Original Intelligence vs. Regurgitated Knowledge

>learning from others
or
>experiencing things and forming your own thoughts

I don't know which is better. Are you "tainted" or "lazy" if you read books? Aren't you better off by forming your own opinions on things instead of reading the opinion of someone else and regurgitating it?

This is something that has been bugging me. I want to go to university, but it feels like a path of comfortable mediocrity and not going the other way of forming your own thoughts and writing them down. I don't think you get multiple chances at stuff like this.

Think about it like this:

I'm 22. People typically reach their intellectual zenith at around 25 +- 2 years before very very slowly declining for the next several decades until they eventually start getting major problems in old age. Whatever you're going to do, the best of it will statistically be in your mid-twenties. This goes for scientists, painters, mathematicians, musicians and producers, athletes, whatever. Typically, your most CELEBRATED work in life, will have been accomplished around your mid-twenties.

Other urls found in this thread:

ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/chapter3.html
triviumeducation.com/
amazon.com/Intelligent-Persons-Guide-Philosophy/dp/0140275169
twitter.com/AnonBabble

cont.

Something that I've noticed is that people who I find exceptionally intelligent or clever, or whatever you want to use to describe how noticeably sharper they are than everyone else you see every day, have the following qualities across the board, every time, no matter what, no question..

1. They read books and have for most of their lives, making them well-read and cultured - they know what they're talking about and don't bullshit anything

2. They are strikingly articulate when forming arguments, partially by using "big words" fluently that most people don't even know the definition of

3. If they attend(ed) university, they don't pay much attention to the work and instead focus on their own thoughts and projects outside of class for their own purposes

4. They are eccentric enough to be noticeable(aspergers, etc), but normal enough to function in society.. i.e. live on their own, have a job, what have you...

5. They only have original thoughts, and never regurgitate anything.

What i'm describing, I very, very rarely if ever see go to university and use it as some kind of path to higher learning... or act like it means anything. I don't know how to explain it. They take everything into their own hands. They form their own opinions ALWAYS, and very rarely give a shit what other people think on any subject.

I don't see THESE people working hard on their term papers and sweating to get a 4.0 because they JUST HAVE to get into law school, or whatever, you get the point. These people don't listen to professors, or give a shit about what their peers think AT ALL. It's like they're incapable almost, or think it's 100% a waste of their time.

They form their own path. These qualities just don't fit the mold of university, do they? Am I wrong? Regular people do not act like this, and they go to university because "it's what you're supposed to do". I think it is a positive correlation.

Here's the thing, OP: reading books and having your "own original thoughts" are not mutually exclusive. The only way to learn to think for yourself is by apprenticing yourself to someone way smarter than you; ie, by reading the great books of the past. You have to get your ass kicked by someone way smarter than you. Since the professoriate in this country has entirely abdicated that responsibility, you might have to do it on your own by reading.

You don't become an original thinker by sitting alone in a room and having deep thoughts all by your self. In fact, NOT reading is a surefire way to become a parrot of someone else's opinion.

TL;DR: You have it backwards. Reading is what prevents you from becoming tainted by pop culture and NY Times op-eds.

Addendum: Find a tradition and apprentice yourself to it. This is the only way to be original.

Intelligence is just your ability to understand things. If somebody's head is full of lots of stuff they must be good at understanding. I don't understand your point against books. Unless you live your life from birth in an isolation tank you won't be having 100% original thoughts so who cares?

I think you're looking too closely at people you admire and trying to think of what things you should do like them and how to go about it. It's fine to admire people but don't think that you can just do the same things certain people did and be as successful as them. The best way to be successful in your own life is also the easiest way: to do so in YOUR OWN way. Basically, stop thinking about what you should be doing and start thinking about what you want to be doing.

Also, the thing about finding your own knowledge is ridiculous. Read as many books as you like. You can still form your own opinions on them and either agree or disagree.

peak human experience is mid-thirties

just relax bro.

