Demonstrate some intelligence.?

Question

...Profound intelligence. Make some sort of deep, philosophical claim, testify a compelling belief of yours, or convey something that will MAKE ME THINK.

I'm looking for some insight...plus, I think its a unique challenge.

Prove to me that there are more than just ten billion eleven year old girls using Yahoo Answers.

...Go.

Answer 1

the objective of life is to seek happiness.

in the presence of peace and prosperity, physical pleasure is one of the happiness one desire.

physical pleasure is the pleasing of the the five senses.

taste touch smell sight and hearing

in a room at the edge of a cliff overlooking the sea

listening to good music

while you smell most relaxing of perfumes and are

being massaged by a professionl and you have

a refreshingly tasty drink waiting for you.

how do you do that?

your best tool is intelligence.

intelligence is gathering or all knowledges and applying them to your own advantage.

you gather all the knowledge (percieve them) through the five senses.

So you use the tool to please the tool.

That is how simple life is.

EnJOy

Answer 2

ok try this one.

You have point A, and point B. You stand at point A, and every time you move, you only jump half way to B every time. Obviously you will never get there, so my question is this: are you actually moving forward?

Numbers are not definable, they are a standpoint. Is 100 a big number?

compared to 0.00001?

compared to 1million?

So you see, its the comparison that gets you. You need a base of comparison. Thats also the problem, there is none. If I compare it to say the number 3, I am still left with the problem of whether or not 3 is a big number. You soon realize that there is no way to say any number is big or small, you can only speculate. Therefore numbers are a philosophical standpoint.

So every time you move, you only divided yourself again, and opened up a whole new realm of numbers that are so small that you never even thought you would use them in conversation. With every step, you realize how much farther you actually are away from point B, which might as well represent infinity. Are you moving forward? If I had to answer I might say you were moving backwards.  

Answer 3

Truth is real, even though all our theories are probably false.  

Answer 4

No one gets on board a train or boat or airplane without first buying a ticket to their known destination.  All travelers do this.  

If life is a journey then it means we have a reason for being here.  And it means we must have a destination to go to.

The question is how many tickets are there in life and how do we get them to go the destination?

.

Answer 5

Clarity of thought.

manipulation is the objective

behind every word

ever written

or to be written

ever.

(and I can copy it here as I wrote it originally)

Answer 6

The intelligence of one person is measured by the intelligence of the person standing next to them.

Problem is they're the ones who decide what intellgience is.

Answer 7

...one day you too will die...

...enjoy all that LIFE IS in the moment...

...good luck...

Answer 8

Why do you rely on others to do what you have already done?

Answer 9

I'm sick of ten billion eleven year old girls, too. You'd think they'd have died of old age by now. Um, ok here goes! :)

Perhaps second only to ethical relativism, the debate of no ethical theory seems to require a greater examination of what ethics is than ethical egoism. To the layman and its academic critics, ethical egoism often challenges 'commonsense' morality, presupposed maxims of action like 'treat others as you would like to be treated' and 'do not harm others'. Although such prescriptions are rarely thought of and may lead to a non-deliberate dismissal of ethical egoism, questioning a presupposed value is what affirms its worth, which is why the question of ethical egoism's validity lies at least subtextually beneath most modern ethical thought. While ethical egoism cannot be proven logically invalid, its defense behind psychological egoism can be shorn outright, and its consistency and relevance can be attacked and defended in ways that show it is pragmatically undesirable.

For many ethical egoists, ethical egoism derives its purpose as a logical extension of psychological egoism. Sandra LaFave*I,for example, depicts the argument that as psychological egoism denies traditional ethical systems, which almost invariably involve at least some altruism, ethical egoism is the only realistic ethical system. One should note that LaFave’s example is not an is-ought fallacy but that as a ‘is not-ought not’, it is not vulnerable to Hume’s guillotine. In other words, since psychological egoism states all altruism is self-interested (e.g., motivated by the good feeling of helping another) and therefore impossible for human beings, saying ‘You ought to behave selflessly’ is equivalent to telling the typical person, ‘You ought to go to the moon’. However, psychological egoism has rightfully been coming under attack for nearly 300 years. Even after hypothetically conceding that “all voluntary action is motivated by the agent’s wants” (p. 3), James Rachels in Egoism and Moral Scepticism*II can still conclude helping another is selfless because the other person is the object of what the helping person wants. Psychological egoism’s other main premise is that altruism is self-interested because of the satisfaction the actor gains for the good deed. Rachel’s other refutation of that premise is built on Joseph Butler’s sermon, Upon the Love of Our Neighbor*III. Butler writes:

“. . .there could not be this pleasure were it not for that prior suitableness between the object and the passion; there could be no enjoyment or delight from one thing more than another, from eating food more than swallowing a stone, if there were not an affection or appetite to one thing more than another” (6).

In other words, one feels satisfaction for a selfless act because one achieves something one wanted to do; the feeling is a consequence of the wanting and not the other way around. Therefore, on both points Rachels via Butler denies psychological egoism. Although ethical egoism can no longer be supported by psychological egoism, it is not defeated entirely on that point, for simply living in a world where it is possible to act selflessly is not a reason why one ought to.

One of the strongest attacks on ethical egoism is against its logical consistency, for a valid ethical system cannot judge an action as morally good and morally bad at the same time. In The Moral Point of View (pp.189-90), Kurt Baier*IV presents a hypothetical conflict of interest between two presidential candidates, B and K. Election is the self-interest of either candidate, but obviously only one can win the election, so it is in B’s self-interest to kill K and in K’s self-interest to prevent B from killing him. Baier further argues that if K stops B from killing him it would be right because it is in K’s self-interest but at the same time wrong because it prevents B from acting in his own self-interest. Baier’s argument constricts the universality of ethical egoism a bit, but perhaps it is not so easy to refute it from a logical standpoint.

