VALUES

[Belinda]

It is quite painful to discuss this topic with a person lacking in basic education and rational sense.

Any ignorant and stupid person can make the above excuses.

What count are valid and sound arguments which I had provided, where are yours?

You have no evidence to make any claims about "Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence" for the period you claim.
Any child could tell you that.

In any case sports performance is valued according to sports criteria. For instance people who use wheelchairs have separate sports values from people who can walk. For instance a sportsman may be a great rider but not very good at archery and vice versa.

Values are man made to suit circumstances. Therefore values are human and subjective, except when as may happen and who knows how or when, when fickle fortune allows someone unwittingly to choose the marked card. Moreover nobody knows if there is a marked card or not.

So in the absence of certainty how might we live? Well , we have our biological reactions and we humans can rule our biological reactions by means of reason, and we can and do have faith in future
possibilities.

[Sculptor]

Any ignorant and stupid person can make the above excuses.

What count are valid and sound arguments which I had provided, where are yours?

You have no evidence to make any claims about "Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence" for the period you claim.
Any child could tell you that.

In any case sports performance is valued according to sports criteria. For instance people who use wheelchairs have separate sports values from people who can walk. For instance a sportsman may be a great rider but not very good at archery and vice versa.

Values are man made to suit circumstances. Therefore values are human and subjective, except when as may happen and who knows how or when, when fickle fortune allows someone unwittingly to choose the marked card. Moreover nobody knows if there is a marked card or not.

So in the absence of certainty how might we live? Well , we have our biological reactions and we humans can rule our biological reactions by means of reason, and we can and do have faith in future
possibilities.

Indeed.
Humans today completely suck at hunting and gathering, for example.
But the point I was making is that no one knows how smart fast and strong Greek athletes of 776 bc were, nor, even that that was in fact the date of the first Olympiad, being a putative date set by scholars in later history.
This pretty much renders everything VA says as hot air.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Any ignorant and stupid person can make the above excuses.

What count are valid and sound arguments which I had provided, where are yours?

You have no evidence to make any claims about "Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence" for the period you claim.
Any child could tell you that.

In any case sports performance is valued according to sports criteria. For instance people who use wheelchairs have separate sports values from people who can walk. For instance a sportsman may be a great rider but not very good at archery and vice versa.

Values are man made to suit circumstances. Therefore values are human and subjective, except when as may happen and who knows how or when, when fickle fortune allows someone unwittingly to choose the marked card. Moreover nobody knows if there is a marked card or not.

So in the absence of certainty how might we live? Well , we have our biological reactions and we humans can rule our biological reactions by means of reason, and we can and do have faith in future
possibilities.

You are off point.

The point is the average* person of the present [2020] has and display greater intelligence [various] than those [average] of the past since 200, 500, 10,000, 100,000 years ago. * discounting rare savants.
There is a various range of intelligence within humanity, e.g. IQ, EQ, Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, and others.

Re Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, isn't it obvious the average archers of some 50,000 years ago has lesser intelligence than the average archers in 2020.
It is the same with spear-throwers of 50,000 as compared to the javelin throwers of 2020.
The modern archers and javelin throwers activate greater intelligence in their techniques, use of muscles, movements, relevant nutrition, psychology, physiology, apply aerodynamics, sport science and other knowledge to improve their performances.

With the above and being so evident, I don't see how one can be so stupid to insist the modern average archers, javelin throwers and other sportspersons has lesser Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence than those [average] from 50,000 years ago or those from 200, 500, 10,000, years ago.

To the above point, do you dispute the above?
(btw, use your brain and don't follow the herd)

[Belinda]

You have no evidence to make any claims about "Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence" for the period you claim.
Any child could tell you that.

In any case sports performance is valued according to sports criteria. For instance people who use wheelchairs have separate sports values from people who can walk. For instance a sportsman may be a great rider but not very good at archery and vice versa.

Values are man made to suit circumstances. Therefore values are human and subjective, except when as may happen and who knows how or when, when fickle fortune allows someone unwittingly to choose the marked card. Moreover nobody knows if there is a marked card or not.

So in the absence of certainty how might we live? Well , we have our biological reactions and we humans can rule our biological reactions by means of reason, and we can and do have faith in future
possibilities.

You are off point.

The point is the average* person of the present [2020] has and display greater intelligence [various] than those [average] of the past since 200, 500, 10,000, 100,000 years ago. * discounting rare savants.
There is a various range of intelligence within humanity, e.g. IQ, EQ, Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, and others.

