philosophy

The Magic of Meditation

Wow, can you believe this is the second last day of the 30-day challenge?

So, are you ready to squeeze in a few more big ideas? We hope so. As today
we'll be studying an amazing, profound book from one of the greatest minds of
modern times: Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.

“The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts, therefore
guard accordingly; and take care that you entertain no notions unsuitable to
virtue, and reasonable nature.”

gain the big ideas and wisdom of one of the most important
stoic philosophers?
So let’s dive straight in with Brian’s video

Questions seriously smart people ask

expand your Philosophers Notes
library at our special discounted price. Plus you get our special bonus,
The Focus Zen Pack.

>>> So lock in your discount and order now if you haven't already.

Now if you're still not completely sure it's for you, that's fine. It's natural that
you might have questions.

So to help you make a decision, we've pulled together a list of Highly Intelligent
Questions from Insanely Smart People inquiring about the Notes.

1. What if an important/mental breakthrough-like piece of info is missed in
the condensation process?

Good question! Now naturally Brian can't include all the details of every book.
What we're aiming for though is "more wisdom in less time". Think about it this
way. How much of the last book you read do you actually remember? Probably
less than 20%. But with Philosophers Notes you're likely to remember as much
as 80%. The reason?

Our brains create memories by connecting different bits of info. Brian does this
with every note. Notes connect to notes that connect to other notes. There's no
way you can get the full and complete ideas of a given book in 20 mins - but what
you will get is the MOST POWERFUL idea. And via Brian's teaching style, you
get a way to remember and APPLY these ideas in your life. And if you truly love
an idea from one of the books - go ahead and buy that book for the times when
you do want to sit down and read a whole book (like on a flight).

2. Do the authors of the books support the idea of Philosophers Notes?

Yes, in big ways. Authors have been our biggest word of mouth generators and
even investors. Ultimately each note links to the authors' books, sites and
encourages the reader to discover the author for themselves. The notes are
about opening more people to the idea of reading for growth, and not just pleasure.
This is why authors love Philosophers Notes.

3. How do I use the Notes?

The best part about the notes is that they come in the format of a 6 page pdf and
a 20 minute audiobook. Chose either. Listen to the audio when you're driving to
work and back. Or read a note on your Kindle or iPad while waiting in line at
checkout or on the subway. You simply don't need any extra time to expand the
number of books you read.

4. What will I get when I order Philosophers Notes?

This is entirely up to you and which package you decide to buy! Depending on
which package you choose to order, you'll get the top notes about People Skills and Social Life,
100 of the best Notes from across all categories, or the full 180 Note library.

Plus, you'll also get our exclusive set of 5 Focus Zen tracks, to help you get the
most out of your Notes and give your brain a safe, natural boost.

5. How will this Transform my Life?

Imagine how much you can grow by simply learning ONE powerful life transforming
idea every day for a month. And in only 20 mins. They say wisdom comes with age.
Not true. You can get much wiser now with no extra time expenditure (or wrinkles)
just by consuming a note a day in 20 minutes during usual down time like commuting.
I guess the best way to get the gist of this, is to read what others are saying....

>>> Here's the link to get started now :-)

And....Check these out Facebook comments from users who are reading the notes
===>

"I am proud that I have made a great investment in Philosophers notes....really
coooool and game changing. For a voracious readers like me, (I really don't have
time). I have to go to college, then back to work, then friends and parties. I find
time to read a book, but some books are relatively big and so it takes me a lot of
time. But I downloaded all philosphers notes in my mobile. I listen to them in my
bike drives, during surfing and also during my night dusky eye closing time (I find
it awesome when I listen to them before sleep.) The passion with which Brian
Talks is really great, he observes the most important points in book and presents
a superb audible treatise, with his amazing voice."
~ Chetan

"Concise, precise, very informative and inspiring. I first shared my first Philosophers
Note to my son and he loves it. I am now sharing this in my Facebook for others to
know! Kudos and cheers!"
~ Carmencita Cervantes ·

"Philosophers Note is wonderful! Loved Brian's detailed outline. He gets to the
heart and message of this book with his explanation and commentary. His voice
is absolutely amazing - crisp and clear, so easy to listen to- an audio book lover's
dream! Also included was the full PDF summary to read and have as well.
THANK YOU! This is a ground breaking service for avid readers who's "to read"
list is ever growing, and an awesome way for beginners to discover the power and
insight of the written word! A multitude of thanks Brian- you're dedicated service
to your passion is so greatly appreciated!"
~ Irene Mazzei-Ferry

"Philosopher's Notes will allow people more discretion on where to spend time
and energy. One can certainly move through a lot more concepts in less time
to make decisions faster on topics that resonate with them. I suggest having
fun with them and I wish Brian much success in his venture!"
~ Cathy Coombe

>>> Go here to get your set of notes for as low as 72 cents a note.

That's insanely low. And I can tell you this - if Philosophers Notes is not BY FAR
the BEST INVESTMENT you've ever made in yourself, just return it for a full refund.
But I bet that instead of that, like most of our readers, you'll be sharing it with friends
and talking about this on Facebook and to every other smart, passionate person you
meet.

It just kinda works that way.
To your new life

Creating Your Life Vision

Ready for the next challenge, aurélie ?

The author of the next book in the challenge is a hip-hop mogul, producer,
entrepreneur and all around rock star. And, he’s a yogi, vegan and deeply
spiritual guy. We love that combo....and we love this book.

Do You! by Russell Simmons is such an inspiring read because it looks at
how you can create a vision for your life using mantras to reprogram your mind.

“In the end, the overriding factor in whether or not you realize your dreams is
going to be you. Not the world. YOU.” – Do You! – Russell Simmons

As always, you know the drill.

>>>Click here to take part in today’s challenge.


The Philosophers Notes Team,
@Mindvalley

P.S. Loving the challenge and interested in getting your hands on Brian’s entire
Philosophers Notes (which includes his notes from nearly 200 of the most influential
books of all-time)? Well, we have good news for you. As from today, we have a very
special offer. Click here to find out more

Uncovering Your Pathway to Bliss

Struggling to find your unique pathway to inner bliss, aurélie ?

Today's day 25 of the Philosophers Notes Challenge, and we'll be
studying a classic when it comes to connecting with your inner
wisdom and discovering a lifetime of bliss.

“Your bliss can guide you to that transcendent mystery, because bliss
is the welling up of the energy of the transcendent wisdom within you.”
– Joseph Campbell, Pathways to Bliss

This book is a must-read for those looking for guidance on how to
transcend to a place of greater spiritual being and experience a more
blissful life.

As always, to take part in today's challenge, just watch Brian's video
where he reveals the biggest insights from the book, and how you can
apply them to your life.

take part in today's soulful challenge

To a blissful existence,
http://www.finerminds.com/personal-growth/philosophersnotes-day-25/

The Silva Mind Control Method of Mental Dynamics

Is this one of your favorites too, aurélie ?

We’re really excited for today because we’ll be studying The Silva Mind Control
Method of Mental Dynamics by Jose Silva and Burt Goldman.

As long time students of Silva, needless to say we've been saving the best for last
with this one.

“This philosophy is about enjoying things you like, avoiding or changing things you
do not like, and accepting what you cannot avoid or change by the skillful use of your
viewpoint.”
– The Silva Mind Control Method of Mental Dynamics by Jose Silva and Burt Goldman

To take part in today's exciting challenge, just check out Brian’s video where he
reveals his biggest insights from the book, and as always, share what’s resonated
with you the most from today’s challenge!

>>>Click here to take part in today's challenge

To challenging the dynamics of your mind,

Unraveling the Secrets of the Universe

You’ve nearly crossed the finish line, aurélie ,

Today’s day 27 of the Philosophers Notes Challenge, and we’ll be studying perhaps
one of the best pocket-sized books of wisdom ever written: The Man Who Tapped
The Secrets of The Universe by Glenn Clark.

“Joy and happiness are the indicators of balance in a human machine… An inner
joyousness, amounting to ecstasy, is the normal condition of the genius mind.
Any lack of that joyousness develops body-destroying toxins. That inner ecstasy of
the mind is the secret fountain of perpetual youth and strength in any man. He who
finds it finds omnipotence and omniscience.”
– Walter Russell, The Man Who Tapped the Secrets of the Universe

To take part in today’s challenge, you know the drill.

Just watch Brian’s video where he reveals the biggest insights from today’s book,
and share which nuggets of wisdom resonated with you the most

The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success

As a society, we often attribute success to wealth.

But of course with many of you being attuned to a higher spiritual level, abundance
or "success," is understood to come in a different, more meaningful package.

In today's challenge, we'll be looking at Deepak Chopra's The Seven Spiritual Laws
of Success to understand how to achieve success in it's most purest, joyous form.

“Success in life could be defined as the continued expansion of happiness and
the progressive realization of worthy goals. Success is the ability to fulfill your desires
with effortless ease. And yet success, including the creation of wealth, has always been
considered to be a process that requires hard work, and it is often considered to be at
the expense of others. We need a more spiritual approach to success and affluence,
which is the abundant flow of all good things to you. With the knowledge and practice
of spiritual law, we put ourselves in harmony with nature and create with carefreeness,
joy, and love.” – Deepak Chopra, The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success

This book is responsible for changing not only Brian Johnson's life (check out today's
challenge to learn why) but also for significantly impacting the lives of many of us here
at Mindvalley.

So, are you also ready to become magnificently successful?

http://www.finerminds.com/personal-growth/philosophersnotes-day-24/

thresholds of the Mind

Don’t you just love the fact (yes, it’s a fact) that we can literally re-wire our
brains?

It makes us giddy to think about the power we have to shape and raise the
“thresholds of our minds,” as in doing so, we’re able to more effectively meet
life’s challenges and live with more consistent joy, creativity, peace and all
that good stuff.

To explore this fascinating topic further, today we'll be studying Bill Harris'
Thresholds of the Mind.

“The human brain has the quality of plasticity or malleability throughout life if
it receives the kind of stimulation that allows it to grow and adapt.”
– Bill Harris, Thresholds of the Mind

Bill Harris also happens to be the creator of Holosync, an audio technology
program to help people meditate like a Zen monk, so we really can't wait to
dive into today's challenge to see what it’s all about.

To take part, you know the score.

Just watch Brian Johnson's video where he shares his biggest insights, and
then join the discussion

What's Our Purpose?"


As humans, one of our greatest ponderings is, "What's my life purpose?"

In today's book in the challenge, one of the most provocative thinkers of
our time, Osho, challenges us to reconsider some of life's biggest questions
in his, The Book of Understanding.

“I don’t teach the middle way, I teach the total way. Then a balance comes of
its own accord and then that balance has tremendous beauty and grace.”
– Osho, The Book of Understanding

In this transformative book, Osho opens our eyes up to radical new possibilities
and explains that the first step in truly understanding our place in the world is to
question all that we've ever been taught to believe.

We can't recommend this book enough. To get a glimpse of some of its key
teachings, check out Brian’s video in today’s challenge, and join in by sharing
your thoughts or comments.

>>>Click here to take part in today’s challenge http://www.finerminds.com/personal-growth/philosophersnotes-day-26/

Everyday Enlightenment

With more and more of us choosing to follow a more conscious path that incorporates
meditation, yoga and other spiritual practices into our busy working days, it’s probably
fair to say that many of us are striving for some form of enlightenment.

But like many, you may have noticed that this warm glow of contentment, peace and
acceptance is hard to maintain beyond the meditation mat, particularly when faced with
the realities of daily life.

In today's book, Everyday Enlightenment by Dan Millman (the same author who wrote
Body Mind Mastery from day 15 of the challenge) we learn how we can extend these
moments of enlightenment so they continue to filter throughout the day, and our lives.

As always, to take part in today’s challenge, watch Brian’s video where he reveals
the biggest ideas from the book, and then take part in the discussion.

To your personal evolution

http://www.finerminds.com/personal-growth/philosophersnotes-day-17/

file:///C:/Users/JAIME/Downloads/The_Six_Pillars_of_Self_Esteem_%20by_Nathaniel_Branden.pdf

google how to make the world a better place , como hacer del mundo un sitio mejor comment monde meilleur, aider monde

youtube movie american beauty if there is : voc philosophical in english

idealist ( dreamer, reveur, utopist

beaucoup humains n'ont aucune conscience et sont d'ignobles pourritures .

on crois avoir vu un ange passé . le diable nous a charmé en réalité . 

ceux qui s' en fiche qu'ils et que beaucoup manquent de respect aux animaux sont une perte d'oxygène, de place, de cerveau et de vie, ils ont rien dans la tête et cerveau .

vida

vida filosoficamente hablando

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualismo

Apprendre la Philosophie
Manuel pour les élèves des classes de terminale
vendredi 18 mai 2012

La recherche du Bien et du Bonheur
Qu'est-ce qu'une vie réussie ? Qu'est-ce qu'une belle vie ?


Introduction
Le « Bien » est, en général, la finalité de toute action possible. Les hommes cherchent naturellement le bien pour eux : même le « méchant » pense faire le bien, si ce n’est pour autrui, au moins pour lui-même. Par ailleurs "tous les hommes cherchent le bonheur", dit Aristote, justement parce que le bonheur représente en général l'ensemble des biens souhaitables… Le Bonheur pourrait se définir comme la satisfaction complète et durable de tous nos désirs, ou à défaut des plus importants. C'est en quoi il faut le distinguer des simples plaisirs passagers, et même de la joie. On le considère en général comme le but de la vie, voire comme l’équivalent d’une « vie réussie ». Mais qu’est-ce qu’une vie réussie ? Ce qui représente pour moi la réussite peut bien représenter l’échec pour un autre !
L’étymologie ne nous aide guère, puisqu’elle fait peu ou prou remonter le bonheur à l’idée de chance : « bonne-heure », bonne nouvelle, « mal-heure », mauvaise nouvelle… Comment pourrions-nous faire du bonheur l’objet d’une réflexion philosophique s’il se ramène à une affaire de chance ? Mais cette voie est celle de la superstition. Les philosophes de l’antiquité ont cherché au contraire les conditions personnelles, et néanmoins rationnelles, de la réalisation du bonheur : cela s’appelle la vertu.
C'est ainsi que nous rencontrons le concept du Devoir. Faut-il faire son devoir, faut-il faire le bien, fait-il être quelqu'un de "bien" pour "réussir sa vie" et ainsi être heureux, ou au moins mériter d'être heureux ? L'éthique des Anciens se présentait résolument comme une philosophie du bonheur. Tandis que les philosophes modernes, influencés par le christianisme comme Kant, donc a priori plus universalistes que les Anciens, voient éventuellement dans le bonheur une récompense mais non une conséquence de la conduite vertueuse. Pourtant ne peut-on réunir les conditions du bonheur (le mien) et les conditions de la moralité (le Bien de tous) ? Peut-on vraiment être heureux si les autres sont dans le malheur ? L’idée du bonheur ne dépend-elle pas justement d’un Idéal, qui pourrait unir tous les hommes ?
Cependant un idéal n'est-il pas par définition une projection, un rêve irréalisable ? Dans ces conditions, pourquoi ne pas rechercher en soi-même les conditions d'une "belle vie", une vie heureuse ici-même et maintenant ? Le bonheur est-il un but dans la vie (ce que semble sous-entendre l'expression "réussir sa vie", avec l'idée d'accomplir quelque chose, de se réaliser, etc.) ou simplement une manière de voir la vie et d'être en vie (ce que laisse entendre plus simplement mais énigmatiquement l'expression : "belle vie") ?

