I'm an intellectualist, ask of me anything.

[UX1∴73C]

What questions have you in mind?

[UX1∴73C]

Publicado originalmente por 𝕎𝔸𝕃𝕋𝔼ℝ:

how much cheese is too much cheese?

When the threshold of what is acceptable is surpassed.

[fish gameing]

Publicado originalmente por NṯR:

Publicado originalmente por Felid - E:

If you consume five megatons of mercury infested with cocaine infested with Uranium, what happens to not you but the individual organs in your body? Basically a defined answer for every vital organ or system then an overview.

All substances are known to destroy the innards, so expect the organs to breakdown.

Yummy.

[Paradise^]

Publicado originalmente por DarkChimneyDivingCrystalMethod:

What questions SHOULD I have in mind?

Lol. /endthread

[Barney, from Black Mesa.]

My disagreement with OP is when he describes "Intellectual Elitism" as a school of philosophy where there is to be a definable element of where there's a finite definition of an expressive quota of intellectual perfectionism upon all given subjects of knowable human intellect, there is no such human capable of achieving all levels of a collective quota of an idea of perfection hence I believe this concept of Intellectual Elitism is inherently flawed as each individual to their own has their own intellectual limits given towards different subjects. Some things takes years to perfect and the human life is only so long as to learn & become a true elite at them all.

I'd agree more with OP's philosophy if it were not for his choice of words as "elitism" is expressively on being collectively superior over all forms of skilled & talented individuals rather than to have the perfection based on an individually capable level as everyone has their limits & own intellectual pursuits.

To be Elite is to be superior, and to be "intellectually elite" would mean to be intellectually superior on all given subjects of human philosophical intelligence by a perfect by-the-book demonstration and/or ability of expression.

In Elitism if one were to therefore fail at a subject it will therefore mean that they're no longer elite, as again Intellectual Elitism by definition of expression would be to perfect every philosophical skill and pertaining to high passing success at everything as it's too broad and is not concentrated towards any given subject of skill nor philosophy.

I believe OP should rather instead focus on something that isn't so broad of a definition and rather instead call his philosophy "Intellectual Esoteric-Perfectionism" as to express a more capable superseding collective of individuals who demonstrate intellectual superiority as opposed to the concept of a "collective Intellectual Elitism" as again, there is no such thing as we all have a humanly limit to learn something by the given capacity of the brain, especially on an individual level as not all humans are built the same nor have the same interests.

[Magma Dragoon]

Publicado originalmente por NṯR:

Publicado originalmente por Magma Dragoon:

Have you a chest?

Yes, as I was born with said body part.

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

GOTTEM!!

It was a challenge, not a question.

I was making a reference to The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis.

[UX1∴73C]

Publicado originalmente por ｢ H E I Ð I N N ｣:

My disagreement with OP is when he describes "Intellectual Elitism" as a school of philosophy where there is to be a definable element of where there's a finite definition of an expressive quota of intellectual perfection upon all given subjects of knowable human intellect, there is no such human capable of achieving all levels of a collective quota of an idea of perfection hence I believe this concept of Intellectual Elitism is inherently flawed as each individual to their own has their own intellectual limits given towards different subjects.

I'd agree more with OP's philosophy if it were not for his poor choice of words as "elitism" is expressively on being collectively superior over all forms of skilled & talented individuals rather than to have the perfection based on an individually capable level as everyone has their limits & own intellectual interests.

To be Elite is to be superior, and to be "intellectually elite" would mean to be intellectually superior on all given subjects of human philosophical intelligence by a perfect by-the-book demonstration and/or expression.

In Elitism if one were to therefore fail at a subject it will therefore mean that they're no longer elite, as again Intellectual Elitism by definition of expression would be to perfect every philosophical skill and pertaining to high passing success at everything as it's too broad and is not concentrated towards any given subject of skill nor philosophy.

I believe OP should rather instead focus on something that isn't so broad of a definition and rather instead call his philosophy "Intellectual Esoteric-Perfectionism" as to express a more capable superseding collective of individuals to express capable intellectual superiority as opposed to the concept of a "collective Intellectual Elitism" as again, there is no such thing as we all have a humanly limit and capacity of the brain and its different individual functions.

Then expect a more detailed description of my aspired concept, since the main idea has not been fully communicated yet.

Publicado originalmente por Magma Dragoon:

Publicado originalmente por NṯR:

Yes, as I was born with said body part.


It was a challenge, not a question.

I was making a reference to The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis.

Had I known sooner, I would have not mistaken you.

[Holografix]

Publicado originalmente por ｢ H E I Ð I N N ｣:

My disagreement with OP is when he describes "Intellectual Elitism" as a school of philosophy where there is to be a definable element of where there's a finite definition of an expressive quota of intellectual perfectionism upon all given subjects of knowable human intellect, there is no such human capable of achieving all levels of a collective quota of an idea of perfection hence I believe this concept of Intellectual Elitism is inherently flawed as each individual to their own has their own intellectual limits given towards different subjects. Some things takes years to perfect and the human life is only so long as to learn & perfect them all.