Baier’s argument, in fact, rests upon the premise that preventing someone from acting in his own self-interest is wrong. Therefore, as Rachels notes in The Elements of Moral Philosophy*V, a true ethical egoist can just reject that premise (p. 88). Ethical egoism can still be universalized under a maxim something like, ‘One ought to be motivated only by one’s own self-interest and can prevent others from acting on their self-interests if it furthers one’s own’. Such a maxim is consistent, even though it provides for (and almost certainly creates) conflicts of interest rather than collective good. Therefore, ethical egoism holds up logically, although it may be pragmatically undesirable for those who view public welfare as a good in itself.

Another attack on ethical egoism, which strikes at the heart of ‘commonplace’ morality, is one on its relevance as a moral theory. Rachels (1984) provides background for his ‘favorite’ argument against ethical egoism by first questioning the moral value of those who divide people into groups (e.g., by race or religion) to be treated differently than others. To Rachels, one “can justify treating people differently only if [one] can show that there is some factual difference between them that is relevant to justifying the difference in treatment” (p. 89). For example, if two students apply for a college, and one student has higher SAT scores, his scores justify his acceptance over the other student. Ceteris paribus, if both students have identical SAT scores, there is no relevant basis for accepting one over the other (regardless of who in fact is eventually accepted). As Rachels further states, ethical egoism similarly divides people into groups, a group of one, the individual, and a second group of everyone else, with the interests of the first more important to the ethical egoist than the interests of the second. However, unlike the two applicants with empirical SAT scores, the individual has no relevant basis to justify his difference in treatment. It is that lack of justification itself that, even if it did not disprove ethical egoism, shows how undesirable it is as a system that treats people as a means and not an end.

The ethical egoist might argue that rather than divide people into conflicting groups over resources, the point of egoism is to allow people who are fundamentally divided to maintain their privacy and dignity. Because the individual is best acquainted with the needs and resources of the individual, he is best suited to pursue his own interests. Therefore, altruism, or perhaps even just considering another’s needs before one’s own, can be argued to intrude on the individual’s privacy and rob him of the dignity of pursuing his own course of action (Rachels, 1984, p.79). Jesse Kalin*VI also contributes an interesting support of ethical egoism by categorizing it as traditional moral reasoning, concerned with what the individual ought to do rather than what society as a whole ought to do (p.323). Therefore, the winning out of one individual over another and its interpersonal effects are irrelevant to the traditional theorist (and therefore the egoistic theorist) because his theory is one of intentions and not outcomes.

Obviously, the two above ideas are in conflict; either one should be an egoist to create positive effects in society, as Rachels summarizes, or such interests are arbitrary to the egoist, as Kalin maintains. While Kalin’s argument is acceptable, albeit not of much weight (i.e., if egoism cannot be denied by non-traditional theory, then it certainly cannot be affirmed either), the Rachels summary contradicts egoism itself. If the egoist is considered with his own welfare and not others, then why is the privacy and dignity of others a concern for him? If an egoist follows that premise, he ironically will be hoisted with the petard of psychological egoism, for he will be acting selfishly for selfless reasons.

The closer one gets to the ideas of ethical egoism, the less desirable it seems as an ethical system. The denial of psychological egoism shows not only that one has a choice to act altruistically, but that other ethical systems remain reasonable. And while ethical egoism holds up as consistent and relevant, it remains undesirable because it marginalizes the welfare of others. For example, one might consider a situation from a ‘commonplace’ moral standpoint, that one, say, walks down a lonely street and sees a boy drowning in a lake, so one jumps in and saves him. For an ethical egoist, even under Regis’ labored definition*VII, one walking by would be morally justified to let the boy drown. Surely, among the other reasonable ethical theories is one with less painful bullets to bite.

Answer 10

Where i come from, intelligence is described as the ability to recognize the intelligence of others. Despite of the enormous amount of knowledge that i have in many fields..if cant learn something from the simplest person on earth...the all i know is worthless.

Answer 11

one mind appears, the whole world appears.one mind disappears, the whole world disappears.dont check, just do it..

Answer 12

It's much more prudent to fight fire with water.  

think about it.

Answer 13

Those who claim that all faith is blind faith have the blindest faith of all.

Edit: I feel an even longer edit coming on.

Answer 14

The Law of Thermodynamics states, essentially, that SOMETHING cannot come from NOTHING.

The Law of Thermodynamics (and the other laws of nature for that matter) are SOMETHING

So...

IF: the universe didn't exist

THEN: there would be no laws of nature

THEREFORE: nothing would prevent the universe from spontaneously existing.

CONSEQUENTLY: EVERYTHING was spontaneously created.

The ultimate universe is like a fractal. It is self referencing. Everything is contained within nothing. The smallest part of our universe contains our entire universe. Zoom in or out, but you'll see that everything was created from the most basic unit. 1 divided by 0 is infinity. The fact that nothing existed meant that everything had to exist in order to compliment it. You can't have "nothing" without a frame of reference.

And so we have EVERYTHING, we have NOTHING, and we have that third thing, RELATIVITY. The universe is composed of that trinity. Each of those things must exist, because they all force each other to exist. They are self-reinforcing. They are the most basic fractal.

Answer 15

"This To Shall Pass"