I – L’EUDEMONISME ANTIQUE : BONHEUR ET VERTU

1 • L’eudémonisme : définition
L’eudémonisme (du grec eudaimon : heureux) est cette doctrine pour qui le Bien suprême est constitué par le bonheur. On peut y voir une conséquence de la conception (antique) de la philosophie comme sagesse, comme art de vivre. Chez tous les philosophes anciens, le bonheur, fin de l’action, apparaît comme un accord entre l’homme et les choses, entre l'homme et la Nature. "Vivre heureux et vivre conformément à la Nature sont une seule même chose" écrit Sénèque. Cela suppose une qualité : la vertu. "La vertu est l’habitude du bien", dit simplement Aristote. La disposition au bien, à faire le bien, voire à bien-faire les choses. La vertu peut s’appliquer à toute action bonne et pas seulement aux “bonnes actions”, au sens strictement moral du terme. Bref, la vertu, au sens grec, est l’excellence. Celui qui vit selon la Nature et qui se conforme à sa nature propre, celui-là ne manque de rien par définition ; il s'accomplit alors pleinement et mène une vie épanouie. L’eudémonisme voit donc le bonheur comme le résultat d’une vie entièrement vertueuse, un état certes accessible dans cette vie, quoique réservé aux "sages"…
2 • Aristote : bonheur et contemplation
Aristote : "S’il est vrai que le bonheur est l’activité conforme à la vertu, il est de toute évidence que c’est celle qui est conforme à la vertu la plus parfaite, c’est-à-dire celle de la partie de l’homme la plus haute. (...) Ce qui est propre à l’homme, c’est donc la vie de l’esprit, puisque l’esprit constitue essentiellement l’homme. Une telle vie est également parfaitement heureuse". Le bonheur consiste donc dans l’activité la plus parfaite de l’homme, c’est-à-dire dans la vie contemplative qui est la plus conformé avec sa nature d'"animal rationnel". Aristote distingue trois sortes de vie : les vies vouées à la subsistance, les vies vouées à l'action, et les enfin les vies vouées à la connaissance. S'il est vrai que "l'homme désire naturellement savoir", que le désir de savoir est son désir principal, et s'il est vrai que le bonheur consiste dans la satisfaction des principaux désirs, alors corrélation entre bonheur et connaissance paraît assez évidente. Inversement, l'on peut penser que le malheur provient essentiellement de la frustration de ne pas comprendre, sans compter les mauvais choix et les mauvaises actions induites par l'ignorance. Par ailleurs ce qui fait la dignité de la connaissance, et sa supériorité sur les simples plaisirs, c’est sa constance ou sa durée. La connaissance (en tant que "contemplation", à la "grecque" !, pas en tant que "recherche scientifique" au sens moderne) serait la version humaine et terrestre de la béatitude divine…
3. L’épicurisme ou l’hédonisme
L'hédonisme (de hedon : plaisir) est cette doctrine eudémoniste qui assimile, non seulement le bien avec le bonheur, mais encore le bonheur avec l'ensemble des plaisirs. Ainsi pensait Epicure, pour ne citer que lui. Le sage épicurien veut réaliser un accord et une harmonie avec un monde purement matériel et formé d’atomes. Or le propre de tout être naturel (ou matériel) est de rechercher la satisfaction. Une vie heureuse est donc, pour Epicure et ses disciples, une vie consacrée aux plaisirs naturels (étant entendu qu’il existe des plaisirs non naturels, et donc nocifs, et aussi des plaisirs excessifs qui se retournent en douleurs). La vertu consiste précisément à savoir trier les bons et les mauvais désirs, ceux qui sont nécessaires pour une vie heureuse, et les autres. La sagesse ou le bonheur consiste à trouver à la fois la santé du corps et la tranquillité de l’âme (ataraxie) : une vie de plaisir, ou plutôt d’absence de douleurs, mesurée, et sobre.
4. Antithèse : le stoïcisme
Mais les stoïciens contestent cette importance accordée par les épicuriens au plaisir. La recherche du plaisir ne conduit pas au bonheur, car le plaisir est à la fois inconsistant (décevant) et éphémère (trompeur) : le plaisir arrivé à son plus haut point s’évanouit ; il ne tient pas une grande place, c’est pourquoi il la remplit vite ; puis vient l’ennui, et après un premier élan le plaisir se flétrit. Et la vertu vaut mieux que le plaisir : (...) il y a des malheureux à qui le plaisir ne fait pas défaut, et même dont le plaisir cause le malheur (...), mais la vertu existe souvent sans le plaisir et n’a jamais besoin de lui. (Sénèque). La vertu suffit au bonheur, écrit Diogène Laërce. Ce qu'il faut combattre, la cause de tous nos malheurs, c'est la tyrannie des désirs qui entretient l'état de manque. La plénitude intérieure suppose donc de s'affranchir des désirs et des passions. Au fond, le stoïcisme se présente moins comme une recherche du bonheur que comme une recherche en soi de la vertu : il y a une nuance.
Ce qui nous rapproche un peu d'une autre doctrine, religieuse celle-ci, qui allait radicalement bouleverser cette conception du bonheur et du Bien : le christianisme. Le christianisme va accréditer l'idée selon laquelle le bonheur ici-bas n'existe point. La religion promet seulement le paradis, du moins à ceux qui sauront le mériter. A la différence de la sagesse philosophique grecque, la religion chrétienne accorde cette espérance à chaque mortel : il n'est pas besoin d'être un sage accompli pour être "quelqu'un de bien" et ainsi mériter le bonheur. Une vie chrétienne suffit. Pour les philosophes modernes, marqués par le christianisme, le bonheur devient ainsi un « idéal » (lointain) et plus seulement une « pratique » (présente) à la portée du sage.

II - LA MORALE DU DEVOIR (KANT)

1 • La moralité dans la conscience et la raison
"Si tous les hommes recherchent d’être heureux" (Pascal), il s‘en faut de beaucoup qu’ils s’accordent sur une définition commune du bonheur. « S’il est vrai que tout hommes souhaite y parvenir, il ne peut cependant dire d’une façon déterminée et cohérente, ce que véritablement il souhaite et veut ». (Kant). Kant fait remarquer que le bonheur n’est qu’un idéal de l’imagination, et qu’au mieux la “morale du bonheur” ne contient pas des règles mais des conseils (facultatifs et non normatifs), et tout au plus des impératifs techniques portant sur les moyens et jamais sur les fins.
Il faut donc retrouver le sens évident et simple de la moralité. Partant du mot de Pascal : "La vraie morale se moque de la morale", Lalande explique : "La vraie morale, n’est-ce pas ici le sentiment vif et juste, l’évidence intérieure du bien et du mal ? Et la morale dont elle se moque, ce peut être soit l’ensemble routinier des règles de morale traditionnelles, soit plutôt la spéculation morale des philosophes. Il suffit, précise Kant, de considérer la raison humaine, » sans rien apprendre le moins du monde de nouveau, la rendre attentive à son propre principe, montrer par suite qu’il n’est besoin ni de science ni de philosophie pour savoir ce qu’on a à faire afin d’être honnête et bon, et même sage et vertueux ». Ici Kant se souvient de Rousseau : « Il est donc au fond des âmes un principe inné de justice et de vertu, sur lequel, malgré nos propres maximes, nous jugeons nos actions et celles d’autrui comme bonnes ou mauvaises, et c’est à ce principe que je donne le nom de conscience."
2 • devoir et inclination : la bonne volonté
La découverte de la dimension morale ne donne pas encore la notion précise du “devoir”. Il faut doter cette moralité, en somme, d’une sorte de faculté ou de capacité d’agir que Kant appelle : la “bonne volonté”. "De tout ce qu’il est possible de concevoir dans le monde, et même en général hors du monde, il n’est rien qui puisse sans restriction être tenu pour bon, si ce n’est seulement une BONNE VOLONTE". La bonne volonté n’est donc pas assimilable à la volonté “conciliante” (“bien vouloir...”), pas même à la notion d’effort (“allons, un peu de bonne volonté!”) ou de courage (“être volontaire”. Elle signifie simplement : faire son devoir.
Il faut préciser : faire son devoir parce que c’est son devoir, et non par inclination c’est-à-dire par tendance ou par goût. A cet égard, Kant porte très loin l’exigence du devoir. Par exemple : « c’est un devoir de conserver sa vie et c’est aussi une chose à laquelle chacun est porté par une inclination immédiate. Or c’est précisément ce qui fait que ce soin, souvent si plein d’anxiété, que la plupart des hommes prennent de leur vie, n’a aucune valeur intrinsèque, et que leur maxime à ce sujet n’a aucun caractère moral. Ils conservent leur vie conformément au devoir sans doute, mais non pas par devoir. Mais que des revers et un chagrin sans espoir ôtent à un homme toute espèce de goût pour la vie ; si ce malheureux, qui a de la force d’âme, plutôt indigné par son sort qu’abattu ou découragé, conserve la vie, sans l’aimer, et tout en souhaitant la mort, et ainsi ne la conserve ni par inclination ni par crainte, mais par devoir, alors sa maxime aura un caractère moral. (...) [la morale] veut qu’on agisse par devoir et non par inclination. »
Jamais la distinction entre devoir et inclination ne se remarque aussi bien que lorsqu’il s’agit d’associer amour et devoir. Il faut aimer par devoir même si l’on ne parvient pas à aimer par inclination. « C’est ainsi sans aucun doute qu’il faut entendre les passages de l’Ecriture, où il est ordonné d’aimer son prochain, même son ennemi »
C’est bien parce que l’inclination ne “suit” pas toujours le devoir que l’action morale n’est pas aisée et que la contrainte est nécessaire, sous la forme d’un “impératif” ou d’un ordre ; voire sous forme de répression. Ce qui peut paraître une entorse au principe de la “bonne volonté”... Mais, comme le dit Kant, si la volonté humaine est bonne, elle n’est pas “sainte” pour autant, c’est-à-dire infaillible.
3 • L’impératif catégorique
Cet impératif moral, Kant le nomme impératif catégorique. Le pur devoir a priori commande catégoriquement. Il faut, en effet, distinguer l’impératif catégorique — qui seul est proprement moral — de l’impératif hypothétique, qui nous représente une action comme nécessaire pour parvenir à une certaine fin. Tels sont les impératifs de l’habileté ou de la prudence. Alors que l’impératif hypothétique nous dit «faites ceci, si vous voulez obtenir cela», I’impératif moral n’exprime nullement la nécessité pratique d’une action comme moyen d’obtenir autre chose, mais il commande inconditionnellement «Faites ceci». En quoi consiste précisément l’impératif catégorique? Kant nous le présente comme soumis à trois conditions, qui sont aussi trois formulations du même principe.
- Universaliser la maxime de notre action (première formule). La première formule du devoir obéit à l’exigence d’universalisation. Au moment de l’action, il faut toujours se demander : et si tous en faisaient autant? Il n’est pas d’autre critère possible de la morale et du devoir. Ainsi, nous dit Kant, le suicide dans une situation difficile est impossible, car je ne puis universaliser sans contradictions la maxime de mon action. Une nature dont ce serait la loi de détruire la vie serait contradiction avec elle-même. Voici donc cette première formule : "Agis comme si la maxime de ton action devait être érigée par ta volonté en loi universelle de la nature"
- Le respect de la personne (seconde formule). La morale est fondée sur le respect de la raison. Or celle-ci entraîne le respect de l’homme conçu comme être raisonnable. Par conséquent, I’être humain possède seul une valeur absolue, il représente une fin en lui-même. Les autres êtres vivants ont une valeur conditionnelle, mais l’homme a une valeur inconditionnelle : c’est une “personne”, une fin en soi. Voici donc la seconde formule de l’impératif : "Agis de telle sorte que tu traites l’humanité aussi bien dans ta personne que dans la personne de tout autre toujours en même temps comme une fin et jamais simplement comme un moyen."
- L’autonomie (troisième formule). La troisième formule de l’impératif catégorique souligne l’autonomie de la volonté. Si l’être raisonnable est une fin en soi, il en résulte qu’il ne peut être soumis à la loi morale, mais qu’il doit au contraire en être l’auteur. En somme, l’être humain ne peut recevoir la loi morale de manière purement externe ; il se l’impose librement à lui-même. En somme, l’autonomie de la volonté ne désigne rien de moins que la faculté de s’obliger soi-même. Par la raison, l’homme est aussi bien l’origine (l’auteur) de la loi morale que sa fin. Et cette loi ne dépend de rien d’autre. A l’inverse, dans l’énonciation des impératifs “hypothétiques”, la raison est dite “hétéronome” car elle dépend d’autres facteurs, d’autres conditions. Par exemple, une morale telle que celle du bonheur exprime l’asservissement de la raison à l’intérêt. La formule est donc la suivante : "Tout être raisonnable, comme fin en soi, doit pouvoir se considérer, en ce qui concerne toutes les lois auxquelles il peut être soumis, tout aussi bien comme législateur universel (...)."
On peut maintenant énoncer la définition du devoir selon Kant : "le devoir est la nécessité de faire une action par respect pour la loi. Le respect est dû à la loi elle-même en tant que telle, et non à tel ou tel objet concerné par l’action : Je puis bien avoir de l’inclination, mais jamais de respect pour l’objet qui doit être l’effet de mon action (...). "
Par le respect de la loi, l’homme accède à la dignité, et à une certaine forme du bonheur : "La morale n’est donc pas à proprement parler la doctrine qui nous enseigne comment nous devons nous rendre heureux, mais comment nous devons nous rendre dignes du bonheur. "
Se rendre digne du bonheur, cela revient strictement à le différer, à le maintenir dans un avenir plus ou moins probable, plus ou moins indépendant de nous. Ce que la religion appelle l’espérance. "C’est seulement lorsque la religion s’y ajoute, qu’entre en nous l’espérance de participer un jour au bonheur dans la mesure où nous avons essayé de n’en être pas indignes." La théorie kantienne de la moralité conduit à la religion.
3. L’antinomie de la raison pratique
La morale kantienne conduit à la religion en ceci d’abord que seul un Dieu, littéralement, pourrait appliquer les maximes de la loi morale. Le commandement de la loi morale est en effet présenté par Kant comme étranger à la nature humaine, puisque le principe de la moralité est le désintéressement absolu, alors que la nature humaine est fondamentalement intéressée. Kant pose en effet que si la bonne volonté est le bien suprême, néanmoins "assurer son propre bonheur est un devoir" car, ici très réaliste, Kant reconnaît qu’un minimum de bien être est la condition de la vertu. De ce fait, le bien unique et total réside plutôt dans l’union du bonheur et de la vertu (c’est-à-dire la bonne volonté). Or cette union est impossible pour deux raisons : d’abord le bonheur relève de l’intérêt et non du devoir pur, ensuite parce que le devoir ne conduit pas forcément au bonheur (au contraire il s’apparente souvent à une douleur). Si cette union n’est pas possible sur terre, il faut donc supposer qu’elle a lieu ailleurs ; ce qui conduit à postuler l’immortalité de l’âme ainsi que l’existence de Dieu. Reste alors, non plus une théorie de la morale, mais bien une doctrine religieuse du salut . En ce sens, Hegel a raison de dire que la morale kantienne "ne prend pas au sérieux l’action morale".
Cependant il serait injuste d’affirmer que Kant se détourne de la perspective du bonheur. En effet : "La séparation entre le principe du bonheur et celui de la moralité n’est pas pour autant leur contradiction, et la raison pure pratique ne veut pas que l’on renonce à toute prétention au bonheur, mais seulement qu’on ne s’y réfère point quand il est question du devoir." Or en distinguant si bien le principe du bonheur et le principe du devoir, Kant va révéler - paradoxalement - dans toute sa clarté, le concept moderne du bonheur. Le bonheur est un idéal !