I just think of it like this...There is nothing original out there, however there is an incredible amount of knowledge to be consumed. So much in fact that a single person will never be able to consume anywhere close to all of it, so you get to pick and choose what you consume and those combinations of consumed knowledge are what allow us to generate original content. You're like a Diablo II character, use your points and choose your skill sets wisely.

What makes you think you can't form original thoughts through reading books, forcing you to regurgitate what was already stated? You're free to disagree with the author and use the knowledge that was presented to mold your own opinions.

>I'm 22. You usually reach your peak around 25
Sounds like you're in a rush and want to be exactly like the people you aspire to be. Take it easy

>Sounds like you're in a rush and want to be exactly like the people you aspire to be
Who isn't in the back of their mind?

>I don't know which is better. Are you "tainted" or "lazy" if you read books? Aren't you better off by forming your own opinions on things instead of reading the opinion of someone else and regurgitating it?

This is a question that has been asked before a million times. Everything we are able to do as people is enabled by others, from the languages we speak to the technology we use.

There is no reason not to base your thoughts on somebody else's if that person is highly intelligent and has a better position on the matter than you. It's the same reason people hire lawyers.

BTW, I think Schopenhauer's take on OP's question is a pretty insightful one. He equates reading to thinking using somebody else's head, and is generally very critical of the activity.

>When we read, another person thinks for us: we merely repeat his mental process. It is the same as the pupil, in learning to write, following with his pen the lines that have been pencilled by the teacher. Accordingly, in reading, the work of thinking is, for the greater part, done for us. This is why we are consciously relieved when we turn to reading after being occupied with our own thoughts. But, in reading, our head is, however, really only the arena of some one else’s thoughts. And so it happens that the person who reads a great deal — that is to say, almost the whole day, and recreates himself by spending the intervals in thoughtless diversion, gradually loses the ability to think for himself; just as a man who is always riding at last forgets how to walk.

ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/chapter3.html

>Who isn't in the back of their mind?
OP just seems anxious or even desperate about it is all - by his logic, he has about 3-5 years of potential left to make his mark. Doesn't sound like a healthy mindset

I guarantee no thought you've ever had is truly original. And that's fine. You probably won't have an original thought in your lifetime. At least if you read, though, you'll get to see lots of other people's unoriginal thoughts that you may never have thought of otherwise and also gain a better understanding of where your own unoriginal thoughts come from.

>And so it happens that the person who reads a great deal — that is to say, almost the whole day, and recreates himself by spending the intervals in thoughtless diversion, gradually loses the ability to think for himself; just as a man who is always riding at last forgets how to walk.
That seems silly, but nobody reads all day so it's a pointless remark.

These concerns are very understandable. One of the most important aspects of reaching that level of individuality, is the carelessness. No, I don't mean not carring about your life, but not worrying about what the world thinks of you. That is what holds people back. That fear of judgment binds you down and keeps your wings from spreading and taking off far above everyone else. Once you stop caring, you will be free.

>>learning from others
>or
>>experiencing things and forming your own thoughts
Read something on constructivism and realize how fucking retarded what you just wrote is.

>Read something on constr-
Nice try.

Good Lord, you are pathetic.

Reading is pathetic masturbation the majority of the time. Argumentation? A grEEK meme. Cultured? De-colonialize yourself there, before the grEEKs decide to use that ass!

>Reading is what prevents you from becoming tainted by pop culture and NY Times op-eds.
You are already tainted by both, pseud. Stop your ancestor worship, grEEK-sucking pseud.

>muh STEMshit
Back to /r/eddit there pal

>STEMshit
wat

>There is no reason not to base your thoughts on somebody else's if that person is highly intelligent and has a better position on the matter than you
>highly
>better

you won't know how to judge these things because you won't understand the roots of the proposition at hand (because you're just guessing what the other person means based on your understanding of the words they're saying because you don't have their experience and therefor have an entirely different understand of the terms), and if you understand the roots of the proposition, you can just make your own with little effort

so your little idea there implodes on itself

its a very common one though. the simple fact is when you adopt other people's views you become an extension of their will and lose your individual identity, therefore your humanity also, because free will is a prime characteristic of humanity.

