 to 92 against Lewis and win 174 to 41 to Hilary Putnam. He loses 154 to 60 to Kripke. Donald Davidson I recommended is 5th and Stalnaker is 14 (I think he spreads himself to much outside of syntax logic).
So you could plug those results estimating the IQ of a Kripke 1) being twice as higher in rank as the second best philosophers since 70 years in the English word and 2) and being 2,5 times more higher ranked than Chomsky. I guess it wouldn’t change the result but confort it .
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2016/01/best-anglophone-philosophers-of-language-since-1945.html
Ps: philo I did a bit of the McKinsey study for you (that’s too short to go elsewhere I guess) . You can edit it Pumpkin.
Notice that the ranking includes all philosophers writing in English including from outside the English world. There are 3 Dutch philo : lHans Kamp (Dutch 10th best living ), Martin Stockhof and Jeroen Groenendijk. The Pb is that the analytical philosophy tradition is weak outside so for example in France there is not enough people to make good analytical philosophy because it is 3% of the faculty (idem in all continental Europe except in the Netherlands and Slovenia).
There is 1000 master degree in philosophy each year and I would say 3000 through the world in total (for this kind of’philosophy). For PhD, it’s half that number. Out of 70 years, that’s 100 K person. I would say their average IQ is like math PhD around 130. Being twice better than second one , you could take 200k. That’s around 175.5 (1 in 4M).
Then if is 2,5 higher than Chomsky (158), then it’s 161.5 If you average both you got 168,5 wich is what you founded
The Philosopher,
Neurological is the logic of interactions between cells in the brain. The meta structure above this which you may be thinking of is the organization of these interactions to create psychology. I put a third meta-layer which is to organize the mind by four cardinal directions the mind has and moves in which are the functions discovered by Carl Jung. What you Philosopher have come to label lego block language or language that has no nuance, that people doing these studies cannot understand poetry. We can call this a cousin to behaviorism, Operant conditioning. Poetry makes sense because it is implicitly referenced. It is substitutional. In order to understand, you must know that the poem is using words subjectively. The person is saying is each stance one thing about one concept about one or multiple people. You must read into it. There is no lego blogs formula to tell who is who and what is what.
Neurological even as logic is an organizing principle that some people have their cells capable to be organized to read poetry, to recognize the subjectivity of words.
I made a poem once. Don’t know if it is any good. I had a dark experience and I do not have the emotions necessary at times to feel the need to express myself. I am not creative. I just had this one feeling one time. Genuine it is my actual poem. Its small and others make better less dark ones.
liquid mirror
black light
it’s in your veins tonight
fake love
stained glove
your ring in blood
lets him know
so cold
you won’t see him when he’s old
his psychopathic lust
for you
so blue
you’ll regret her tattoo
it’s black
like light
make sure you have blindsight
“Greatest living Philosopher”
Everything about that statement is fucking wrong. Just so wrong. It’s a crime how wrong it is.
In my opinion the best philosophy writers are there are probably not tenured or even lecturing in universities. They wouldn’t be allowed to publish books in mainstream printing companies either.
You’re probably not wrong.
The problem is that genuine steps forward in Philosophy are few and far between so linguistic pedanticism gets passed off as “Philosophy”.
It’s embarassing, imagine someone so bitter at having failed an item on an IQ test that they begin to debate the semantics of the question, now you have every Western Philosophy department. God help us all.
The Eastern Philosophy departments aren’t worth thinking about.
the facts:
0. not only is kripke autistic but those who hold him in high esteem are autistic. and not in the figurative sense. they are literally autistic.
1. mathematical/symbolic logic is done by math profs not philosophy profs.
2. the logic done by philosophy profs is kindergarten stuff. it’s a joke.
3. any facility with mathematical logic is prized by anglo-american philosophy profs. just as any facility with maths is prized by anglo-american economics profs. it’s physics and math envy and the anglo-american version of french gibberish. this means, inter alia, that one is much more likely to be accepted to a doctoral program in philosophy or economics if one has a UG degree in maths.
kripke speaking. introduced by someone else.
Wow, I’ve never heard him speak. My god. He is very autistic. He reminds me of some of those documentaries Ive seen where they profile aspie people.
Robert thinks anglo americans econ and phil departments have physics envy by coincidence.
I think they have physics envy because unis are forced to hire autistic professors.
Kripke is an aspy genius. In the same way Gates is.
The major problem I find with aspergers people is that they take everything literally.
there’s a difference between who polls the highest and who is actually the highest.
in terms of the volume of commentary, martin heidgger is the greatest philosopher since aristotle. aquinas is the the 3d, the bronze medal. wittgenstein and kripke are also-rans.