III – L’IDEAL DU BONHEUR POUR LES MODERNES : le bonheur est-il un rêve ?

1. Un idéal de l’imagination : à chacun son bonheur
Le devoir et la vertu concernent la raison, toujours universelle ; tandis que le bonheur n’est qu’un idéal de l’imagination, et en ce sens, il reste lié à l’expérience singulière et empirique. D’où la sorte de flou, voire de contradiction qui entoure l’idée du bonheur. Kant : Le concept du bonheur est un concept si indéterminé, que, malgré le désir qu’a tout homme d’arriver à être heureux, personne ne peut jamais dire en termes précis et cohérents ce que véritablement il désire et il veut. La raison en est que tous les éléments qui font partie du concept du bonheur sont dans leur ensemble empiriques, c’est-à-dire qu’ils doivent être empruntés à l’expérience ; et que cependant pour l’idée du bonheur un tout absolu, un maximum de bien-être dans mon état présent et dans toute ma condition future, est nécessaire. Donc le bonheur est un idéal de l’imagination. Cela veut dire que l’on projette dans l’absolu des satisfactions dont nous avons fait l’expérience. Cet idéal est aussi divers et subjectif que le sont ces expériences elles-mêmes.
Néanmoins peut-on sérieusement parler d'un idéal égoïste, ou même personnel ? Tout idéal n'est-il pas par définition humaniste ? Il en va de l’imagination du bonheur comme du jugement de goût : en le projetant dans l’avenir, nous le généralisons, nous l’attribuons également aux autres. Nous faisons comme si les autres avaient la même conception du bonheur, tout simplement parce que nous incluons les autres dans notre idéal. D’ailleurs, n'avons-nous pas besoin des autres pour être heureux ? Le bonheur serait-il par définition collectif ?
2• Un idéal humaniste : le bonheur pour tous
Aristote l'avait déjà dit. "La cité est une communauté de semblables, et qui a pour fin la vie la meilleure possible". Ce dernier associe expressément la recherche du bonheur à l’organisation rationnelle de la vie communautaire. Dans la mesure où l’on en fait un “idéal” et un but, l’on est obligé de généraliser et d’”humaniser”, donc de moraliser et de politiser la recherche du bonheur. Si tous les hommes recherchent également un maximum de plaisir pour une moindre peine, alors le bonheur de l’individu doit être considéré comme solidaire de la prospérité générale. Ainsi le veut l'utilitarisme, doctrine de J. Bentham (1748-1832) et de John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) : l'action utile (et moralement bonne) est celle qui contribue au plus grand bonheur du plus grand nombre.
Sans compter l’aspect purement moral de la question, car Il y a une espèce de honte d’être heureux à la vue de certaines misères. (La Bruyère) Cela devient même un élément de la philosophie du Droit et, historiquement, un enjeu essentiel de la Révolution française. Il y est question d'un DROIT AU BONHEUR ! En affirmant "Le bonheur est une idée neuve en Europe", Saint-Just fait du bonheur un bien non pas donné mais au contraire un bien à conquérir ; il en fait la finalité même de la politique, du droit, de la démocratie. D’ailleurs le droit au bonheur est clairement énoncé : "Le but de la société est le bonheur commun. Le gouvernement est institué pour garantir à l’homme la jouissance de ses droits naturels et imprescriptibles (...)" (Déclaration des Droits de l’homme et du citoyen, article premier). L'"optimisme" des philosophes du 18è a place le bonheur dans le développement des Lumières, c'est-à-dire la connaissance et l'intelligence certes, mais aussi le progrès technique, l'éducation, l'hygiène, et bien sûr le confort. Rousseau insiste notamment sur le fait que l'éducation doit contribuer au bonheur, c'est-à-dire au plein épanouissement de l'enfant…
3. Un idéal matérialiste ? Les paradoxes de l'individualisme
Il est un peu paradoxal d’évoquer un « idéal matérialiste » : ces termes semblent opposés. Mais le rêve humaniste d’un bonheur pour tous a été véhiculé en même temps par une conception égalitariste de l’homme. En effet, pour être compatible avec l’idée de l’égalité, il faut que bonheur soit partageable, et pour qu’il soit partageable, il faut qu’il soit mesurable ! Il faut que ce soit du bien-être mesurable, bref, du confort. …La civilisation oui la société dite « de consommation » a évolué non seulement du côté de l’utile, mais évidemment du côté de l’utile matériel. Le Bien se réduit aux biens (c’est l’utilitarisme), et les biens se ramènent aux biens matériels (c’est le matérialisme)…
A la question que chacun se pose légitimement : qu’est-ce que le bonheur pour moi ? la société marchande répond à notre place. Elle le fait en nous sollicitant, en nous proposant toujours quelque chose. Tout se passe comme si l’on cherchait à nous assurer du bonheur en nous assurant contre le malheur, en faisant en sorte que nous ne manquions de rien. Peut-on vraiment croire que la consommation et la consumation de plus en plus rapide des biens matériels puisse revenir au bonheur ? D'une certaine façon le consumérisme fonctionne comme un Surmoi nous commandant de consommer et de jouir de tous les biens possibles : version consumériste et post-moderne de l'"homme de bien" !
Cela signifie très clairement que la société pense pour nous l’idéal du bonheur. Cela signifie que si l’on s’en tient à cette conception à la fois idéologique et matérialiste du bonheur, il y a de grandes chances pour que nous ayons tous le même idéal du bonheur ! Lorsque Kant écrivait que le bonheur est un idéal de l’imagination, comme quelque chose de personnel, il n’avait sans doute pas prévu que cet idéal une fois dépossédé de toute référence à la moralité justement, devenu inévitablement matérialiste, deviendrait une sorte de standard prévisible et collectif.
Conséquence : c’est au moment où nous sommes le plus influencés par un modèle du bonheur – modèle matérialiste – que nous sommes, et que nous nous déclarons le plus individualiste ! Paradoxalement la société de consommation pousse à l’individualisme, mais elle nous y pousse tous ensemble, à la manière d’un troupeau (comme dirait Nietzsche). C'est au moment où le désir de singularité est le plus fort que l'uniformisation sociale est portée également à son comble. Chacun veut vivre sa vie et concevoir le bonheur à sa manière propre au moment même où tout le monde précisément rêve à peu près de la même chose (parce que nous rêvons via la "matrice" capitaliste qui nous fait rêver, qui veille sur nos rêves en quelque sorte !). Cet individualisme là n'est pas spécialement ce qu'on appelle l'autonomie.
Ces dérives étaient prévisibles (utilitaristes, matérialistes, individualistes) dès l’instauration de ce fameux « droit au bonheur », cette noble idée selon laquelle le gouvernement doit veiller au bonheur du peuple. Mais peut-on se laisser imposer une idée du bonheur par la société, par l’Etat, par les marchands ? En voulant réaliser le bonheur des gens, ne provoque-t-on pas le malheur en sacrifiant leur liberté ?
Alors faut-il renoncer à l'idéal du bonheur si la société est incapable de nous faire rêver autrement, vraiment ? Ne faut-il pas rechercher les conditions d'un bonheur réel, concret et présent (et non plus idéal, abstrait et absent), dont nous pourrions être les premiers artisans ? Peut-être avons-nous trop vite écarté l'importance du vécu, du ressenti, par exemple de la joie, en voulant nous concentrer sur les "raisons" et les idéaux.