I'd agree more with OP's philosophy if it were not for his poor choice of words as "elitism" is expressively on being collectively superior over all forms of skilled & talented individuals rather than to have the perfection based on an individually capable level as everyone has their limits & own intellectual interests.

To be Elite is to be superior, and to be "intellectually elite" would mean to be intellectually superior on all given subjects of human philosophical intelligence by a perfect by-the-book demonstration and/or expression.

In Elitism if one were to therefore fail at a subject it will therefore mean that they're no longer elite, as again Intellectual Elitism by definition of expression would be to perfect every philosophical skill and pertaining to high passing success at everything as it's too broad and is not concentrated towards any given subject of skill nor philosophy.

I believe OP should rather instead focus on something that isn't so broad of a definition and rather instead call his philosophy "Intellectual Esoteric-Perfectionism" as to express a more capable superseding collective of individuals who demonstrate intellectual superiority as opposed to the concept of a "collective Intellectual Elitism" as again, there is no such thing as we all have a humanly limit to learn something by the given capacity of the brain, especially on an individual level as not all humans are the same.

u have to negotiate the word 'Elite' with others for it to have any meaning. you're only ossilating between 2 points:
1. perfection
2. non-perfection

failing at perfection means you aren't elite...sure, but the problem is your definition of ELITE must be negotiated by a variegated non-perfect group for it to hold as a lynch-pin of your argument.

otherwise, your just making a moot point, since OBVS no one is perfect.
Plus, you're running into problems because there exist people who are polymaths (masters at various subjects) which invalidates the premise of your 1st paragraph.

[𝕎𝔸𝕃𝕋𝔼ℝ]

Publicado originalmente por NṯR:

Publicado originalmente por 𝕎𝔸𝕃𝕋𝔼ℝ:

how much cheese is too much cheese?

When the threshold of what is acceptable is surpassed.

What's the threshold?

[Candyy]

Why are you an intellectualist?

[Barney, from Black Mesa.]

I don't believe you took the time to understand my detailed analysis on your philosophy;
if your goal is to perfect your intellectual capacity through "useful information" then you must first learn to fully comprehend the expression of a different persons individual analysis or else it'll be an abridged understanding of potentially useful criticism that'll therefore mean that your understanding of the subject will be more narrowed & simplistic, which goes against your doctrine.

I'm not asking you to change your philosophical concept, I'm asking you to choose a more suitable name for it because the one you picked is counterintuitive towards your expressed concept of philosophy:

Intellectual-Elitism

https://www.lexico.com/definition/intellectual
https://www.lexico.com/definition/elitism

VS

Intellectual Esoteric-Perfectionism

https://www.lexico.com/definition/intellectual
https://www.lexico.com/definition/esoteric
https://www.lexico.com/definition/perfectionism

You see where I'm getting at?, I believe it's a poor choice of words that's going to turn some people off towards your concept of philosophy, you might as well be calling gravel concrete.

[UX1∴73C]

Publicado originalmente por Miss Ann Thrope:

What is your opinion of corndogs?

I avoid such minced meat.

Publicado originalmente por 𝕎𝔸𝕃𝕋𝔼ℝ:

Publicado originalmente por NṯR:

When the threshold of what is acceptable is surpassed.

What's the threshold?

The threshold being what is the common "usual".

Publicado originalmente por Candyy:

Why are you an intellectualist?

Because I have found it to be quite efficient in accelerating one's cognitive ability and perception of the real world.

[Candyy]

Do you like cookies?

[𝕎𝔸𝕃𝕋𝔼ℝ]

Publicado originalmente por NṯR:

Publicado originalmente por 𝕎𝔸𝕃𝕋𝔼ℝ:

What's the threshold?

The threshold being what is the common "usual".

I NEED A NUMBER!

[UX1∴73C]

Publicado originalmente por ｢ H E I Ð I N N ｣:

I don't believe you took the time to understand my detailed analysis on your philosophy;
if your goal is to perfect your intellectual capacity through "useful information" then you must first learn to fully comprehend the expression a individual analysis or else it'll be an abridged understanding of potentially useful criticism that'll therefore mean that your understanding of the subject will be more narrowed & simplistic, which goes against your doctrine.

I'm not asking you to change your philosophical concept, I'm asking you to choose a more suitable name for it because the one you picked is counterintuitive towards your expressed concept of philosophy:

Intellectual-Elitism

https://www.lexico.com/definition/intellectual
https://www.lexico.com/definition/elitism

VS

Intellectual Esoteric-Perfectionism

https://www.lexico.com/definition/intellectual
https://www.lexico.com/definition/esoteric
https://www.lexico.com/definition/perfectionism

You see where I'm getting at, I believe it's a poor choice of words that's going to turn some people off towards your philosophy, you might as well be calling gravel concrete.

Duly acknowledged and appreciated.

Publicado originalmente por Candyy:

Do you like cookies?

No, I never did.

Publicado originalmente por 𝕎𝔸𝕃𝕋𝔼ℝ:

Publicado originalmente por NṯR:

The threshold being what is the common "usual".

I NEED A NUMBER!

Some dishes require a certain amount of cheese, so there is your answer.

[chiefputsilao✖️ping]

if your wife and your mom are both drowning in the ocean, what would you cook for dinner?