Re Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, isn't it obvious the average archers of some 50,000 years ago has lesser intelligence than the average archers in 2020.
It is the same with spear-throwers of 50,000 as compared to the javelin throwers of 2020.
The modern archers and javelin throwers activate greater intelligence in their techniques, use of muscles, movements, relevant nutrition, psychology, physiology, apply aerodynamics, sport science and other knowledge to improve their performances.

With the above and being so evident, I don't see how one can be so stupid to insist the modern average archers, javelin throwers and other sportspersons has lesser Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence than those [average] from 50,000 years ago or those from 200, 500, 10,000, years ago.

To the above point, do you dispute the above?
(btw, use your brain and don't follow the herd)

Your argument is human progress happens. I agree human knowledge overall accumulated with the passing of time. Scientific and technical knowledge has accumulated. True, some theories have been abandoned and more powerful explanations and predictions have been put in their places. You may see from what I have just written if power to predict and to rearrange narratives amounts to values, then we have progressed as to values.

But power to predict and to rearrange narratives is not moral or aesthetic values.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In any case sports performance is valued according to sports criteria. For instance people who use wheelchairs have separate sports values from people who can walk. For instance a sportsman may be a great rider but not very good at archery and vice versa.

Values are man made to suit circumstances. Therefore values are human and subjective, except when as may happen and who knows how or when, when fickle fortune allows someone unwittingly to choose the marked card. Moreover nobody knows if there is a marked card or not.

So in the absence of certainty how might we live? Well , we have our biological reactions and we humans can rule our biological reactions by means of reason, and we can and do have faith in future
possibilities.

You are off point.

The point is the average* person of the present [2020] has and display greater intelligence [various] than those [average] of the past since 200, 500, 10,000, 100,000 years ago. * discounting rare savants.
There is a various range of intelligence within humanity, e.g. IQ, EQ, Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, and others.

Re Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, isn't it obvious the average archers of some 50,000 years ago has lesser intelligence than the average archers in 2020.
It is the same with spear-throwers of 50,000 as compared to the javelin throwers of 2020.
The modern archers and javelin throwers activate greater intelligence in their techniques, use of muscles, movements, relevant nutrition, psychology, physiology, apply aerodynamics, sport science and other knowledge to improve their performances.

With the above and being so evident, I don't see how one can be so stupid to insist the modern average archers, javelin throwers and other sportspersons has lesser Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence than those [average] from 50,000 years ago or those from 200, 500, 10,000, years ago.

To the above point, do you dispute the above?
(btw, use your brain and don't follow the herd)

Your argument is human progress happens. I agree human knowledge overall accumulated with the passing of time. Scientific and technical knowledge has accumulated. True, some theories have been abandoned and more powerful explanations and predictions have been put in their places. You may see from what I have just written if power to predict and to rearrange narratives amounts to values, then we have progressed as to values.

But power to predict and to rearrange narratives is not moral or aesthetic values.

Nah, you are still off point.
It is not about human progress in general, human knowledge, power to predict, ..

The point is about human intelligences of the average person- the various intelligences, i.e. the mental ability and skill to act intelligently.

Intelligence is;

Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving.
More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.
-wiki

Do you agree;
-the average* person of the present [2020] has and display greater intelligence [various] than those [average] people of the past since 200, 500, 10,000, 100,000 years ago?
* discounting rare savants.

I had used one type of intelligence, i.e. Bodily-kinesthetic Intelligence as example which is expressed in sports.

[Belinda]

You are off point.

The point is the average* person of the present [2020] has and display greater intelligence [various] than those [average] of the past since 200, 500, 10,000, 100,000 years ago. * discounting rare savants.
There is a various range of intelligence within humanity, e.g. IQ, EQ, Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, and others.

Re Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, isn't it obvious the average archers of some 50,000 years ago has lesser intelligence than the average archers in 2020.
It is the same with spear-throwers of 50,000 as compared to the javelin throwers of 2020.
The modern archers and javelin throwers activate greater intelligence in their techniques, use of muscles, movements, relevant nutrition, psychology, physiology, apply aerodynamics, sport science and other knowledge to improve their performances.

With the above and being so evident, I don't see how one can be so stupid to insist the modern average archers, javelin throwers and other sportspersons has lesser Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence than those [average] from 50,000 years ago or those from 200, 500, 10,000, years ago.

