• orgrinrt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Sometimes we don’t value stable career or steady income as highly as other pursuits.

    I wouldn’t say it’s not intelligent. Just different priorities.

    I admire anyone brave and idealistic enough to commit to academia or culture or any similarly less lucrative and extremely uncertain path. Takes some resilience and big balls. You are almost guaranteed to lose a lot of the comforts available to others with that. And yet, they still do it. And we are all better for it. The world is better for it.

    • Holytimes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      What you described pretty much fits the very definition of dumb. Bravery very frequently is the exact opposite of intelligence.

      That’s why you should never tell anyone the odds cuz then they might not be brave enough to take the risk.

      If they know the odds and do it anyways then they’re dumb. But also fucking hats off to him. Their balls are the size of Saturn. And that deserves respect

      • orgrinrt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        20 hours ago

        While I don’t agree, I’ll concede I might be in the minority with this stand. But I don’t really believe in a universal intelligence in the first place. There are several, and not all of them are self-serving or marked by the traditionally associated emotionless calculations. There’s emotional intelligence. Social intelligence. And so on.

        I don’t pretend to be a philosopher or a psychologist to say what they all are, what they even are if you get down to it, but I do know there’s intelligence in caring for others. There’s intelligence in many kinds of sacrifice too. They just aren’t the classical kind of universal intelligence, because that is defined by self-serving “cold facts” and a fragile attempt at realizing an objective world and objective stance on it, which one can never truly reach or possess. If something like that even is possible.

        I stand by my original comment, and I’ll be a bit sad to learn if I’m the odd one out with that take, but I also think these are the kind of things philosophers ought to talk about and not me. What do I know? Maybe my view is distorted by idealism and good expectations, faith in people and the world, that may well be unsubstantiated and entirely delusional.