But at least by choosing a view to support, if it is truly good, and you discern this with your instincts, you have a chance to stop yourself from sinking below the level of an animal, as so many people do, having corrupt instincts, and so choose ideas that sink them to the level of machine.

shut up kid

>Original Intelligence vs. Regurgitated Knowledge
It's not a dialectic bro

Read stuff: you have provisional knowledge
Experience stuff: you have direct knowledge.
Form a worldview based on synthesizing your provisional knowledge with your direct experiences. Anything you havnt experienced is still provisional.

the idea that thoughts become better if they are your own is retarded relativism

Is this girl well-known on here? I hate most of the alt-right thirst traps on youtube but she seems to actually be smart and talented (and not a money-grubbing thot). Haven't really seen anyone talking about her much though.

I think that it is fairly common sense that we should provide our own take on as many topics as possible; however, you can only investigate so many topics at one time, so it's a good idea to digest the works of insightful people to clarify your own ideas and inform yourself of what lies out there. I think that a "thought innovator", someone who takes a lot of unrelated authors and highlights the unclear but insightful relationships discussed by them, is still as brilliant as anybody else, since they're noticing patterns that few people could either notice or describe.

If OP establishes a good foundation for critical thinking by the time he's 25, then he's set for life as long as he has the work ethic to see his projects to fruition. OP, I wouldn't worry about doing anything except challenging yourself, exposing yourself to as many viewpoints as possible, and refusing to accept mediocrity as an answer.

Porque no los dos?

Why don't we have the both?

Give yourself a classical education, no dead languages necessary just the meat-and-potatoes of Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric (the Trivium Method) triviumeducation.com/

pseud

That's retarded.

It's more likely that you are retarded if you don't see the value in a classical education, or at least being versed in formal (Aristotlean) logic. Unless you are just simply affected by a common symptom of modernity and outcome-based education, which is grossly overestimating the scope of your own knowledge and understanding and lacking the provisional knowledge base to know how little you actually know. You would benefit immensely from practicing the Trivium, and why would you want to discourage others by calling it "retarded"?

>Trivium
>That's retarded
So intellectual in Veeky Forums. The cream of 4chans scholarly elite love their modern plebucation, hoi polloi need not apply. The Greeks are just a bunch of dead white guys from centuries ago, they had nothing of value to contribute to civilization, right? Aristo-who? Formal logic? Sounds useless, im so smart and I know im so much smarter than those old Greek fools because iPhones and computers.

>Give yourself a classical education
>no dead languages necessary just the meat-and-potatoes
you modern utilitarian types are such a meme

i believe you should read books to come to your own thoughts

Per example, reading of Aquinas, Hegel, Milton, Blake, Schopie, Nietzsche and achieving a view of metaphysical satanism.

I'm not a utilitarian, I would never discourage those who wish to study Latin and Greek if they are passionate about it. Learning for learnings sake is one of lifes joys. For a person who may be short on time though, the most useful part of a classical education by far is Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric. Once mastered you can teach yourself just about anything and immunize yourself from sophistry and other dishonest language.

>just the meat-and-potatoes
>I'm not a utilitarian

wew.

The Trivium as it was taught to the clergy and aristocracy in the middle ages was combined with an education in theology. The modern Trivium as it has been taught to the elite at Oxbridge for the past couple of centuries is very much in line with the ethos of the British Empire - the moral/theological study has been done away with leaving the purely pragmatic formal logic core of the Trivium. It is not inaccurate to describe this curriculum as utilitarian.

>Learning for learnings sake is one of lifes joys

PROTIP: This is the mindset that you're actually meant to have.

t.petite bourgeois

I'm broke as a joke. It's not my fault you lack natural curiosity and a constant desire to learn.

Why even bother with any of this if that's how you view it? Serious question.

Thats fascinating but how come I've never heard of this "Trivium" in all my schooling life, including basic philosophy at university?

knowledge is only important as far as it furthers class struggle

Now I understand why you awkwardly projected "petite bourgeois" at me: you're a climber at heart.