IV – JOIE ET BONHEUR : un bonheur accessible

1) Qu'est-ce que la joie ?
Jusqu’à présent nous n’avions pas abordé l'état de joie parce que le bonheur nous semblait un idéal, donc finalement tout le contraire d’un vécu. La joie au contraire est un vécu. Mais nous avions défini le bonheur comme un état de satisfaction complète et durable : cela ne définit pas spécialement la joie. La joie est bien un état, mais un état dynamique, non statique comme le bonheur. Un état qui ne dure pas bien longtemps : à la limite, trop de joie fatigue (probablement parce qu’il y a une espèce de consanguinité entre la joie et la jouissance) !
Demandons-nous au moins si la joie ne serait pas comme un ingrédient déterminant du bonheur. La joie, si modeste, serait-elle le secret du bonheur, voire la solution au problème philosophique du bonheur ? D'abord ce sentiment a le mérite de durer, non certes parce qu’il s’étale dans le temps mais parce qu’il se répète et s’entretient. Une joie répétée ne fait-elle pas, en quelque manière, un bonheur durable ? Alors que l’idéal du bonheur réside dans un avenir plus ou moins utopique, ou bien se terre dans un passé plus ou moins mythique, la joie appartient au présent. Elle est tout entière présente parce qu’elle tout entière vécue. Elle est une intensité vécue. Ne créons-nous pas de cette manière une sorte de disposition permanente au bonheur ? Peut-on faire de la joie une sorte de principe éthique ? Ce n’est pas qu’il existe un devoir d’être joyeux (ce serait quand même un peu fort !), mais quand on a connu la joie on n’a aucune raison de ne pas souhaiter son retour et donc de tout faire dans ce sens. Faire quoi ? Qu’est-ce qui met en joie ?
2) Joie, connaissance et autonomie selon Spinoza
Selon Spinoza l'homme est capable de perfections, d'acquérir des perfections, et c'est la raison principale pour laquelle il éprouve de la joie : "La joie est le passage de l'homme d'une moindre à une plus grande per­fection...". Insistons sur le mot "passage" car la joie est moins un état, finalement, qu'un mouvement dynamique, un transport de l'âme tout entière essentiellement passager. Par ailleurs Spinoza privilégie ce que Descartes appelait déjà la "joie intellectuelle", indiquant que c'est la connaissance, ou plutôt donc l'accroissement des connaissances qui procure la joie.
C'est bien le savoir, la connaissance, qui constitue la vraie liberté, l'autonomie, le bonheur et en même temps la seule dignité de l'homme. C'est pourquoi du point de vue de Spinoza il n'y a pas de différence entre le devoir, la morale, et l'éthique du bonheur. «Autant que le comporte la vertu humaine [l’homme libre] s’efforcera de bien agir et d’être dans la Joie » (Eth. IV, 50, sc ). Ce « bien agir » est la recherche de ce que Spinoza nomme « l’utile propre », il ne s’agit pas de biens empiriques, imaginaires et aliénants comme « les plaisirs, les honneurs et les richesses. L’utile propre est au contraire un bien qui accroît réellement la puissance d’exister de l’individu. C’est le rôle de la raison de définir de tels biens. C’est la connaissance qui rend possible la réalisation de soi selon son Désir. Le niveau le plus intense de cette joie est la « satisfaction de soi », elle est « la joie qu’accompagne l’idée d’une cause intérieure » (Eth. III, 30). La "cause intérieure" désigne tout ce qui provient de soi (par opposition à toutes les formes de dépendance, d'aliénations). Cela définit proprement l’autonomie, la vraie liberté.
L’existence autonome, joyeuse et rationnelle est donc sa propre récompense, elle n’est pas le fruit d’un calcul, elle est l’expression même de l’individu lorsqu’il a atteint la meilleure réalisation de soi et la plus haute satisfaction. Une volonté "bonne" (Kant) ou "droite" (stoïciens), en bref la vertu n'est pas la cause de la joie, la vertu est la joie qui est sa propre cause. Et la vertu ne consiste pas à réprimer ses désirs : « La Béatitude n’est pas la récompense de la vertu mais la vertu même ; et nous n’en éprouvons pas la joie parce que nous réprimons nos désirs sensuels, c’est au contraire parce que nous en éprouvons la joie que nous pouvons réprimer ces désirs » écrit Spinoza en Eth. V, 42. La joie a beau se situer au-delà du sensuel, elle ne nous interdit pas et ne nous dispense pas (totalement) de la jouissance sensuelle qui conserve sa légitimité, voire sa nécessité. Joie et jouissance sont des termes proches, mais le second conserve une connotation indéniablement sexuelle qui en limite la portée.
Mieux que la jouissance, la connaissance débouche sur la béatitude. En effet la joie qui est atteinte au plus haut sommet de la connaissance se déploie comme une sagesse constante. Il n’y a donc pas de vraie différence de nature entre joie (passage) et béatitude (but), simplement vient un moment où la joie n’est plus susceptible de s’accroître, elle demeure : « Et si la Joie consiste dans le passage à une perfection plus grande, la Béatitude doit certes alors consister, pour l’Esprit, à posséder la perfection même » (Eth. IV, 33, sc).
En même temps cette recherche de l’utile propre est également éloignée de l’égoïsme. Spinoza accorde en effet une place prépondérante à autrui. L’accord avec autrui fait partie de la félicité. Cet accord sera instauré par la raison et donc seule une éthique rationnelle en est capable. C’est dire que la vertu est également générosité : « Le bien que tout homme recherchant la vertu poursuit pour lui-même, il le désirera aussi pour les autres… » (Eth. IV, 37).
Ainsi joie, vertu et connaissance sont-elles étroitement liées. Ensemble, elles forment le bonheur. Ensemble, elles forment la sagesse.
3) Joie et création
Donc selon Spinoza la seule véritable autonomie et la seule liberté, la seule joie et la seule béatitude résident dans la liberté et dans la joie de penser. Mais penser n'est pas vraiment une fin en soi, sauf à ramener la pensée et le savoir à une "contemplation" des Idées éternelles, ce qui est une version imaginaire et périmée de la connaissance. Contempler et le bonheur de contempler n'est pas vain, mais il faut bien avoir réalisé quelque chose, avoir créé une œuvre, intellectuelle, vivante ou matérielle pour éprouver cette joie de contempler. Par exemple le grand-père contemple avec joie ses petits-enfants qui sont pour lui comme un résultat et un prolongement, et un espoir par rapport à sa propre existence.
Il y a semble-il un lien très étroit entre l'action de créer et le fait d'éprouver de la joie. Celle-ci ne réside pas seulement dans la béatitude de la contemplation de l'œuvre, elle est présente dès l'effort de création, comme condition, moteur et substance même de cette création. Dans la création (artistique ou autre) nous ressentons une puissance de faire et d'être qui ne peut que nous transporter de joie, parce que nous créons justement l'être, parce que nous donnons l'existence… Le passage de l'individuel au collectif s'effectue exemplairement par le miracle de la création.
Nous donnons à lire, pour terminer, ce texte de Bergson qui peut bien se passer de commentaire :
"Les philosophes qui ont spéculé sur la signification de la vie et sur la destinée de l’homme n’ont pas assez remarqué que la nature a pris la peine de nous renseigner là-dessus elle-même. Elle nous avertit par un signe précis que notre destination est atteinte. Ce signe est la joie. Je dis la joie, je ne dis pas le plaisir. Le plaisir n’est qu’un artifice imaginé par la nature pour obtenir de l’être vivant la conservation de la vie ; il n’indique pas la direction où la vie est lancée. Mais la joie annonce toujours que la vie a réussi, qu’elle a gagné du terrain, qu’elle a remporté une victoire : toute grande joie a un accent triomphal. Or, si nous tenons compte de cette indication et si nous suivons cette nouvelle ligne de faits, nous trouvons que partout où il y a joie, il y a création : plus riche est la création, plus profonde est la joie. La mère qui regarde son enfant est joyeuse, parce qu’elle a conscience de l’avoir créé, physiquement et moralement. Le commerçant qui développe ses affaires, le chef d’usine qui voit prospérer son industrie, est-il joyeux en raison de l’argent qu’il gagne et de la notoriété qu’il acquiert ? Richesse et considération entrent évidemment pour beaucoup dans la satisfaction qu’il ressent, mais elles lui apportent des plaisirs plutôt que de la joie, et ce qu’il goûte de joie vraie est le sentiment d’avoir monté une entreprise qui marche, d’avoir appelé quelque chose à la vie. Prenez des joies exceptionnelles, celle de l’artiste qui a réalisé sa pensée, celle du savant qui a découvert ou inventé. Vous entendrez dire que ces hommes travaillent pour la gloire et qu’ils tirent leurs joies les plus vives de l’admiration qu’ils inspirent. Erreur profonde ! On tient à l’éloge et aux honneurs dans l’exacte mesure où l’on n’est pas sûr d’avoir réussi. […] Mais celui qui est sûr, absolument sûr, d'avoir produit une oeuvre viable et durable, celui-là n'a plus que faire de l'éloge et se sent au-dessus de la gloire, parce qu'il est créateur, parce qu'il le sait, et parce que la joie qu'il éprouve est une joie divine." (Henri Bergson, L'Energie spirituelle, éd. Alcan, p. 24-25)

Conclusion : le sens de la vie
Qu'est-ce qu'une belle vie ? Si l’on en croit Bergson, une vie consacrée à la création, une vie au service de la vie, donc logiquement une vie menée dans la joie qui accompagne toute création et toute réalisation personnelle. Mais aussi une vie que l'on puisse considérer avec fierté, avec le sentiment d'avoir vécu sans être passé "à côté" de sa vie, d'avoir été libre. La vie peut être belle parce qu'elle est admirable, et donc excitante, ou plus simplement parce qu'elle est agréable ; les deux ne coïncident pas mais ne s'excluent pas nécessairement. Et donc finalement une belle vie est aussi une vie réussie !
Qu'est-ce que, plus précisément, réussir sa vie ? La notion de "réussite" peut sembler réductrice : elle conduit à penser que le bonheur serait inséparable, non seulement d'une vie moralement bonne (ce que nous avons établi plusieurs fois en assimilant devoir et bonheur, par exemple la vertu et la joie avec Spinoza), mais aussi d'un accomplissement, une réalisation noble, une œuvre… Passons sur une version plus triviale, sociale ou professionnelle de la "réussite" : honneurs et richesses ne procurent pas une véritable joie. Ayant écarté la notion de jouissance et la simple idée (trop simple ?) de "jouir de la vie", au profit de la joie, nous voilà encore obligés de lui accorder sens et valeur. Avoir "fait quelque chose de sa vie", avoir mené une action ou avoir créé une œuvre, ou simplement avoir fait quelque chose de durable : il y a mille et une manière d'avoir "réussi" sa vie, c'est-à-dire de lui avoir donné un sens.
Quant à savoir si la vie est agréable et joyeuse, concrètement heureuse, il semble bien difficile de séparer la sensation esthétique de la "beauté de la vie" de tout sentiment moral de grandeur. Donner du goût à la vie revient à lui donner un prix et réciproquement. ce mélange de saveur et de grandeur, de bonheur et de valeur, voilà peut-être ce que l’on peut nommer dans ses multiples sens le “sens de la vie”.
Publié par Didier Moulinier à 12:18
Libellés : * Cours, Bonheur, Devoir
Article plus récent Article plus ancien Accueil
Rechercher dans ce blog


Egalement sur
Libellés

* Citations (4)
* Corrigés (32)
* Cours (26)
* Cours annexes (6)
* Documents (1)
* Education nationale (1)
* Histoire de la philosophie (2)
* Méthodologie (
* Oeuvres (
* Travaux dirigés (10)
Art (7)
Autrui (3)
Bonheur (1)
Conscience (6)
Culture (9)
Devoir (1)
Droit (1)
Désir (4)
Etat (1)
Existence (2)
Expérience (1)
Histoire (2)
Inconscient (5)
Justice (1)
Langage (2)
Liberté (7)
Matière et esprit (1)
Perception (1)
Philosophie (12)
Politique (1)
Raison et Réel (3)
Religion (4)
Science (1)
Société (2)
Sujet (6)
Temps et Existence (3)
Travail et Technique (7)
Vérité (5)
Philophonia (vidéo/audio)

Entretien : Alain Badiou, Jean Hyppolite sur l'enseignement de la philosophie en terminale 8/8
Jankélévitch dialogue avec Michel Serres sur la disparition de la philosophie (1975) - YouTube
Francis JEANSON : de la Cohérence
JEAN FRANCOIS MARQUET. La singularité
Heidegger par Henry Corbin
Materia philosophica (textes d'auteurs)

DESCARTES : l'arbre du savoir
DESCARTES : les principes de la philosophie
MARC-AURELE : le philosophe et la mort
DIOGENE : je cherche un homme
PLATON : le philosophe embarrassé
Cinéma et Philosophie

Analyses de séquences
Apocalypse now - fredericgrolleau.com
Spectres du cinéma
La construction médiatique de l’aura comme enjeu philosophique de la série de télévision (I)
Jeux vidéos et cinéma : Filmer n'est pas jouer ? - Freakosophy

Philosophie et Psychanalyse, par dm

Généralité du masochisme
Une jouissance hors discours
La fiction du corps total de jouissance
La perversion et l'évitement de l'inceste
La loi du désir et les névroses
Hérésies ordinaires, par dm

# 261 / Variations sur Foi et Savoir (3)
# 260 / Variations sur Foi et Savoir (2)
# 259 / Variations sur Foi et Savoir (1)
# 258 / Lacan anti-philosophe ? (d’après une lecture d’Alain Badiou)
# 257 / L’amitié à l’aune du contrat d’après Rousseau
Archives du blog

► 2013 (4)
▼ 2012 (6)
► août (1)
► juin (1)
▼ mai (1)
La recherche du Bien et du Bonheur
► mars (1)
► janvier (2)
► 2011 (19)
► 2010 (21)
► 2009 (21)
► 2008 (27)
Liens

Actuphilo's blog
Apprentus
Archipope Philopolis
Bacphilo
Caute@lautre
Cherche-cours
Citations de philosophes
Cours Philo Loiselet
Cours de philosophie
Cours de philosophie
Cours de philosophie du LOG
Cours particuliers de philosophie
Cédric Eyssette
Devoirs.fr
Hansen-love philosophie
Harrystaut
Initiation philo
J'adore la philo
La Philosophie
La philo duclos
Le Labyrinthe
Le Parthenon
Le Portique
Le blog aidandiaye
Le blog de Bégnana
Le blog de philosophie du Lycée de Briacé
Le blog du cours de philosophie
Le désir attrapé par la queue
Le web pédagogique
Leprof2filo
Les TIC au service de la philosophie . . .
Les méthodes en philo
Lycée Léon@rd de Vinci
Lycée du Dauphiné
Ouvroir temporaire de philosophie
Philagora
Philex
Philia online
Philobuisson
Philochar
Philocours
Philolog
Philolycee
Philophore
Philoplus
Philoserveur
Philosophie au Lycée du Dauphiné
Philosophie et Spiritualité
Philosophos
Philoza
Pourquoi pas toi ?
Regards philosophiques
SOS Philo
SOS Philosophie
Site compagnon François Jourde
Sur la rive
Ulyssephilo
Une année de philosophie
Pages vues la semaine précédente

Sparkline 14,755
Messages les plus consultés

Méthode pour l'explication de texte
Faut-il toujours dire la vérité, toute la vérité ?
La Conscience est-elle une connaissance de soi ?
Le Banquet de Platon. Analyse
La recherche du Bien et du Bonheur
L'auteur

Ma photo
Didier Moulinier

Afficher mon profil complet
Ma page d'accueil (Netvibes)
Mon Facebook
Modèle Simple. Modèles d'images de Gaussian_Blur. Fourni par Blogger.

Real News
Skip to content
Home
About
← Why are all these bitches getting pregnant? LolWhy the most GENUINE WOMEN slow to TRUST have the fewest FRIENDS →
Why ALL WOMEN OverTHINK, with their INDECISIVE BIPOLAR ass
Posted on May 15, 2014 by A-E Aseem
image

Most beautiful women OVER think, carrying so much pain & baggage from her past, because shallow leeches continue to load more B.S. onto her back, which clogs her mind. A woman can be dealing with so much & no one would ever know it, because she smiles, sucks it up & deals with it. But DEEP in her heart she feels the weight of the world on her shoulders.

By: Ebrahim Aseem Follow @fuel4thebody

IG: @Fuel4TheBODY
Twitter: @EbrahimAseem
Facebook.com/AEAseem
The most mentally-mature men & women are the DEEP thinkers. Their mind is constantly in deep thought. Ignorant doubters and negative pessimists irritate them, because they are mentally ascended high above the level of so many around them. Their MIND is what makes them beautiful, as it exudes beauty, wisdom & depth. Don’t let the negativity and ignorance of doubters dictate your level of happiness. Ignore the ignorant Deep Thinker. Pay them no mind. Their space-filled mind isn’t worth taking up space in yours.

The Deepest Thinking Women get bored with people easily & loose interest in people fast, because boring males with dry conversation aren’t interesting enough to keep her entertained. Every male who sees her wants her number, not solely due to her looks and body. Women with depth exude inner beauty effortlessly. However, when these mentally-immature males get her number, all they do is text her, saying, “wyd sexy?” “when you gone slide thru and take this vitamin D;)?” “hey” or ask her to send him intimate photography.

She’s not stuck up young king. She doesn’t text you back, because she can tell quickly you have nothing new and different to offer her. You get boring real quick after the first couple texts & you can’t make her laugh or talk about deep, interesting things on her mental level. You may possess an intriguing sexual prowess, yet if you cannot make an intelligent woman laugh, or even make her rethinking how she sees something with your wisdom, she will not take you seriously. Humor her. Intrigue her intellect. Stimulate her mind. Have something substantial to say and talk about. Teach her something new, stop hitting her with the same, dry conversation like, “hey, wyd cutie?”

