intellect -intelligence
- Thread starter china
- Start date
China
Please expand on your proposition that intellect operates in the absence of an emotional content/context. "Intelligence" is the expression of intellect, the facility to act on information recieved through the senses and every avenue of interface available to the seat of consciousness. When "fear" for instance informs consciousness that an action taken under circumstances where negative outcomes could be reasonably expected as the consequence is intelligence being informed by emotion, since of course "fear" is an emotional response that serves to direct behavior in survival situations. It is both intellectual "function" as cognitive process of recognition and evaluation of situational conditions impinging or potentially impinging on the immediate state or condition of welfare (health, safety etc.) and "intelligence" that informs conscious awareness that particular actions may have negative consequences...
"Intellect" if divorced from the individual in terms of the ability to percieve conditions and recognize some potential danger or negative outcome likely to follow some particular action serves the same purpose as "intelligence" informed by similar circumstances. I don't think your argument in this case is as soundly formed and presented as other nuggets of insight you've offered.
Please expand on your proposition that intellect operates in the absence of an emotional content/context. "Intelligence" is the expression of intellect, the facility to act on information recieved through the senses and every avenue of interface available to the seat of consciousness. When "fear" for instance informs consciousness that an action taken under circumstances where negative outcomes could be reasonably expected as the consequence is intelligence being informed by emotion, since of course "fear" is an emotional response that serves to direct behavior in survival situations. It is both intellectual "function" as cognitive process of recognition and evaluation of situational conditions impinging or potentially impinging on the immediate state or condition of welfare (health, safety etc.) and "intelligence" that informs conscious awareness that particular actions may have negative consequences...
"Intellect" if divorced from the individual in terms of the ability to percieve conditions and recognize some potential danger or negative outcome likely to follow some particular action serves the same purpose as "intelligence" informed by similar circumstances. I don't think your argument in this case is as soundly formed and presented as other nuggets of insight you've offered.
I think what China is expressing is pretty clear. Of course, it all depends on how you understand the meanings of the words 'intellect' and 'intelligence'.
There are two distincitve and commonly used ways of understanding the term ''intelligence''.
On one side, intelligence means a broad palette of mind abilities that encompass many things such as your efficiency at understanding, learning, reasoning, planning, using language, solving problems, being creative, thinking abstractly, being efficient and ressourceful with your physical environment (spatio-temporal abilities in which athletes exceed), and also, being succesful at social interactions, which implies being sensible to the feelings of others and yourself. Emotional and social intelligence is a crucial part of life and someone who doesn't understand how to appropriately react to emotional and social stimuli is seriously handicapped.
The other common way to understand the term 'intelligence' refers to rational and logic abilities in particular. I'm refering to 'Mensa' type of intelligence. High IQ type of intelligence, where math, logic and pattern recognition is valued.
But a high IQ isn't so desirable if it comes with a social and emotional handicap... Or if it comes with an inability to understand and appreciate music, litterature, painting and all other forms of art.
To sum it up, I think China uses the term 'intelligence' to describe the 1st type of intelligence I described (broad palette of abilities including emotional and social) while the 'intellect' refers to other type of intelligence, the one which focuses on reason and logic.
There are two distincitve and commonly used ways of understanding the term ''intelligence''.
On one side, intelligence means a broad palette of mind abilities that encompass many things such as your efficiency at understanding, learning, reasoning, planning, using language, solving problems, being creative, thinking abstractly, being efficient and ressourceful with your physical environment (spatio-temporal abilities in which athletes exceed), and also, being succesful at social interactions, which implies being sensible to the feelings of others and yourself. Emotional and social intelligence is a crucial part of life and someone who doesn't understand how to appropriately react to emotional and social stimuli is seriously handicapped.
The other common way to understand the term 'intelligence' refers to rational and logic abilities in particular. I'm refering to 'Mensa' type of intelligence. High IQ type of intelligence, where math, logic and pattern recognition is valued.
But a high IQ isn't so desirable if it comes with a social and emotional handicap... Or if it comes with an inability to understand and appreciate music, litterature, painting and all other forms of art.
To sum it up, I think China uses the term 'intelligence' to describe the 1st type of intelligence I described (broad palette of abilities including emotional and social) while the 'intellect' refers to other type of intelligence, the one which focuses on reason and logic.
S_Lone
Greetings!
An entirely valid observation. Intellect that guides or directs action without consideration of the myriad of possible or likely outcomes can be either, "intellect" exercising judgment and analysis in reaching conclusion absent of emotional considerations isn't something that's "in the best interests" of the larger spectrum of the process. For example, while it's expedient and perhaps useful to suggest that executing a criminal will prevent that individual criminal from committing another crime, the decision not to kill someone who's committed a capital crime (killed someone) brings with it the danger of being wrong and this gives rise to the necessity for arguments establishing the burden of proof of guilt to rest with the state. When we undertake an action that requires that we "by-pass" consideration of the epiphenominal consequences that may result through that choice we're failing to permit adequate depth and breadth to the decision. Emotion gives us the capacity to consider the less obvious consequences which follow behaviors which may appear as the appropriate and most expedient response to a given situation. We could save a great deal of money time and effort if we simply let many people die from car accidents and disease, but the impact of that decision is far-reaching. It is "emotion" that gives us the necessary "stepping-back" impulse to broader consideration.
Greetings!
An entirely valid observation. Intellect that guides or directs action without consideration of the myriad of possible or likely outcomes can be either, "intellect" exercising judgment and analysis in reaching conclusion absent of emotional considerations isn't something that's "in the best interests" of the larger spectrum of the process. For example, while it's expedient and perhaps useful to suggest that executing a criminal will prevent that individual criminal from committing another crime, the decision not to kill someone who's committed a capital crime (killed someone) brings with it the danger of being wrong and this gives rise to the necessity for arguments establishing the burden of proof of guilt to rest with the state. When we undertake an action that requires that we "by-pass" consideration of the epiphenominal consequences that may result through that choice we're failing to permit adequate depth and breadth to the decision. Emotion gives us the capacity to consider the less obvious consequences which follow behaviors which may appear as the appropriate and most expedient response to a given situation. We could save a great deal of money time and effort if we simply let many people die from car accidents and disease, but the impact of that decision is far-reaching. It is "emotion" that gives us the necessary "stepping-back" impulse to broader consideration.
This is interesting MikeyDB. You give interesting examples of how emotion can give us a broader look at a situation while on a first glance, you'd tend to think emotions make us prisoners of our subjectivity.
To all above,
You know, there is the intellect, and there is pure feeling - the pure feeling , the intelligence of having great, generous emotions. The intellect reasons, calculates, weighs, balances. It asks, 'Is it worthwhile? Will it give me benefit?' On the other hand, there is pure feeling - the extraordinary feeling for the sky, for your neighbor, for your wife or husband, for your child, for the world, for the beauty of a tree, and so on. When these two come together, there is death. Do you understand? When pure feeling is corrupted by the intellect, there is mediocrity. That is what most of us are doing. Our lives are mediocre because we are always calculating, asking ourselves whether it is worthwhile, what profit we will get, not only in the world of money, but also in the so-called spiritual world - 'If I do this, will I get that?'