Tell me more ×
Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in logical reasoning. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote -7 down vote favorite

Is the brilliance of a person and his/her ability to experience/enjoy the moment (time and place) related?

For example: Would people with very high scores in SAT, GMAT, CAT etc. be able to experience the moment better than some one with much lower scores?

share|improve this question
1  
How are we supposed to understand "brilliance" here? And why would you suggest that relation? How or why did you encounter that problem? What makes it relevant to you, and why do you think that this is a philosophical, not a, say, cognitive science or psychological question? What does it mean to "experience a moment better than others"? – iphigenie Jan 21 at 23:59
1  
correlating variables ("SAT, GMAT, CAT") with measures of 'experiencing the moment' would be the realm of empirical psychology, but i've never heard of 'ability to experience' as a valid or reliable construct .. – Dr Sister Jan 22 at 2:50
2  
I think you're talking about 'sensuality'. I don't see what thats got to do with SAT scores at all. – Mozibur Ullah Jan 22 at 18:54
1  
Which moment do you mean exactly? (There are also a couple of other definitional problems with this question :) BTW, here is one possibly relevant quote (there must be others that support the opposite view): "What you can imagine depends on what you know."
 -- Daniel C. Dennett – Drux Feb 1 at 14:41

closed as not constructive by Joseph Weissman♦ Feb 11 at 0:11

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.

2 Answers

up vote 0 down vote accepted
+100

There is no correlation between intellectual brilliance and enjoyment. Enjoyment and it's obverse, non-enjoyment, is experienced by all beings. To enjoy something, you must first desire it. Human beings cannot eat a meal with the same gusto as a hungry dog. Conversely, a dog cannot understand the enjoyment that an astronomer experiences when looking through a telescope. What is enjoyment to one person can be non-enjoyment to another. There are also people whose enjoyments are the opposite of what most people would consider enjoyment; for example, there are people that enjoy physical pain, and there are people that enjoy mental pain. What we consider enjoyment is not only conditioned on us by our physical birth (amoeba or cat or man), but also by when and where and the conditions in our immediate environment. What foods are considered desirable (and therefore can be enjoyed) are different now then 50 years ago. Same with fashion.

What is considered intellectual brilliance is also relative. You have made an a priori statement that SAT and GMAT etc are correlated with intellectual brilliance. Many of the educational systems in Asia are geared to taking tests. But they do not have the same degree of intellectual originality as a well funded grad student in the US.

share|improve this answer
My definition of enjoyment was like "The feeling a small boy who has never seen a forest, feels when he sees one and in enthralled". He totally absorbs himself into a state of mind. That is the enjoyment I meant. I am not talking about "desiring for a first rank and getting one" type on enjoyment. – user1744649 Feb 2 at 0:19
1  
My answer stands. When a small boy sees the forest for the first time, his sense organs first present to his mind the forest, and his mind decides it desires to see the forest more. Desires only arise from sensual stimuli from the outside world. In your example his mind desires it so much that his mind cuts off all attachments to other sensual stimuli in order to concentrate on fulfilling the desire for the one stimuli it has just been presented with. – Swami Vishwananda Feb 4 at 0:35
Awesome. Yes the forest example and the achievement desire both have the same origin. Thank you. I had thought the first was internal, second was external. Also, the thing I have taken out from your answer is "If I need to enjoy something, I need to first desire for it - it might have simultaneously" and that "Since Desire is not related to intelligence, consequently, enjoyment is also not related intelligence". Thank you for helping me with key points I did not realize. – user1744649 Feb 4 at 11:19
When I think of it now, I am confused. Can you please a little more? My doubt : Assume 3 kids see a forest. All are almost equally thrilled. And all are almost equally desiring to see more. Assume one of those is a topper of the class and has used his mental facility to focus much higher than the other two. In other words, this topper has already used his brain to visualize a equation etc. So, his mind has already seen very high focus. In this scenario, is it possible that this kid will enjoy the forest more? – user1744649 Feb 4 at 15:37
up vote 1 down vote

It seems obvious to me that you don't have to be able to speak a word in order to be profoundly moved by music; likewise it seems plain that someone could very "competently" have deep emotions, intense experiences, for instance in response to seeing a painting, without any particular expert knowledge or special gift of intelligence.

Gilles Deleuze actually says something along these lines in the Abecedaire, I believe in N for Neurology (around the 4:30 mark) if you're curious.

share|improve this answer
You spoke about enjoying music, art. I agree it does not need any expert knowledge etc. BUT, I guess they need FOCUS. And FOCUS is something these high scorers have. Would like to hear your argument on this particular point. – user1744649 Feb 2 at 0:15
To my mind it would seem plain that the ability to focus is universal too; although certainly you need to have some knowledge, some discipline to concentrate, etc. But again it seems totally obvious to me you don't need to "understand" (to read in a certain way!) in order to actually experience a work in a profound way. As Deleuze says, you don't need to be an expert to be struck by a painting as though by a thunderbolt. – Joseph Weissman♦ Feb 2 at 0:22
You missed my point. You said one does not need to "understand". I never said about "understand". You said "some discipline to concentrate" is needed. I said that "FOCUS". So, we both agree one needs focus. And the high scorers do have higher focus. Your take on this please. – user1744649 Feb 2 at 18:46
I have to say I am not sure what you might be after other than what I have already suggested (that you don't need any special gift of concentration, knowledge or intelligence in order to very "competently" have profound experiences -- though obviously you need some knowledge, intelligence, concentration, etc.) and the video of a renown philosopher addressing this. In passing, I would encourge you to consider specifying the question a bit further -- maybe share a little bit more about what sort of answer you are looking for, what you might have found out so far, etc. – Joseph Weissman♦ Feb 2 at 21:17

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.