First of all, ‘hay’ is for horses. If you’re going to text a woman, either text her uplifting words, or show her your sarcastic & tactfully humorous side by making her laugh. If you aren’t making her laugh uncontrollably or motivating her profoundly by showing her something new, a Deep Thinking woman will not take you seriously, instantly placing you in her ‘undatable zone’.

Second of all, texting a woman is extremely informal. If you want to show a woman you’re interested in her, do NOT just text her; CALL her. Tell her ‘I would like to take you out on a date this Thursday night, to the aquarium, before an Italian dinner and live music, and I promise you will not miss out on the level of humor and spontaneous excitement you are used to on a Thursday night, when Scandal is not on hiatus.’

When you primarily text a deep thinking woman, neglecting to call her and take her out on a real date, where you plan and pay for everything; you are proving to her why you genuinely deserve no chance in hell with her. If you don’t posses a deep mind, deep conversation and are unable to penetrate her deep with your mental stimulation, don’t try to approach a deep woman & ask her for her number.

“Anything that bleeds for more than seven days, I don’t trust,” a West Indian man with a heavy (hatian) accent complained during a public speak I did for a university’s Psychology department. “That’s some twilight, demonic, Bram Stoker Count Dracula type stuff. I have yet to meet a woman who doesn’t posses a double mind. Females are crazy. They talk to themselves all day long, over thinking about things they think might happen, like their minds are in a parallel universe or something. That’s why all women over think, with their indecisive bipolar ass, because they’re not sane. They literally posses a split mind and it’s annoying. How do you get a woman to stop being so indecisive, bipolar and stop over thinking and over analyzing everything so damn much?”

“Weak minded males always want to make a virtuous woman view her strong-minded thought pattern as a flaw,” I replied. “Whereas mentally-mature men can appreciate a strong-minded woman with depth. Now, you have to ask yourself, ‘which am I willing to be, a weak-minded MALE or a mentally-mature man?’ Once you decide, prune your mind of any thoughts opposing that type of man, or male, you want to be. Viewing all women as ‘anything that bleeds for more than seven days, undeserving of trust’ is the mentality of an ignorant, arogant, misogynistic, weak-minded, coward of a male.

Women don’t bleed for seven days. As men we have to stop referring to a woman’s menstrual cycle as some unholy, demonic, blood sacrifice. Understand, that cycle you are referring to is the very thing that caused you to be born. It’s not blood, it’s a degeneration of the prepared lining of her uterus.

A woman’s body prepares every 28 days, as if it’s ovum will be fertilized with your sperm cell. If it is fertilized, she get’s pregnant. If not, the whole prepared lining of her uterus degenerates and flows out of her body. That red degeneration is what you were referring to as her ‘bleeding for seven days’ when in reality, you didn’t know at all what you were talking about. Now that you understand a woman does not bleed for seven days at all, understand this:

When a woman is on her period, she’s not being over-emotional or ‘indecisive and bipolar’ as you say, she’s enduring the pain and early stages of what it takes to bring every man and woman into this world. She is balancing her thoughts while balacing the miricale of allowing life to travel pass her pineal gland, through her body, so pardon her if she tends to change her mind from time to time, she has bigger fish to fry than making her every action please a coward of a male, like, you know, bringing a life into existance.

During her menstrual cycle, it is a physical, emotional and psychological HELL for her. It feels like her vagina is being pierced, shot & stabbed, hence her irritability. Stop judging her and telling her how crazy she is. Be understanding of her and her emotions.

Once she comes off her menstrual cycle, she longs for the feeling of vaginal stimulation, almost like the scratching of an itch. As men, we have to be understanding of this & cater to our woman. Right as she comes off her period, make sure you trEAT her lower lips like you would treat your favorite meal, then give her that DEEP vaginal stimulation she needs, even if it is simply in the form of a deep tissue, full body massage. Conversely, if you can’t understand a woman and make her feel like she is in good hands with you, she will not afford you the opportunity to physically stimulate her, because she can clearly see you lack the ability to understand her enough to know she needs you to first provide her with the mental penetration and intellectual stimulation she deserves.

The difference between a MALE and a MAN is, a weak-minded MALE wants to be understood, while a mentally-mature man just wants to understand a woman, mind body and soul, then speak life into his daughter, sister, mother and queen. To answer your question,

the best way for a man to get a woman to stop being so indecisive, bipolar and stop over thinking and over analyzing things so much, is for him to simply shut his mouth, open his mind and allow his actions to speak life into a woman louder than his words.

A deep thinking woman feels the weight of the world on her shoulders and honestly, she just wants to be heard & understood. Lay her head on our chest so our heartbeat and strong-armed embrace soothes her to sleep. She always has to be so strong by herself, through all the pain she endures. Don’t make her feel she has no one to be strong FOR HER for once. It’s unnatural for a woman to be so frustrated and cry herself to sleep, feeling no one ever understands her.

As men, we were not put on earth to change a woman, we were put here to uncerstand her, and to be a virtuous woman’s strength, leader, protector & rock. We have to stop criticizing a virtuous woman who humbly opens up her heart to us. Conversely, we have to stop giving all our attention and commitment to selfish-using, weak-minded females who lack the humility for life to be spoken into her. Not every female you meet DESERVES your presence in her life you kings.

What makes you a man is not making every woman you meet fall helplessly and madly in love with you, only for you to have sex with them all, then break all of their hearts. What makes you a man is seeking wisdom, which will exalt you with the discernment to know the difference between a selfish, weak-minded female who doesn’t deserve your understanding patience, and a selfless, mentally-mature woman who deserves your understanding of her and your patience with her.

I know you say you’re married, but so many women feel we as men start to get complacent once we win a woman’s heart and loyalty, to the point we stop doing all the things we did to get her in the first place. This is a sign of a weak-minded male.

The valuing of a diamond does not end after the pursuit of it. The valuing and cherishing must continue after it is obtained, FOREVER. Most men already know this, the problem is NO MALES understand this. A weak-minded MALE wants to win a virtuous woman over and once he gets her, he stops doing exactly what it took to obtain her.

A mentally-mature MAN does even more for a virtuous woman once he wins her heart, because he recognizes her worth so much, he constantly behaves as if he doesn’t deserve her, in order to prove to her with his actions why he does deserve such a treasure like her in his life.

But a MAN and a MALE are two different species. Mentally-immature queens in the making may not yet fully posses the wisdom and discernment to tell the difference between a weak-minded male and a mentally-mature man. This is why she will unintentionally ALLOW a weak-minded male to have her heart and her loyalty, placing her heart in an inevitable position to be broken. However, a mentally-mature woman will ONLY ALLOW a mentally-mature MAN to commit to her, not a MALE who can’t continuously value her worth.”

Women must stop complaining why they cannot attract the caliber of man they want, and start realizing it is because she has yet to reach the level of mental-maturity and humility to attract the caliber of man she wants. She must BE the caliber of person she wants to attract in every way, or else her dream mate will forever elude her, turning her down for the same reason she turns down males who are not on her level. It has to go both ways.

In order to deserve and attract her dream mate, a woman must first edify her mind and seek the wisdom needed for her to discern the difference between a weak-minded male and a mentally-mature man. That ability alone is the one thing she can’t realize is attractive to a real man. Her inability to do this is the one thing keeping a mentally-mature man from ever approaching her. I know this from experince, becuase I would constantly turn down breathtakingly beautiful women who lacked the discerment to tell the differnce between myself and my mental-maturity and all the weak-minded males in their past. That inability to distinguish myself from them was a contant turn-off to me once I became a mentally p-mature man.

Any weak-minded MALE can pull a beautiful successful, deep-thinking woman. The sign of a mentally-mature MAN is one who can KEEP a beautiful successful, deep-thinking woman stimulated mentally, emotionally, sexually and spiritually at ALL times and never fall off in doing so. If the male you love can’t do all of that consistently, it is proof to you that you are giving all your love and loyalty to a weak-minded male, and it us up to you to stop giving your love and loyalty to those who prove to you with their actions constantly that they do not deserve it.

Staying on top is more difficult than climbing the mountain of success. The pursuit of a diamond requires blood, sweat and tears, but to keep & protect a diamond requires valuing and cherishing it. A virtuous woman is like a diamond in this regard.

Marriage is scary to some males, not simply due to their fear commitment. Too many males know they genuinely do not have what it takes to keep a virtuous woman happy in a serious relationship. If a man has never had an anniversary, he is not yet relationship material for a virtuous woman who is wife material. If a man has never been in a relationship longer than two years, he is not yet relationship material for a virtuous woman who is wife material. It shows he cannot hold a woman’s attention longer than a few seasons.

His sex may heat you up in the summer, but can his love keep you warm in the winter? Too many males can only offer a woman “NEW LOVE”. New love is that feeling a woman gets when she first meets a new guy she’s attracted to or when she commits to a guy who was previously in the friend zone.

The mention of his name makes her smile and blush uncontrollably. She wants to talk to him every day. She thinks about him every night before she goes to sleep. His Good Morning texts give her goosebumps. His sex game sends chills running up & down her spine. But “new love” is not really “love” it is INFATUATION. Like a cardiac high.

Once that new love drug runs out after a season or two, he can no longer stimulate her & he gets bored with her. He will give his woman less attention and start giving that attention to the multiple women he approaches daily, females on Instagram who look nothing like his woman and random women on social networks. Males like this will LIKE pictures of half naked women on Instagram all day long, or comment and tell random girls, “you’re so beautiful”. But he won’t pick up a phone to call or even text his the woman who is giving him all her attention and commitment, to tell HER she is so beautiful.

Once I stopped thinking with the head between my legs, and I mentally matured into thinking with the head connected to my brain, I realized what makes me a man is not trying to “talk” to every beautiful woman I see, nor is sleeping with every pretty girl who wants to spend the night. What makes me a man is choosing that ONE queen, being faithful to only HER and spoiling only HER, my future wife, with all my attention, love and loyalty.

Young kings, there is no more amazing feeling to be madly and deeply in love with a deep thinking woman, trust me. The physical beauty of a woman gets boring and fades, but the beautiful mind of a deep thinking woman will arouse your intellect every single time like it is the first time your pineal gland laid eyes on her.

By: Ebrahim Aseem Follow @fuel4thebody

IG: @Fuel4TheBODY
Twitter: @EbrahimAseem
Facebook.com/AEAseem
https://www.facebook.com/AEAseem

https://www.Twitter.com/EbrahimAseem

http://www.instagram.com/fuel4thebody

The young Queens whose pictures are in the cover photo for this article are all deep thinking, intelligent, beautiful, mentally-mature women. They won a picture contest I ran on FB, for this specific topic. Feel free to follow them on their Instagram handles bellow their pictures.

Shaharlee Blake Instagram: @harlee_jahmelia.
Ashlyn Tracy Instagram: @ashlynbethel
LaShonda Monae Instagram: @MISSLILSLIM22
WhyGee Troublee Instagram: @TheConsciousCreep

I’m doing a speaking tour this summer, comment your city if you’d come hear me speak there.
For Public Speaking inquiries & booking, contact me AEAseem@gmail.com
I post new articles every Thursday, here is my DEEP baritone voice Speaking Life, public speak:

Click on they PLAY button to hear now! ==>

00:0000:00
Click on the link bellow for more!
thought provoking articles like this,
Or to read a preview of my book, which should be available summer 2014

Follow/add me on Facebook and request your free copy ASAP

https://www.facebook.com/AEAseem


Related
All Men Are Dogs
In "All Men Are Dogs"
WHY are YOU still SINGLE? You're STAYING AVAILABLE for your DREAM MATE you DESERVE.
In "Ebrahim Aseem"
How to Successfully APPROACH a BEAUTIFUL Woman
In "Ebrahim Aseem"

About A-E Aseem
I am a writer & teacher. I write for Real News magazine & am currently shopping my first novel.
View all posts by A-E Aseem →
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged Ebrahim Aseem, Why she overthinks, Why women overthink. Bookmark the permalink.
← Why are all these bitches getting pregnant? LolWhy the most GENUINE WOMEN slow to TRUST have the fewest FRIENDS →
2 Responses to Why ALL WOMEN OverTHINK, with their INDECISIVE BIPOLAR ass
Sally says:
May 15, 2014 at 10:21 pm
Bipolar disoder is a mental illness that milliona of people struggle with. How can you use that term so losely and use it as an insult? Disgusting. Educate yourself.
Reply
Shakirah says:
May 29, 2014 at 3:56 am
Did you read the article Sally? He was quoting someone else who was getting ignorant and insensitive.
Reply
Leave a Reply


Authors

A-E Aseem
Blog Stats
6,039,146 hits
Categories
Biography (2)
Don't Mess With My Sister (Novel) (2)
Fuel 4 the Body (Health) (1)
Interviews (1)
Motivational VIDEOS (2)
Movie Reviews (2)
Real News® TV (13)
the Real & the Legend (1)
Thought Provoking Articles (12)
Uncategorized (33)
What A Coincidence! (1)
Pages
About
Follow Blog via Email
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 832 other followers






Real News The Twenty Ten Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. Follow
Follow “Real News”

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 832 other followers





Powered by WordPress.com

This conversation is closed.

Is everyone capable of deep intellectual thought?

I have been thinking a lot lately and I have wondered whether or not the average person is capable of the intellectual thoughts of the "geniuses" of our world. Is it possible that the geniuses of our world have just been fortunate enough to connect the dots and that everyone is capable of these thoughts, they just have not had that sort of... self discovery yet.

