Some Questions For Objectivists

[RationalBiker]

Thanks for clarifying. I can see that now and given the title I probably should have assumed that.

[Arkanin]

How are we defining intelligence and maturity? I ask because it seems to me at first blush that maturity is a subcategory of intelligence.

TBH, I tend to define maturity as "you know it when you see it". I guess I should set people free to answer the question by their own reasonable understanding of what the word means.

I imagine you could think of maturity as a kind of "special intelligence" where "conventional intelligence" is someone's capacity for quantitative reasoning whereas "special intelligence" is conventional intelligence in conjunction with mental survivability, talent for empathy, ability to rationally self-examine, trust one's "gut" feelings, and so on. This definition seems OK although it is rarely what people conventionally mean when they refer to intelligence.

At any, I don't mean to trigger a debate about the semantics of intelligence and so on. I mainly ask it to know which is more valuable to everybody -- conventional intelligence or conventional maturity -- using our practical commonplace definitions. as I am merely trying to see how people feel.

I knew I should have clarified that.

Here, allow me to re-write that point:

Arkanin, note that the only one who said intelligence > maturity is Hunterrose, and he is not in fact an Objectivist. Keep that in mind. I'm not knocking Hunterrose or commenting on his position, just noting that you seem to be judging the position of Objectivists by the statement of someone who isn't actually an Objectivist.

noted

Edited June 21, 2006 by Arkanin

[mrocktor]

I am merely trying to see how people feel.

The people here are not guided by how they feel, but by what they think. If you ask if we value Intelligence or Maturity, you will have to supply the definitions. You might as well ask if we value Grubnik or Hloshtar otherwise.

On to the question itself:

Intelligence versus Maturity is a useless dichotomy. I value Rationality, the virtue of using one's mind to perceive reality as it is and acting based on one's own judgment. Intelligence, by which I mean mental capacity, or the "hardware" of thinking and the basic capacity for logical though, is a requirement for rationality. Every man can be rational, the extent of his vision is limited by his intelligence.

Maturity on the other hand is related to the content of one's mind, not on simple brainpower. Knowing how to think, the limits of ones knowlege and what is required to expand them, knowing what is needed to live and how to achieve it, knowing how to understand others when they are not clear in what they say, how to properly judge others and how to persuade them - all of this is knowlege that has to be aquired.

Rationality, therefore, leads to maturity as one gains knowlege and intelligence is required for rationality and maturity.

There is no such thing as a wise moron.

mrocktor

[Marc K.]

If a person (information parser, whatever) can give the correct answer 100% of the time and still be 'irrational', what kind of definition of rationality can you offer which is not strictly relativistic?

Are you saying that a broken clock, computer or person can give the correct answer 100% of the time?

Impossible.

Completely arbitrary assertions have no place in a rational discussion.