"climbers" are individualists

t. covetous sophist.

t.useful idiot with a false consciousness

Because modern education broke away from classical liberal arts in order to focus on what would make you an efficient worker drone. Plus, the elite seems to have diluted their education, given that most of the US presidents of the 19th century could speak either Greek or Latin, but now you're lucky to have a president who can speak English effectively without a teleprompter.

(((forming your own opinions)))

>pointing things that would matter for a particular type of person must mean that you are that type of person
Your weak theory of mind is revealing your autism.

You project so consistently.

Its a method for teaching pupils how to think like thinkers. Its not outcome-based training like the majority of curricula in modern education.

Ayy the infamous John D. Rockefeller quote "I want a nation of workers, not thinkers" comes to mind.

Get yourself some clarity of thought:
triviumeducation.com/

So many low-rent pseuds in Veeky Forums larping at being scholars and thinkers.

Hey OP you can do abit of both! Check out this short book by Roger Scruton - An Intelligent Person's Guide to Philosophy. It'll give you a sound basis for critical thought. amazon.com/Intelligent-Persons-Guide-Philosophy/dp/0140275169

Never regurgitating anything is impossible in this era of information abundance. Novel thoughts are synthesized from old ones. Original, independent thinking comes from using experience and information (i.e. books) as raw material for insight, with attention (in the cognitive, "mindfulness" sense) as a catalyst.

Admittedly, you could just drop acid or something until you get some idea whose origins and lineage are inscrutable if that's what you really want, but it would most likely be worthless babble. Drugs can still be useful in advancing your thinking though but only in combination to the above.

Another thing to consider is: garbage in, garbage out. If you read the same things as everyone else you'll have the same thoughts as everyone else. Listen your taste, proclivities, idiosyncrasies. I mean sometimes (often) it's worth reading what everyone is talking about in order to be part of the conversation, but once you're up to speed you will want to read weird things only you care about. This is where a lot of originality will come from.

Vague rec, but, you may want to check out Tiago Forte for more on information-era creativity and synthesis.

>That fear of judgment binds you down and keeps your wings from spreading and taking off far above everyone else. Once you stop caring, you will be free.

Kind of sideways, but I threw up a little in my mouth. Good advice though. Maybe next time try to tone down the guidance councillor speak a bit. Try a different image so you dont get the automatic eye roll.

>furthers class struggle
?I could have sworn you commie bastards wanted to further the emancipation of all classes, not make their struggles harder. But when you say it that way, I think I understand Chinese communism now.

You're not lazy if you read books or any commentary from other people. You're only ""lazy"" if you just blindly accept another's work. I think a few other anons pointed this out, but a huge part of western academics is the dialectic way of thinking we use to criticize other people's writing and philosophy. Even the greats (especially the greats) should have their ideas criticized or contributed to. As long as your read novels, journals, and essays with that critical eye, you shouldn't be afraid that you're taking a shortcut or that you are removing yourself from your own ideas. Instead, rather, you are given more perspective. This allows you to become a part of the discussion and gives you opportunity to understand how to defend your ideas if you do manage to create your own.

Is your name Shameem?

arguing something stupid with uncommon words still makes you an idiot.

Hahaha that is the stupidest shit.

Too lazy to read any of the bullshit in this thread or even OP's most likely faggotry. Just wanna get that out of the way.

I don't care if anyone else mentioned it, but it's important to mention: in fact, reading is ESSENTIAL to being original. If not, you may think you have original ideas but be regurgitating what other philosophers and writers have already said and done. Reading what you think were your own original thoughts more elaborately written allows you to realize how unoriginal you are, and to move beyond that.

Not an argument my simple friend.

Here's the thing -- you have to be original, but once somebody else has had an idea, there's no reason avoiding it. The notion that you would be 'tainted' by knowledge is ridiculous.

But it's pointless (unless you're just doing it for recreation) to just absorb stuff passively. Try your best to understand what that other person was thinking when they had the worthwhile idea in person. Try to recapitulate their thoughts, or at least the outline of their thoughts.