RELATED TALKS:
Steve Jobs: How to live before you die
TOPICS:adventures and dreams curiosity driven life deep thought enlightenment freedom of thought goals intellectuals self discovery
Share: Share on twitterShare on facebook
Everett B +7
Oct 12 2011: Is everyone capable.....Yes. Will everyone "tap into" it....No. Why? Becuase it requires you to break the mindset of society, swim against the current, question things, don't be comfortable in ignorance. Yet so many people don't know or realize that they are ignorant (ignorance is bliss). and some prefer to happily remain there....not me. yet the more I learn the more I realize I don't know and will never know......and i love that part of it. As for the geniuses of the world I think society and intellectuals would define them differently. You spoke of "self-discovery" which would imply an intrinsic value to knowledge and not necessarilya value to society. Personally my deep intellectual thoughts consistently lead me to infinate regressions but the wisdom picked up along the way to the root of each thought has helped me to become a better person.
thumb
Colleen Steen 500+ +1
Oct 12 2011: Hi Everett,
I agree that everyone is probably capable of deeper thoughts and feelings, and also agree that not everyone taps into the possibilities. It seems, however, that the mindset of society is changing, and perhaps those of us who like to explore on a deeper level ARE the current. It feels like those who do NOT want to explore are swimming against the current at this time. I honestly think that we are at a place and time in the evolutionary process when learning more about ourselves and others is the more prefered practice. I too love the exploration, and would not deny myself the opportunity to experience all that is possible in this human form.
Everett B +1
Oct 13 2011: I agree we are the current. I just dont think we are in the majority. How many people in your family and friends would watch a documentary, ted talk, or anything that triggers deeper thought becuase you showed it to them? Yes they are swimming against the current but the are in the majority right now.
thumb
Colleen Steen 500+ +1
Oct 13 2011: Almost every friend and family member I can think of would probably watch a documentary, ted talk or something that triggers deeper thought, and sometimes, they recommend this "stuff" to me as well:>) People don't hang out with me, and I with them for nothing! My world is full of people who are genuinely exploring life. Maybe I have a little influence?...LOL:>)
thumb
Debra Smith 200+ +5
Oct 7 2011: It is a simple fact that as many as 60% of university students never reach the stage of formal operations (Piaget) which distilled is abstract thought. This is seldom discussed or written about. That means that many, many people never understand sarcasm, irony or other abstractions in math and in other areas of cognition.
thumb
Nikko Scelzo 0
Oct 7 2011: As far as morals go, I have been thinking about them a lot lately. I have been wondering... what is it that decides these morals? I believe that it has been societal influence, the way that we have learned many things in our life, through association. We interpret this information differently though that is why people have different morals... it is similar to a math problem... with an infinite number of variables... influences on our life... on our brain... our interpretations of these experiences are due to our interpreting of all of the previous experiences... when i was thinking about morals... i saw them as a problem of clarity...peoples morals vary from person to person because when we are taught the morals they are not clearly defined...they are a part of our subconscious... another way i was looking at this issue is psychopaths... because i believe that it is key to look at extreme situations as well as the average... because they can tell you a lot about something... psychopaths are known as people without any morals... they are able to act without any emotional impact... i.e. killing someone without any remorse... this may seem to be a very unstable person... someone who does not function properly... but i believe that psychopaths might even have a greater understanding of the world than most people...it may not be that they do not have morals it may be that they do not agree with the societal influences... they do not feel as though society should be able to tell them "this is wrong" or perhaps they do not know that something is wrong, they failed to learn that lesson.... why is something morally wrong? because we have decided in the past? okay if so then how do we make these decisions... what is the right moral decision when deciding what the value is? is one life worth more than another? is a childs life worth more than an adult? we often see this as being the case because the child did not get a chance to live yet.
thumb
Frans Kellner 100+ +1
TED TRANSLATOR
Oct 8 2011: Just a remark.
I do not like the word 'psychopaths' and praise the day it will be vanished from our language.

There are people with deficient brains in the way that input is processed a bit different than usual. They conflict with society and in many cases can develop psychoses.
A psychosis you can see as an illness as the body dysfunctions. If this happens there is nothing wrong with their hearts and they are often confused but loving and caring people.

Psychopaths are mental healthy people with good brains that in contrast have a heart of stone due to a lot of atrocities they had to injure as they grew up. They’ve shut themselves off of their feelings to survive.

I noticed that few people make this distinction and hold the mentally ill for the mentally disturbed and mix it all up. The first are not dangerous and need our care, the second can be dangerous and need our love.
thumb
Nikko Scelzo 0
Oct 8 2011: Words are meant for communication...I used the word because it is what the mental illness has been defined as in reference to these people. I do not believe neither person to be at fault for the things that they do, it is merely the way they have interpreted the messages society has given them. It is because of lack of clarity that the lessons that are meant to be taught are not always learned. People retain different lessons from the same situations.
thumb
Debra Smith 200+ +2
Oct 9 2011: Please let us not be glib about psychopaths. I had to study them intensively when I was developing a neuroscience tool for a computer input. If there is such a thing as an evil human being, psychopaths are the very definition of evil. Much of what we know in the media about them is a function of their own superlative skills of manipulation. They are not always formed by abuse. They are not always caught. They are people who are so self centered that the only thing that counts is their own pleasure and success to the extent that if it gives them pleasure to rape and torture a child that is just the way it is. This is why I reject Ayn Rand philosophies so completely.

Here is an old interview with the world expert on the topic.

https://youtu.be/VkRUyGkmEj0

In addition, only the stupid ones get caught. The rest are out there and often in the business world where exploitation, lies, and ruthlessness are most grandly compensated. For more information on this please read "Snakes in Suits" by Robert Hare PhD world expert in psychopathology.
thumb
Nikko Scelzo 0
Oct 7 2011: but how many adult lives is that childs life worth? 1? 10? 100? at what age does someone life become less important? what if one of these people are the next world genius... and how would we know? these are all stemmed from clarity...we do not know the answer to these questions...(or at least i don't nor am I aware of a way that this should be properly decided) well... anyway this is the reason for this question.... I was wondering what other peoples opinions were on the subject... and once again everything i am speaking of is all based on my personal insight and what i have observed in the world... I may be wrong... but this is why I believe that everyone is capable of deep thought ... just some are not able to connect the dots
hope you all have a wonderful day and keep up the responses i find them very interesting to read (and i will reply to them all as long as time permits me to do so)
p.s. sorry for my lack of grammar I tend to just write to get my thoughts down as they are in my head
Ann Chovie +3
Oct 10 2011: Everyone is capable of abstract thinking, but I don't believe that everyone is an adept abstract thinker capable of carrying out the "deep intellectual thought" that you are referring to. In the same way that some people are highly proficient at retaining information while others are less so, some people are better at understanding and synthesising abstract ideas. Everyone has the ability to memorise information, but some people are more proficient at it than others. One student may spend a week memorising the material for an exam, while another may only spend one day retaining that same amount of information.

I don't think that the "geniuses" of the world happened to be "lucky" enough to have harnessed an advanced part of their cognition that all humans are born with and that most have failed to utilise, rather, that they were simply lucky enough to have been born with the predisposition to be more skilled thinkers to begin with. However, going back to my analogy, although the first student spent more time preparing for the exam, assuming the test is knowledge-based, he has the same chance of succeeding as the other student because he has managed to retain that same amount of information. In that sense, although I believe that genius is innate and not something that anyone can learn or acquire, anyone can achieve the same things that a genius does if they put in the hard work. Thomas Edison said it best: genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration.

I also have to agree with some of the previous commenters who said that it also depends on a person's ability to express himself. Synthesising a new idea is one thing, but to articulate that idea in a coherent and succinct manner is a challenge within itself, and is essential to demonstrating that you have the ability to think abstractly in the first place.
thumb
James Turner 10+ +3
Oct 7 2011: What is intellectual thought? Is it the ramblings of some university professor fighting publish or perish? Is it purely abstract thought? Is intellectual thought a well written book or play that leaves more questions than answers? Is it searching for meaning in the apparent meaningless world? Is it finding an answer to a zen koan? Is it limited to the mind or do emotions, hunches, ideas play into it?
What is a genius? MENSA measures genius with facts, math, and a few other measures, Great play writes are called geniuses, Kenny G the musician is called a genius, We have a student in 8th grade that is a math genius and taking college calculus etc. Could a football player be considered a genius on the field, how about a TED comment writer that has 10,000 TED creds would that person be a genius and have intellectual thoughts? I think every person has intellectual thoughts all the time when they are thinking beyond survival instinct and the level of most Television commercials. All of us are geniuses some are recognized like the old time Nobel prize winners and some are not. Who's to say your next door neighbor who cares for yards is not an intellectual thinker? Certainly not I. Maybe, what has been said by Howard Gardner comes closer to the truth that we are all geniuses in a particular area.
Peace to all
thumb
Nikko Scelzo 0
Oct 7 2011: I like the way you think.... a lot of questions... most people do not do it enough...(from what i have observed) ... it is very important in my opinion I very much agree with what it is you are saying as well...

i recall the remarkable irony of the people I have been most moved by and learned most from - those who would usually be thought of as incapable of deeo intellectual thought. The insane, those with learning difficulties the addict and the homeless. The cliche' is undeniable and yet it is a real phenomenom. The difference is education and health.

They chopped up Einstein's brain to see if it was any different to the average. And found little difference. For those who are lucky enough to enjoy the space and time and structure for deep intellectual thought that is applied to the data bases and understandings of our world - that is fine. But it has been the loonies that have taught me most about myself. I thank them all for that. I never met Einstein but i am sure he touched the hearts of those around him. Perhaps not. I guess in the end I fell a little uncomfortable with this question. Many people will never reach what you call - self discovery. There lives are filled with challenges far more pressing and important than reaching those dizzying intellectual heights. Genius is a right time, right place phenomenom. But it matters little. I am glad you have been thinking a lot lately and that you have had the time and space to do such . Others perhaps not so fortunate.
thumb
Christophe Cop 500+ +2
TED ATTENDEETEDX ORGANIZERASSOCIATE
Oct 10 2011: Aside from the severe mentally disabled?

Depends on your interest and effort.
Intelligence is something that needs training. (Thinking a lot, learning a lot).
If you compare it to physical exercise : Everybody can become athletic, through a lot of effort.

Of course some people have slightly better genes, and they might become the geniuses or top-ranked athletes.

Though everybody can become more capable of deep (deeper) intellectual thought.

- and like in athletics, you can take doping -
Dan Goddard +2
Oct 10 2011: ...Continued

This opinion does not preclude intelligent people - as many of the people I know who are like this are quite intelligent, but they do not have the patience for introspection nor to spend time to think deeper than how to solve the next challenge with shallow shot-gun blast of suggestions that will possibly hit the mark. We are each born with our own disposition, thought processes, and communication patterns. People born with this disposition are not deep thinkers with respect to the aforementioned assumption of what "deep thought" means here.

Third, "genius" itself is in the eye of the beholder. A genius is not often by him/herself considered a genius. Then by whom is a genius considered a genius? Other geniuses? Are not many "Old Masters" considered genius? Picasso? Beethoven? Mozart? We, the incapable, the non-geniuses, have recognized in others that which we have been unable to acheive or understand. When you consider these geniuses, and how they were masters at their art, and their art was the reflection of their genius, then we have to question whether the argument that genius and deep thought can be bound by culture, language, or articulation. I believe that the deep thoughts of true genius will always be articulated.

--Dan
Dan Goddard +2
Oct 10 2011: Hi Nikko,

Thanks for the question. This put me into a bit of "deep thought" to determine my point of view, and in my opinion, the answer is - no.

First, I think there is no such thing as an average person. Particularly relative to "genius", we cannot assume that any amount of people would fall into an average category. Average what? ...Intelligence? Education? Income? etc. None of the categories for which we could or would categorize someone to be "average" would have a sufficient merit to exclude a genius from being part of that class.

Second, I believe that not all people are capable of "deep thought" as understood by (as an assumption) most people reading this thread. Why I believe this is because, "deep thought" in this context requires observation, consideration, introspection and time in thought. I have known many people incapable of prolonged introspection - most of the information that flows through their lives, flows in an outward direction, diluted in accuracy and potency by whatever multiple the original input was multiplied by.

Continued...
Connor Greenwood +2
Oct 10 2011: I am 14 and spend many hours on TED a week.

I believe that I am capable of intellectual thought, despite my age. I am fascinated by (almost) every video I watch, and believe that I comprehend, and analyze many of the theories, ideas, propositions, narratives, ect. much like many of the more mature TED frequenters.

When I show a video to one of my friends that I found very interesting, they usually do not seem to tap into the subject matter as intently as I did initially.

I do not believe that this is a result of my brain working any differently, seeing as I am not an exemplary student, nor do I test higher, have the ability to retain more knowledge, or function any differently then your average teenager. Although I do find it slightly curious that it is very hard for some of my friends to comprehend concepts that I find fairly basic.

I admit that this may be a result of them just not having an opinion about the topic at hand, or weather they do not care enough to devout any thought to the subject what so ever.

I also do not know if this issue is a result of my age, and by no means do I consider myself more mature then other people my age. I just seem to be more interested and engaged in many of the deeper topics discussed nowadays.

Because of this observation, I drew to the conclusion that either some people (my age specifically) have a greater ability to comprehend, analyze, and develop an opinion, then others. Or that some people are just more willing to devote time and effort into understanding the subject at hand, only if they care about the subject at hand.
thumb
Colleen Steen 500+ +3
Oct 12 2011: Connor,

I appreciate your very thoughtful comment. I had a similer experience as a teenager, because I have always been interested in human behavior (mine included), and I enjoyed delving into philosophy, psychology, ancient practices and beliefs, etc.

I also was never an "exemplary student" in the class room. In fact, I was often "escaping" the class room setting, in favor of other ways to learn:>) I've always been puzzled by the fact that people often do not want to explore, what to me, are very basic concepts.

I think/feel that you are wise, to understand that sometimes people don't have an opinion about a topic, they may not care enough to spend time on the subject, they may be afraid to delve deeply because sometimes we don't like what we discover on a deeper level, and some people may have a greater ability to comprehend, analyze, and develop an opinion. For me, it all comes down to curiosity and fascination with being human. I am very interested in this life form, I believe I am on the earth to explore, and I enjoy the process:>)

You seem to be a very insightful young person, and I'm glad to see you joining in the TED conversations:>)
thumb
Bernd Fesel 30+ +2
Oct 9 2011: Yes - everyone is capable, but not able to use this capability. Research and just every day experience tell us that the brain and reason is working conditionally; they are depending on a set of conditions and are not isolated genius. In fact this applies to emotions just as well - doesn´t? If you always life in fear, every minute of your life, how can you learn to trust; if you always are surrounded by irrationalities, how can you.... - and this quite quickly shows why deep intellectual thought is so rare. the right persons in the right time and place and the right group.....