To the above point, do you dispute the above?
(btw, use your brain and don't follow the herd)

Your argument is human progress happens. I agree human knowledge overall accumulated with the passing of time. Scientific and technical knowledge has accumulated. True, some theories have been abandoned and more powerful explanations and predictions have been put in their places. You may see from what I have just written if power to predict and to rearrange narratives amounts to values, then we have progressed as to values.

But power to predict and to rearrange narratives is not moral or aesthetic values.

Nah, you are still off point.
It is not about human progress in general, human knowledge, power to predict, ..

The point is about human intelligences of the average person- the various intelligences, i.e. the mental ability and skill to act intelligently.

Intelligence is;

Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving.
More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.
-wiki

Do you agree;
-the average* person of the present [2020] has and display greater intelligence [various] than those [average] people of the past since 200, 500, 10,000, 100,000 years ago?
* discounting rare savants.

I had used one type of intelligence, i.e. Bodily-kinesthetic Intelligence as example which is expressed in sports.

We can't measure the average persons's intelligence even ten years ago . True, we can inspect the results of historical intelligence tests and we can read histories written by more or less biased historiographers.

Let's take "Bodily-kinesthetic Intelligence" as example which is expressed in sports for our field of enquiry. If we knew the criterion of that particular time and place where we are assessing an individual's bodily-kinesthetic experience then we could compare that criterion with the criterion we use now today, but we cannot travel back in time and experience/feel at first hand the criterion we had in place then, as we are not the same people we were then. You and I are not the persons we were ten years ago. If the criterion we used were the same, e.g. the precise weight we could lift above our head then and now,we could say whether or not we had progressed. But it is not reasonable to extrapolate from an explicit criterion to human progress in general or even to extrapolate to ourselves of ten years ago. We can say we, or the average person, has changed. But we can't reasonably believe we or the average person is generally better now than formerly despite being better in some specifics.
Progress, implying better according to some pre-existing goal as set by nature, is a fallacy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your argument is human progress happens. I agree human knowledge overall accumulated with the passing of time. Scientific and technical knowledge has accumulated. True, some theories have been abandoned and more powerful explanations and predictions have been put in their places. You may see from what I have just written if power to predict and to rearrange narratives amounts to values, then we have progressed as to values.

But power to predict and to rearrange narratives is not moral or aesthetic values.

Nah, you are still off point.
It is not about human progress in general, human knowledge, power to predict, ..

The point is about human intelligences of the average person- the various intelligences, i.e. the mental ability and skill to act intelligently.

Intelligence is;

Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving.
More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.
-wiki

Do you agree;
-the average* person of the present [2020] has and display greater intelligence [various] than those [average] people of the past since 200, 500, 10,000, 100,000 years ago?
* discounting rare savants.

I had used one type of intelligence, i.e. Bodily-kinesthetic Intelligence as example which is expressed in sports.

We can't measure the average persons's intelligence even ten years ago . True, we can inspect the results of historical intelligence tests and we can read histories written by more or less biased historiographers.

Let's take "Bodily-kinesthetic Intelligence" as example which is expressed in sports for our field of enquiry. If we knew the criterion of that particular time and place where we are assessing an individual's bodily-kinesthetic experience then we could compare that criterion with the criterion we use now today, but we cannot travel back in time and experience/feel at first hand the criterion we had in place then, as we are not the same people we were then. You and I are not the persons we were ten years ago. If the criterion we used were the same, e.g. the precise weight we could lift above our head then and now,we could say whether or not we had progressed. But it is not reasonable to extrapolate from an explicit criterion to human progress in general or even to extrapolate to ourselves of ten years ago. We can say we, or the average person, has changed. But we can't reasonably believe we or the average person is generally better now than formerly despite being better in some specifics.
Progress, implying better according to some pre-existing goal as set by nature, is a fallacy.

It is true we do not have exact and direct data to compare due to the time difference and no videos then,
Re "Bodily-kinesthetic Intelligence" we can extract evidences from what was recorded in the past 5000 years ago and from archaeological findings for those of our older ancestors 10,000 to 50,000 years ago.

I gave you examples of archery and javelin/spear throwing;
I mentioned the following;

• Re Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, isn't it obvious the average archers of some 50,000 years ago has lesser intelligence than the average archers in 2020.
  It is the same with spear-throwers of 50,000 as compared to the javelin throwers of 2020.
  The modern archers and javelin throwers activate greater intelligence in their techniques, use of muscles, movements, relevant nutrition, psychology, physiology, apply aerodynamics, sport sciences and other knowledge to improve their performances.