German idealism is like a Philosophical zombie, it just won’t die.
For all their many disagreements Heidegger is still renting space in Kant’s mansion.
I’ve read bit of aristotle and aquinas, but not heidegger. I’ve never read Witty or Kripke beyond some passages. I think ‘analytic’ philosophy is a waste of paper.
One of my pet favourites is Schopenhauer.
Schopenhauer was an incel, which explains his virulently misogynistic views. He was less of a philosopher and more of an ideologue.
reminds me of curtis yarvin arguing that hitler really was gay.
how many married men i ax, “you’re married?!”
basketball!
I think professors in my time reacted in 2 ways to me:
1. They thought I was dumb for pointing out how you dont need a quadratic equation if the assumptions are ridiculous.
2. They thought I plagiarised I wrote so well but spoke like a hillbilly.
3. They thought I was a genius.
3 ways.
Its kind of dumb writing that much material and not saying anything or even claiming nothing can be said without proper syntax or even more efficient fantasy languages. Waste of time.
Whats Zizek like? I haven’t read him. He sounds pretty turgid to read. But at least hes not aspy.
I bet you can still find really right wing classics profs like Enoch Powell in some unis.
I bet if polled political affiliation it would be the only humanities department that may lean right.
Mark Zuckerbergs sister is a classics professor. She writes a lot of jewish garbage about romans and greeks being secret sjws and pro BLM.
I have just watched a bit of the videos. Its horrible !
I could read Saul Kripke and being entertained by him. But I am not able to listen to him. His extremely false pitch, his crazy movements, his lost look, make me very nervous. If he had been my teacher, we would have been abe to communicate only by writing. When he says his handwriting his extremly ugly, that’s like me. And he has a sense of humour. But I can’t. I really wanted to watch the first person video. I think it’s one of the first time it happens to me, that I can’t stand someone presentation, because of the external package. Bizarre.
like langan kripke thinks atheists are dumb.
Kripke is an observant Jew.[22] Discussing how his religious views influenced his philosophical views (in an interview with Andreas Saugstad) he stated: “I don’t have the prejudices many have today, I don’t believe in a naturalist world view. I don’t base my thinking on prejudices or a worldview and do not believe in materialism.”
those that do not understand why materialism is false do not understand the matrix trilogy. why the little girl Shanti a computer program and Neo are in the same reality even after Neo saved them and is supposedly gone.
If your mind becomes still enough everything happens on its own. Curing mental illness by being on a desert island for a month. The router changes shape because of the packets but this web of connections directing packets when gone is not true you are gone. Because birth and death have no time and no space so we have no reason to believe in nihilism. (correctly translated: nothingness) We can begin directing packets again in a new router system. As may we go.
This is definitely a lower limit. His IQ is likely higher. A person who reads the entire works of Shakespeare likely has a higher IQ than someone who merely understands some Shakespeare.. and if he read the entire works BY age 9, he was probably reading and understanding some Shakespeare before age 9. The text also says he learned calculus by the end of elementary school (5th grade) a year after learning algebra. So he likely has a higher math IQ as well..
Pumpkin, how similar are the specific items of Ravens Matrices compared to WAIS IV matrix reasoning? Like, how similar are the concepts?
Speaking of mental age to read Shakespeare with comprehension, what is your take on the expected verbal IQ of top poets in history i.e. people like Shakespeare, Pope, Blake and the likes?
160s
what about all the poets in streetshitter languages?
all i know of non-european belletrists is japs and i tried to read naipaul’s Gorillas, but it was so juvenile i couldn’t get past the first chapter. and japanese belles lettres are the same. shit. or shit for 12 year olds. japan’s grups read comic books.
Died yesterday or a few days ago depending on where you live! RIP!
Im actually shocked you know who Saul Kripke is.
You only know who he is because I did a blog about him
both kripke and wittgenstein are example of how geraldo has better raatings than donahue.
they were both adolescent pseudo-philosophers not just danish.
soros’s hero popper WAS a genuine philosopher. so was maimonides. spinoza was stupid.
all of the world’s religions have a mystical tradition…a heideggerian tradition…except judaism…
this is odd given the supposed intellectual superiority of jews.
btw, “mystical tradition” is the exact opposite of alistair crowley low IQ bullshit.
but unfortunately the word “mystical” in english is quite polysemous.
heidegger, sufism, taoism, christian mysticism, and ALL high IQ hinduism vs kabala…
it’s a joke.
kabbalah is LOW IQ.
like VERY LOW IQ.
and this despite the burning bush.
why?