But what bothers me much more is this questions: what do we do when 99% of our society is on deep thought? The social implications are obvious and would result in the end of our economic system which is built on the difference and elitism of deep thought. all taxi drivers being a steve jobs will not work -
and is it reasonable to strive for this? unity in deep thought might be as boring and dreadful....
thumb
Jom Bunsiri +2
Oct 9 2011: I agree with you on the fact that brain well functions conditionally and occasionally. But that is the limit that people want to overcome. In this pursuit, people are struggling to improve themselves. This will lead to progresses of our society. However, it may seems to be boring reasonable world, but it might be fun in some ways to live in such a place.
thumb

If everyone was capablee of deep thought and everyone was able to use their skill, then what? Well for one, there would be many different opinions about why things work the way they do, many theories would be tested, many ideas would be established. And upon those ideas, new ideas would sprout up. Perhaps new technology or new methods of solving problems would be invented/discovered. I don't know exactly what would happen however I doubt it would be boring.
thumb
Bernd Fesel 30+ +1
Oct 9 2011: I hope you are right - it should be an age of invention and new opportunities. a genius taxi-driver would not drive taxi anylonger - he wants to overcome and makes progress. I had a little pessimistic minute there.... thanks for your energy and outlook!
thumb
Jacob Miller 10+ +2
Oct 8 2011: On the intellectual side I don't believe anyone is really saying anything "new" ,just the same old thing in a different way.
I think "intellectual genius" is when someone takes a current idea and builds upon it in a unique way . There have been plenty of times here at TED where I have read a comment and thought ." Wow, that was a genius insight." And in all likelyhood it was. So,yes I would say everyone is capable of deep thoughts. It's just that some people are better at expressing them.
thumb
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+ +2
Oct 8 2011: Yes, just different paths/processes/methods to achieve certain degrees/levels of "depth," whatever "depth" means.
thumb
Jacob Miller 10+ +2
Oct 8 2011: Yeah, I'm with you. I don't really get what depth means either.
thumb
Colleen Steen 500+ +1
Oct 9 2011: Hey guys...Nicholas and Jacob:>)
To me, "depth" simply means another level of exploration, learning, understanding, ...as you say Nicholas...different paths/processes/methods to achieve another degree, level or depth of understanding.

You probably know this already, and I'll remind you:>) People tend to get to a certain level of understanding, are comfortable with what s/he "knows" and they stop exploring. It's a "human affliction" because we want to "know".

In my humble perception, Nikko seems to be suggesting that we ALL have the ability to go further with the exploration?

In my perception, you both (Nicholas and Jacob) ARE exploring deeper levels of understanding, and sometimes, when one is doing that and understanding the pleasure derived from that practice, it's difficult to understand why EVERYONE would not do it!!!
thumb
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+ +1
Oct 9 2011: Colleen,

I said degrees/levels of "depth". What is depth?

"Words have no intrinsic meaning" Is a phrase that destroys my thinking so often. Language very fuzzily equals culture. Although we will agree on what "depth" could be, it isn't fair to even consider it partially universally without considering everyone's languages, cultures, and life styles.

Latin-languages in the 18th to 19th century used the phrase "memento mori". It means "remember thy mortality" When the phrase should be used is during a moment in where you realize your morality. WE do not have words, phrases, and considerations like that in mass cultures, for those who use English. Why? Are we not more publicly intelligent than our ancestors? I would argue not percentage-wise.

Yeah, I have explored "deep" levels of philosophy, but I was lucky enough to be given the chance to explore. East African kids, not going to be as lucky. But, they most certainly do have the brain to do so.

It is not hard to understand why some don't think "deep". It is because some can't, won't, and/or do not have the means to do so. Without an education that prides openness, broadness, and ambiguity then you are a social slave to some culture or language somewhere on this planet.

Some can't because they have to worry about living constantly. Some do not want to because as you say they feel comfortable with their knowings. Some can, but are not challenged to do so, or their environment does not inspire the challenge to do so.

We all do have the same means to explore further because we are all built the same. SOME are better and can do it quicker, but all can get their by their individualistic method/path if that is where the positive emotions of that individual leads.

If someone's happiness does not take the steps towards "awareness, wisdom, intellectualism, enlightenment etc." as my "God" is, their happiness is no greater nor poorer than mine because we are both following the idea of "God" the idea of "knowing".
thumb
Colleen Steen 500+ 0
Oct 12 2011: Hi Nicholas,
I agree with most of what you've written. I do not agree that location (East African kids) or lack of education necessarily prevents deep thinking. I've witnessed some very deep thinkers in rural, isolated areas of the world, where formal education is lacking.
Everett B +2
Oct 13 2011: I am actually going to side with Nick though both are very good points . I think what he is implying (though I'm sure it hasnt yet been proven....would make for a very interesting study) is that when some one is not fortunate enough to have all of their basic needs being met, the mind is consumed with thoughts like "where is my next meal coming from" and "are we safe to sleep here tonight". Which isnt necessarily isolated to uneducated people. People can also be too busy, apathetic, not mentally capable. Also in certain societies to they may not have the freedoms or means to explore alternatives to whats being taught/fed to them and dig in further. This would make for a good debate. I like it.
thumb
SOFIA FLEGA +1
Oct 12 2011: some people connect the dots early in their life, some later and some just before they die...the incredible thing is that we will all eventually connect the dots and that everything we do has a meaning that sooner or later will pop into our mind
Comment deleted
thumb
Jom Bunsiri +2
Oct 10 2011: Is it true that human beings should not try to progress since they fear to physical limits? Shouldn't educated people encourage the rest to make the world better place to live? The truth is that people don't need discouragement while they are trying to learn to progress from our conversation. If it is suggested not to try hard to improve, the world will be the same or worse in the next 1,000 years. Our ancestors had tried hard to overcome physical limits for several thousands years, and this improvement should be continued because we do not want to be just monkeys anymore. In addition, serious neuro studies are needed for many people who claim to be influencial in answering such a good question topic. The studies will make people understand how the brain really functions and how to manipulate it for the better functioning. It is easy, take sometimes.
natasha nikulina 50+ +1
TED TRANSLATOR
Oct 11 2011: Hi,Kathy!
The " current bastardized use of the word, "Genius*" is changing nowadays. Some creative people
have sensed the threat of "being a Genius" and prefer to have a 'genie',
here is the talk , maybe you'll find it interesting
http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_gilbert_on_genius.html
And a question, you said: ".. some of us tap into it/ "Genius"/ naturally .."
Do you mean effortlessly? What is the natural way to make acquaintance with "Genius"
each of us has,but may never get to know?
thumb
John Locke +1
Oct 9 2011: Levels of intelligence vary. Some people are more intelligent than others. So of course some people will be able to think more reasonably, deeper, and more intelligent thoughts than someone with a lower IQ. But I believe to some extent everyone has the ability to improve on ideas, to become more intelligent than they currently are, to become something special. Whether or not they have the motivation, curiousity, and intrest will determine if they become intelligent deep thinkers.

"Everyone has the oppurtunity to be as great as they wish"
Robert Galway 50+ +1
Oct 8 2011: Yes. A thought might be voluntary or involuntary. Dreams can be very complex and graphic. Dreams are probably a big source of creativity. Voluntary thought, controlled, directed, and focused on some problem, goal or purposeful endeavor might be more of what defines high functioning intellects.

The amount of training to achieve the organization of thoughts required to have the laser like focus or powers of observations of a genius may not be present in everyone.

I subscribe to the belief of multiple intelligences as discussed by the provided wiki. The capability of genius like behaviors in one or more of these types of intelligences is a more complex question that just intellectual capacity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
thumb
Jacob Miller 10+ +1
Oct 8 2011: Well, I think it's hard to say. However, most of the true geniuses are probably not who you would expect.
Neither a lofty degree of intelligence or creativity or both together go to the making of genius
Love,love,love-that is the soul of geinuis.
Mozart
thumb
Craig Patterson 10+ +1
Oct 8 2011: Actually the last statement was taken from E.O. Wilson's book, Consilience, the unity of knowledge when he says, "we are drowning in data while starving for wisdom". Ask yourself what 'wisdom' comes out of institutions, universities, research and where is the evidence in real time in real communities? Is profit wisdom? Can sustainability be measured in data? Which is reflective of deep thought?

When money is the measure we seem to destroy our ecosystems for short term profit. Is that the result of deep thought?

The linear path of logic and deduction leads to control and domination and data. A sustainable path understands the circular nature of reality and is based in reverence. Deep thought should understand the differences and know where each leads.

If integrative, holistic, life cycle cost and impact analysis was truly deep, I can't imagine we would be in the situation we find ourselves today. We would know better with deeper thinking.
thumb
Nikko Scelzo 0
Oct 8 2011: Hm I see well I definitely do not agree with what our society has become, largely run based on money and profit. I think that the rate we consume our resources is incredibly detrimental to our world. We must put more effort into a collective society because we are all apart of the same world... if we do not work together to sustain it then it will eventually collapse...and yes I am not saying that everyone does apply deep intellectual thinking into their everyday decisions my question was is everyone capable of it... it is extremely relevant that we do not apply it to every decision that we make though because if that were the case then all of our decisions would include us being able to quantify every variable and properly evaluating these situations to make rational decisions... but I am not sure if that is even possible to apply this deep thinking to every decision that must be made... since all decisions do have limits... and some of these decisions must be made in such short periods of time...and we are not able to quantify a value of all variables in every situation... similar to an example i made before... about morals... and determining the value of a life... is one persons life worth more than another? is a childs life worth more than an adult? we often see this as being the case because the child did not get a chance to live yet.but how many adult lives is that childs life worth? 1? 10? 100? at what age does someone life become less important? what if one of these people are the next world genius... and how would we know? these are all stemmed from clarity...we do not know the answer to these questions...
thumb
Frans Kellner 100+ 0
TED TRANSLATOR
Oct 8 2011: People know the worth of a child against an adult. It occured in prehistoric times rather often that parents ate their children when hunger was about to wipe them all out. Horrible but yet the best way to survive as a species. With animals this happens too.

Thinking is a tool to provide the heart for a way to reach its desires.
To know we have to listen to that inner feeling/voice.
thumb

this is an excellent topic to delve into...thanks:>)

I believe everyone IS capable of deep intellectual thoughts, and our programming as humans sometimes interferes with the exploration that all of us may be able to participate in. It's difficult to say what is "average" is it not? We are all different...on a different life path...pursuing different interests.

While volunteering with the dept. of corrections for years, dealing with convicted felons, for example, I discovered that they are very intelligent and street smart. However, because of certain programming, they have directed their intelligence in a way that is not productive, beneficial or safe for society.

Thinking beyond any programming we have been given, is a choice, and I think/feel that with encouragement and support, many people are capable of moving beyond the information s/he has been given.
thumb
Nikko Scelzo +1
Oct 8 2011: You are very welcome for the topic and I thank you as well for participating... it provides me with others opinions to compare to my own and it seems as though many of your opinions agree with mine... I think this is a great example... I love how you use programming to describe our environment's affect on us. I believe what you describe as programming to be what I have described in some of the other comments i made on the other posts as subconscious... in order to be able to move past it we must first come to the realization that it exists within us and we must shed light upon it.... sometimes other peoples words can push us toward this idea but i believe it is only ourselves who can in the end fully push ourselves to accomplish this goal. when i have thought of convicts in the past i have thought of them as people who are not evil or bad but people who do not properly weigh the decisions they make. I believe that decisions should be made by analyzing the possible outcomes, weighing the positive and negative aspects of the decision. not only as they apply to yourself but as they also apply to everyone around you. You must consider all variables in an equation not only some if you wish to come to a rational decision. Convicts either do not weigh all of these variables in when making their decisions or they have improperly learned the value of each variable. i.e. when someone kills another person over money, they have not learned that the value of a person's life is far more than the value of any amount of money.
thumb
Colleen Steen 500+ +2
Oct 8 2011: Nikko,
I believe we are very much like computers in that we can be "programmed" to believe certian things. We are influenced by parents, families, societies, etc., to accept the "common belief", and if we do not accept what is acceptable within our "society", then we are shunned. I'm presenting this as a general belief, and do not personally care if I am "shunned" because of my beliefs or not.:>)

I agree that programming sometimes happens in our subconscious, and I agree that to move past it, we must first come to the realization that it exists within us...shed light upon it, and learn what it is about for us as individuals . We can only know what is " truth" for us when we have evaluated all the information. If we listen to, and accept other people's words as truth, then our exploration stops, and we may prevent ourselves from discovering our own truth. From my experience with offenders who are incarcerated Nikko, I agree that they are people who do not properly weigh the decisiions they make. I agree...decisions are made by analyzing the possible outcomes...weighing the various aspects and outcomes of the decisions. If we are limited by the information we have, we cannot make informed decisions. If we are stuck in a certain belief system, we will probably stay in that belief system that has become "safe" for us because we know what to expect...even if the outcome is not that beneficial.