With the above mentioned advanced elements used in 2020 I am surprise you are unable to rationalize using common sense to see the difference within key performance criteria.

I don't see how you can equate the average archers 10,000 years ago could have the same intelligence as the average archers could have the SAME average Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence.
Your only excuse is no data. Surely if you read widely you would have the relevant information infer the difference.
Btw, are you involved in any sports at all?

Progress, implying better according to some pre-existing goal as set by nature, is a fallacy.

It is not the progress of results but the progress in their using different tons of advanced techniques and knowledge that mark the difference in the degree of intelligence.

[Belinda]

You think you can define intelligence?I can guess your political preference!

[Veritas Aequitas]

You think you can define intelligence?I can guess your political preference!

How can you be so narrow minded?
This is a Philosophical Forum not a Political Forum.

In Philosophy, definitions are most critical so that one do not discuss pass each other with oranges against apples.

Definitions cannot be absolute, I believe anything X can be defined.
Tell me what cannot be defined other than intelligence?
Thus the attempt is to define as precisely as possible till both parties agree to an acceptable definition.
Definition of terms used are very critical within a contract within parties [two or more].
If "intelligence" is used in any contract, it will have to be defined or the common definition is implied.

If you google, 'intelligence' there is 652,000,000 hits and in most cases, the term 'intelligence' is defined in some way.

Note for example;

Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving.

You may insist 'intelligence' cannot be defined and quantified or objectified.
This again is ignorance.

Note even 'beauty' can be quantified and objectified as in Beauty Contests like Miss Universe which is qualified to the rules of the Miss Universe Organization.
Would you deny that;
Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe_2019
is an objective fact of beauty?

Obviously no one would deny the above is a fact of beauty but obviously the degree of objectivity must qualified to the contexts of the rules of the Miss Universe Organization.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequinas, philosophy might be applied to life including politics. What is philosophy if it is not applicable to life?


Indeed anyone can define anything.However your definition is not the same as mine unless we agree to adopt the same definition. For instance if we are working in a team we and other members of the team agree to the same definition of good work, and the foreman may call good work 'intelligent'.

Definitions are arbitrary. The definition of dog varies according to who is defining it. The small child quickly learns the social meaning of 'dog'. The botanist accepts the botanical meaning of ' petal' while many who are not botanists conflate petals and bracts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequinas, philosophy might be applied to life including politics. What is philosophy if it is not applicable to life?

Yes, philosophical is all encompassing thus applicable to all aspects of life.

But it is the rules of this particular philosophical Forum that the topic should be confined to philosophy and specifically 'ethical theory'.

Indeed anyone can define anything.However your definition is not the same as mine unless we agree to adopt the same definition. For instance if we are working in a team we and other members of the team agree to the same definition of good work, and the foreman may call good work 'intelligent'.

That is my point.
Like I say 'anyone can define anything' but the literal and intellectual protocol is there must be consensus between any parties within a specific discussion or context.

Definitions are arbitrary. The definition of dog varies according to who is defining it. The small child quickly learns the social meaning of 'dog'. The botanist accepts the botanical meaning of ' petal' while many who are not botanists conflate petals and bracts.

As above,
Like I say 'anyone can define anything' but the the literal and intellectual protocol is there must be consensus between any parties within a specific discussion or context.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequinas, philosophy might be applied to life including politics. What is philosophy if it is not applicable to life?

Yes, philosophical is all encompassing thus applicable to all aspects of life.

But it is the rules of this particular philosophical Forum that the topic should be confined to philosophy and specifically 'ethical theory'.

Indeed anyone can define anything.However your definition is not the same as mine unless we agree to adopt the same definition. For instance if we are working in a team we and other members of the team agree to the same definition of good work, and the foreman may call good work 'intelligent'.

That is my point.
Like I say 'anyone can define anything' but the literal and intellectual protocol is there must be consensus between any parties within a specific discussion or context.

Definitions are arbitrary. The definition of dog varies according to who is defining it. The small child quickly learns the social meaning of 'dog'. The botanist accepts the botanical meaning of ' petal' while many who are not botanists conflate petals and bracts.

As above,
Like I say 'anyone can define anything' but the the literal and intellectual protocol is there must be consensus between any parties within a specific discussion or context.

Then we will have to disagree about the scope of academic philosophy.