Absolutely correct. In order to have good ideas you have to know what good ideas look like, which you get by reading. In order to become intelligent, or good at thinking, you have to think a lot, and by far the best way to do that is to think about what you read.

>In order to become intelligent, or good at thinking, you have to think a lot
Wow this thread just sunk to a new low

Well, he's not wrong

When it comes to a person's potential to create their most celebrated work in life, I never see there being an expiration date.
My mind set is to plan things out, and try following through. I don't know what your goals are, but list them out. Do the mental math as to whether going to college lines up with that (i.e. if you want to get into a trade, go to trade school, if you want to become an engineer then it is more than likely the best choice to go to college). I would recommend getting a degree in anything, just so you don't have to work as a cashier (and that job choice is disappearing soon).

We all want to be different, but don't let ego get in the way of going down the path that will benefit you the most. You can still retain your individual thought and unique perception of the information you'd be presented at university. It will only help you in the end.

In case you don't know what you want to study, here's a list of majors and potential careers you can get into with them. Again, this is for those who don't know what they want to do:
>Communication (working in the entertainment industry, sales, marketing, advertising--good mix of psychological, social studies, and even business principles)
>Sociology (be able to work for non-profit or charitable organizations such as Red Cross, could become a social worker, work for the city in a capacity, or get into politics--deals with problems in a society, although never talks constructively on how to deal with the problem, just bandaid solutions or impractical ones, only pointing out where the problem is and the source of it vaguely)
>English (teaching, working as a writer on a television show [after many interns and recommendations], journalism (believe it or not), work for a creative studio such as Disney or Pixar--the field of study focuses on the craft, although to get good grades you may feel like your compromising your style and creative capacity at times

You'll be fine OP, just plan things out and give yourself as many options as possible.

>People typically reach their intellectual zenith at around 25 +- 2 years before very very slowly declining

That's not true at all, user. The greats of the past made their best work at advance ages. There's literally no rush. Average human lifespan is 70, 80 in privileged nations. You have more than enough time to come up with something original if that's what you want. However most great ideas were accidents anyway. Reading is like a journey you take and one day you eventually stumble into something during that journey.

You don't have to think alot, just systematically.This book is great And this is worthy also

Only smart people can have original thoughts

I find people have a hard time accepting this because of "individuality" or some such stupid words like that
The human mind really is pathetic it makes me laugh when I'm lying in my bed at night

Go to school and read a lot OP
You need that mediocrity because it is already part of you

Well what do you want to do? Form new theories or get a job?

He wrote it just fine. Sort yourself out.

Not OP but thanks those sound interesting.

There isn't a correct way to become an interesting or knowledgable person. Some are suited to academic studies and some more to learning from experience.

My advice would be to expose yourself to as much as possible, read reputable works and things that interest you, and don't stress about reaching your potential by a certain time. Try to enjoy your youth. 30 isn't as old as you think it is.

Think about what you want to do instead of watching others and go from there.

>People typically reach their intellectual zenith at around 25 +- 2 years
Do you have any data on that?

Who's the babe in pic?

Not OP, but I recently started studying for a BSc in Mathematics at a rather high age (27), so I also checked if I can even matter a tiny bit in the field. Statistically the answer is no.

Google:
>age dynamics in scientific creativity

Indeed most significant discoveries happen between 20yo and 30yo. In sport its of course even more strinking: you are expected to quit before 30. While athleticism != intellectual zenith it follows the idea of when we peak and when we start to decline.

People still can git gud at almost any age, especially in writing (which profits from experience, I'd guess), but one is always at a disadvantage compared to those who were already competitive when young and had their peak human efficiency dedicated to their art.

Cool thanks. Anecdotally i have heard that genius mathematicians peak early.

To have an objectively new thought you should at least have a rough idea of which thoughts have already been articulated or else you will most likely end up unknowingly reconstructing preexisting ideas. So: read, you whiny lil shit...

underrated post, though it's not a question of whether you are "smart" or not, but whether you have a large soul or not.