Yes....yes...yes....it's beneficial to consider all variables in any situation...and before we can consider various possibilities, we need to believe that there ARE various possibilities. People get "stuck" in their own programming, and limit the possibilities, thereby limiting him/herself.
thumb
Nikko Scelzo +1
Oct 8 2011: Can I just click like on everything you type? lol once again I like how you used the word safe... this is a big problem that prevents many people from learning and growing... in general we tend to stick to our comfort zones.. and i believe in order to learn we must move out of this comfort zone we must allow ourselves to indulge in experiences that we are not familiar with... use those experiences to learn... we must question things... not just do them because we are told to do so... we should know why it is we are doing something... what our purpose is and how it impacts the bigger picture... a big problem is that when you ask someone the question "why are you doing that?" most of the time I have found the answer tends to be I dont know or some completely vague answer which is basically just another way of saying the same thing... if people asked themselves why... more often... until they were able to come up with a rational reason then i think that society would be much better off btw I have written something about success a few weeks ago that I think you might enjoy it actually relates to a very similar idea... if youd like to read it just send me a message with your e-mail or some way that I could sent it to you hmm well actually I could just post it on here just give me a minute to type it up
thumb
Nikko Scelzo 0
Oct 8 2011: Success in Life
Success is a very complicated word and in a sense can vary vastly from person to person. Though I believe a general definition could be to complete a challenge with a desired outcome. The reason for such variation is due to the fact that your desired outcome in most cases is completely subjective and depends on your feeling of contentment. Like one’s opinion, there are many variables that could effect an individual’s success. When looking at success in terms of life, I would see life as the challenge that one must complete. The tricky part is deciding what your desired outcome is and the route you willtake to get there. Individual’s cannot really determine another’s level of success in these terms since everyone needs something different to be successful, very much like people need different things in order to be happy. Happiness and success can be related but it is not always the case that they are directly dependent.
When determining your level of success there are two main points that must be evaluated, benefit and opportunity cost. Benefit comes from what you have gained from the decisions you have made and opportunity cost is what you gave up when making that same decision. If in the end your benefits out-weigh your opportunity cost then you are indeed a successful person.
When pursuing success there are specific skills and principles that are necessary. Clarity is the most important because you must figure out what it is exactly that you wish to be successful in, what your life goal is. Dedication and drive are among the largest factors that will determine your success because they set the opportunity cost; these principles greatly display what you are willing to give in order to achieve success. This concept of giving in order to succeed also tied into your self-control and open-mindedness. Self-control is an important skill when achieving success, the more predictable and controlled variables you have in a situation
thumb
Nikko Scelzo +1
Oct 8 2011: (including yourself) the easier it is to achieve a desired outcome. Going through life there are many outside factors that will not agree with you own plan so it is key to remain open-minded because it allows you to better assess a situation and weigh your benefit and opportunity cost. Often having an open mind when going into any situation can help you learn from it. Since life is being looked at here as a string of decisions to be made an obvious skill that must be developed is good decision making, which can also be called good management. Without good management you will often make judgments and decisions that result in your opportunity cost out weighing the benefits. All of these skills can be developed and matured with experience. As you travel through life with each new experience whether it be good or bad you have the opportunity to gain knowledge.
Through the principle of new experiences being directly related to knowledge and success then it is obvious that the more you move out of your “comfort zone” the more you are able to learn. When your goal in life may be success you should always realize that it is the everyday decisions that determine whether you arrive there. This shows that success cannot be determined by your end destination, but it is more about the journey or the route it took to get there.
thumb
Jom Bunsiri +3
Oct 9 2011: There is one subject called Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP). This subject reveals the fact that people are inflenced by their surroundings. However, people also can alter their surroundings by using the NLP. For example, a father wants his son to go exercising, so he talks with his wife about outdoor exercises (tennis) in front of his son all the time. One day, his son asks him about tennis, and he wants to try. Even if his son didn't intentionally listen to him talking about tennis with his mother, but his subconcious brain records all information that he hears, sees, and feels. That information is constantly repeatedly recorded into the brain unconciously. The boy may even dream about tennis, though he has never played it before. Parents can use many NLP techniques in assisting their children in education, friendship, or love. People can be programmed.
thumb
Colleen Steen 500+ +2
Oct 10 2011: Maybe I'll simply click on everything you type as well Nikko:>)

I think/feel that safety is one big reason people do not move beyond what they think they "know". "Knowing", or believing we "know" what our position is on various topics, sometimes offers a sense of confidence and self esteem...yes? Some people have difficulty saying "I don't know". I believe "not knowing" to be the strongest and most powerful place to "be" in ourselves, because it is unlimited! Once we "know", or think we "know" the exploration usually stops, and then we limit ourselves.

Like you say Nikko...to move out of our comfort zone may offer some wonderful experiences, but we never "know" unless we take the risk to "not know". It's a cycle that keeps people in a place of fear, and doesn't really serve any useful purpose, in my humble opinion:>)

Re: Success in Life
I agree with everything you have written, and to me, it is a pleasure and joy to evaluate each step in life and ask myself the question "why"? That, to me, is being mindful and aware of how I impact the world, and how the world impacts me and those around me. I LOVE the exploration, and could never understand why some people do not enjoy the process. It is the ONLY way we can achieve a deeper level of thoughts and feelings. It is the ONLY way we can be clear with ourselves, and when we are clear with ourselves, we are more clear with everyone else. We are like mirrors to each other, reflecting back and forth all the time.

An open mind and heart is ALWAYS beneficial in any situation. I agree...all life experiences offer the opportunity to learn, grow, evolve, and move to a deeper level of thinking and feeling:>)

Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass...it is about learning to dance in the rain.
thumb

That depends on who's the Judge? And if the Judge is capable of deep thought.

Frankly, where's ample evidence to the contrary as we're long on data and very short on Wisdom.
thumb
Nikko Scelzo 0
Oct 7 2011: Hmm I am not sure what exactly it is you are trying to say with that last statement, if you could possibly rephrase it that would be wonderful. But I agree with your first statement of it being dependent on who the judge is, I think that you must be able to fathom what it really is to be an intellectual, or a deep thinker, before you can determine whether or not everyone is capable of it. Though I am more so asking whether you ( as well as other people on this website) have observed based on personal experience whether or not everyone is capable of deep thought (I believe though that some may be more capable, they are able to access it more easily due to their experiences in life) i.e. Is everyone capable of questioning things on a daily basis, generating ideas, asking ourselves questions like James Turner did up there... and you did yourself.... like what is intellectual thought? who is the person that has the authority to define such a term? ... im interested in your opinions on whether or not everyone is capable of these things... my idea is that everyone is and everyone does do these things... some are just conscious of it and others are not... that is the difference in being enlightened in my personal opinion shedding light upon the subconscious...
thumb
Nikko Scelzo 0
Oct 7 2011: Also I would like to elaborate on another thing that I said
"who is the person that has the authority to define such a term?"
well I believe that we all do, since the reason of communication is to be able to transfer our thoughts then the person who should define words would be ourself. As long as you clearly state these thoughts in a way that the other party is able to understand then you have accomplished the mission of communication. words are merely tools for us to accomplish this goal.
thumb
Gisela McKay 30+ 0
Oct 8 2011: > "who is the person that has the authority to define such a term?"
> well I believe that we all do,

...and of course everyone should get cookie for just participating.

Communicating and thinking are two very different things. Otherwise people would not hire speech writers.
thumb
Nikko Scelzo 0
Oct 8 2011: communicating and thinking arent really much different.... some just have a problem connecting the dots...what is thinking but just communicating with yourself? with your own thoughts,beliefs, ideas? people hire speech writers because they have that problem of clarity they are not able to get their thoughts across the way they would like to... also terminology is a very important part of speech...because people interpret words differently even when they mean the same thing possibly due to everyday use and societal influence on these words which is why i say clarity is important... and I do agree... we all define these terms... because communication is how we get our thoughts across to one another...and so words are just tools we use to do this...
thumb
Gisela McKay 30+ 0
Oct 8 2011: Since I don't seem to have put that in terms you understand, let's switch the model: no one would hire spokespeople.

Communication, writing, oration, thinking, articulation, accessing stored information in the brain, all are distinct. Why is it I suspect that this is an example of our differing on what is a deeply thought out topic?
thumb
Brittney Stewart +1
Oct 7 2011: I believe most are capable of deep intellectual thought, even if only for a few brief moments, however even fewer are truly able to articulate those ideas. That small distinction makes all the difference.
thumb
Nikko Scelzo 0
Oct 7 2011: this is exactly how I feel.... you definitely captured exactly what it was that I was asking and what I also believe
thumb
Matthew Greeley +1
Oct 10 2011: Yes. At Birth, every human can be fed Genius information like computer software in the making and a few years later the intellectual thought processors will only grow and grow with certain techniques of Health and "Brain Training". The more we come closer to this new world of Technology, it will EXPAND the Collective Mind towards this "Genius Movement".
thumb
Gerald O'brian 50+ +1
Oct 7 2011: The main thing about geniuses is that they care.
thumb
Debra Smith 200+ +2
Oct 7 2011: It used to be one of the litmus tests of gifted kids that they had a sort of clear morality. I remember my eldest son, who was extremely gifted at about the age of four, dropping my hand while we waited in line for a movie to go and confront some teenaged bullies who were harassing another teenager. It was a case of the mouse who roared and guess what? They were shamed by his being more clear sighted and moral than they were. He grew up to be a diplomat concerned with international justice.

What did we do to our brightest and best to send them into business and government where they stopped caring? Was it that they just gave in to cynicism and decided to be 'realistic' and get all they could for themselves and their own group or is it that the moral threw in the towel and surrendered the playing field to the corrupt?
thumb
James Turner 10+ +2
Oct 8 2011: May I guess that we tried to turn our brightest and best in to the brightest and best without a solid back ground of creativity? Maybe we tried to make them into things they were not anymore by the thoughtless actions of teachers who taught what was demanded by the government? Maybe we destroyed them with television shows that a full of violence, lack compassion, and show political leaders that constantly lie to keep their jobs? Maybe we destroyed them through destroying the culture of the hero who gives of him/herself freely for the good of others. We made the evil person the new hero for a long period of time? Maybe we held up being mediocre as the highest goal and rewarded those who achieved this goal to make them feel better in our crazy drive for social justice? Maybe we forced teachers to deal with larger and larger classes and in balancing the classes with those special needs kids for social integration we caused the social needs kids to take up more and more of the time that could have been given to the brightest and best and in the process lost the special needs kids also because they did not have the time they needed either?
Maybe it is time we let each person grow the way they are and respect it and encourage it and stop trying to make government designed clones of out kids and stopped making hero's out of those who would destroy society? I congratulate you on your son making a difference in the world I hope he takes time to talk with high school kids in school to show a better example of what we can be.
Peace
thumb
Nikko Scelzo 0
Oct 7 2011: you say that the main thing about geniuses is that they care... but see now... what would you consider to be a genius? how can we really define such a thing? if you define it purely as someone who cares... then is that not everyone? everyone cares about something... even if it is only caring about them self...and if that person does only care for their own self-interest then why is it they are this way? perhaps society has taught them to be this way... that is how they interpreted their environment... when we are taught something.... everyone does not get the same lesson out of it... this, in my opinion, is because of a lack of clarity in our world. we are not able to express ourselves in a way that allows ANYONE to understand...with no misinterpretation... that is my opinion at least...see that is why i believe that everyone is capable of such thoughts... some just are able to find that connection easier...they are able to interpret and express it in a way that makes sense to themselves as well as others...

'Deep intellectual thought' is a special ability that needs to be cultivated and developed. It needs a place where creativity is valued and freedom of mind is secured. So basically I think everyone more or less has the potential of deep intellectual thought, and it is just like a seed silently covered in the soil. Sunlight, water and fertile land are vital for its growth. Without these core external elements the small seed stays still and will finally perish. It is the same with deep intellectual thought. Without a society which respects and gives momentum to those who like to explore their potential, we might never see those I-stuffs created by Jobs.If the society sneers at guys who immerse in their 'strange' work in a garage and discourages them, satirizes them as 'unorthodox'. No innovation will be made. Therefore, a breeding ground welcoming the finding of 'deep intellectual thought' is the point. Say...spurring innovation in an atmosphere of rote is like fishing in a desert. And that's why we never see a Chinese version of Steve Jobs or Bill Gates...
thumb
Craig Patterson 10+ 0
Oct 13 2011: Deep thinking is a function of a full belly and hope about the future. When they are removed, deep thinking is replaced by survival and our dinosaur brains. fight or fright.

I would like to ask a question. What evidence in society reflects deep thought? By society I mean all societies the world over. Can anyone point out examples of where 'deep thought' manifests as benefits to society?
thumb
Eun A Jo 10+ 0
TED TRANSLATOR
Oct 12 2011: YES.
As long as you're relentlessly challenging yourself to further the "depth" of your knowledge, I believe you're a deserving intellectual and that is regardless of whether the society recognizes or not.
thumb
Gisela McKay 30+ +2
Oct 13 2011: But some people are just not built that way. They don't seem to have the need to question what is going on around them.

Deep thinking requires not only the mental faculty, but also the curiosity and drive to understand.

On the first requirement alone we can say that "no, not everyone is capable."

The question wasn't "is everyone capable of deeper thinking (than they are already doing, or than their cohort)" a relative term, it was about objectively deep thinking.
thumb
Frans Kellner 100+ 0
TED TRANSLATOR
Oct 13 2011: Knowledge and thoughts are different things.
On the following clip up from 5 minutes you can see someone that has more knowledge than anyone but I doubt he has much deep thoughts.
https://youtu.be/8Vs6R5YZQ3c
thumb
Colleen Steen 500+ 0
Oct 13 2011: Thanks for that link Frans. I have seen videos of both Daniel and Kim before, and find it fascinating.
It appears that Kim has lots of information, and cannot connect the information with the thought process? While Daniel can connect some of the information with thoughts?
Jack Jiang 0
Oct 10 2011: Jobs is so smart that there will not be anyone who created the infromation changes in such markect. but it' a pretty bad things that he has just passed away , while his spirit will be encouragin today's us for the better creation.
Anthony Loke 0
Oct 10 2011: I believe everyone is capable of profound intellectual thought. There are many reasons why the majority of them are not heard. For example many do not share the same platform as Steve where every public thought that he articulates resounds through the world at lightning speed. Or could be simply that they are not articulated at all.
thumb
Jom Bunsiri 0
Oct 9 2011: The 3 effective ways that I mentioned can described as improvement in conciousness part of the brain. For the other part, sub-conciousness, you just need to learn everything that interests you all the time, and don't stop. Many geniuses are obsessed in learning things that they are interested in all the time, so, their brains store a lot of useful information in many specific issues. The different between us and them is that their brains' conciousness part connect the information in many random possible ways at a time. It means we also can have our brain functioning like that, just by practicing thinking in many set forms. Don't waste time arguing, being right or wrong in the discussion doesn't make anyone genius. Wish all the bests!!!
thumb
Jom Bunsiri 0
Oct 9 2011: People can access to that experience by 3 effective ways. 1, changing inputs of the thought process. 2, tracing back the tought process from expected results. 3, keep practicing. In details, 1, you can use different perspectives to think about problems you want to solve, or imagine that you solve the problems in different environments, or imagine that your problems are formed by differrent influences. In details, 2, you can trace back the thought process by asking yourself "why" as many times as you want (but don't lose your point or topic about the problem). In details, 3, keep practicing to make sure it's not just your flash of genius, just keep making your genius shine.

In addition, you before you try to solve some problems, be clear about what you do and just make a framework for your problem solving.