rationalskepticism.org

wisedupearly wrote:

Thommo wrote:Yes. It is silly. Almost none of those people are intellectuals. Almost none know the first thing about Socratic philosophy, or live out its tenets. There is no apparent connection between the two things, and you haven't tried to actually argue rationally that there is. From there you've leapt not to it being a small influence among many, not to it being a large influence among many, but to it being the sole influence worthy of discussion. Each of these separate steps is a separate non sequitur - or to put it another way, irrational.

Let's be rational about this.
Yes, the vast majority of people know nothing explicit about philosophy. So, what do they know? Their years of schooling (enforced and codified) have taught them that society values them basically in direct proportion to their intelligence. Less intelligent = less worth (except when there is a war).

No, I don't know this. I don't even think this. And I certainly wasn't taught this. I've never met anyone who was.

So I think it's plainly wrong to say that they were taught this. I also think that the object of this is plainly wrong. Footballers are "worth" a lot, but nobody thinks they are particularly clever. Artists, television presenters, politicians all would not be thought of as more intelligent than university professors, yet all have equal human rights, many are idolised, respected and loved more and many are paid much better.

The only thing I can think of that comes remotely close are certain findings in psychology which are taught at, what in this country is A-level (to psychology students, a small fraction of the populus) that show that people who have higher IQs tend to be more successful as measured by a range of variables (pay, life expectancy etc.) which is not common knowledge to most people, is not in direct proportion or nearly perfectly correlated and is not even claimed to be an expression of worth.

wisedupearly wrote:The mass media tells them that the rich and famous are the ones that really count. The rich and famous love to bitch that being rich and famous is no assurance of happiness. But, overall, it is better to be on the top than on the bottom.

Irrelevant, has nothing to do with anything we're discussing.

wisedupearly wrote:This obsession with exam results, with intelligence, is driven the philosophy created by Socrates and Aristotle.

So you keep saying, and I keep pointing out that you have yet to present a single reason to think so. I don't see the value in repetition.

Exam results do not claim to measure intelligence. They attempt to measure education in a particular syllabus. There is the odd exception, like the SAT which correpsonds to IQ, which is an attempt at (but far from a perfect success at) measuring intelligence, but most countries do not have such an exam. The value that most societies place on education is the opportunity it affords the educated, and the economic and social benefits that accrue. Having measures of how successful attempts to educate have been is not Socratic, it's pragmatic (in the broad sense).

wisedupearly wrote:The average person instinctively realizes that society does not value them so they unable to value themselves.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that you are not in a position to speak for the average person.

I am asking for reasons to believe your assertions, not more assertions. Reasons to believe have the potential to be persuasive that more assertions do not. This, I think, is rational.