Very well - but I've argued, and you haven't responded to the argument, that the bourgeoisie doing this behind closed scenes was better than the revolutionaries doing this openly. — Agustino

Nobody does this behind closed doors -- neither the bourgeoisie nor the communists, because the millions of recipients know what is happening. (It's like "secret bombing"; certainly no secret to the people getting bombed.) And it's not better being done by the Bourgeoisie or the Communists.

Just like I attribute the lack of genius in today's world to:
too much social pressure, commercialisation of sex, high levels of misinformation, too much comfort, too much counter culture. — Agustino

This is rank nonsense.

Real, bona fide geniuses are always rare (at least, that's a characteristic I like to apply to "genius". But even when they are born, they may not flower. Einstein also built on the foundations of previous thinking, previous discoveries, the essential pieces of which were available to him by way of his own education. Had Einstein been born 100 years earlier, he would almost certainly have not been able to come up with relativity and everything preceding it in one fell swoop.

Had Shakespeare been born in 1264 instead of 1564, he might have have written something terrific, or maybe not. Neither the arts, the place, the times, nor the language were in a position to allow a multi-faceted genius to flourish in the way Shakespeare did.

My guess is that most geniuses come to naught because they are born in the wrong time and the wrong place. Wrong place, right place, they are still a rarity.

"Genius" isn't just a matter of a high IQ. It's also creativity, the capacity for very extended concentration and focus on very difficult problems (whatever field genius is expressed in), necessary information, and a certain amount of peace and quiet.

Are these all geniuses? Newton, Galileo, Pascal, Michelangelo, Bruno, Shakespeare, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kepler? Could be - I don't know. Cervantes? Steinbeck? Heidegger? Picasso? Steinbeck? I rather think not. It isn't damning an artist or a scientist or a cowboy to hell to deem them less-than-genius. You know, there isn't any standardized metric for "Genius". It's somewhat a matter of opinion.

This raises the question, "Just what, exactly, do geniuses do? How many are there? How important are they? What good are they? and..." but that is another thread.

Nostalgia and politics is always a toxic brew, especially when it's calling upon purported Uebermenschen from the past (that never was). Why am I not surprised Agustino is steeped in it.

because the millions of recipients know what is happening — Bitter Crank

This does not change the fact that it was done behind closed doors, and was, in words, repudiated. A society which repudiates such things in words, but nevertheless engages in them is better than one which doesn't repudiate them in words and engages in them. Why? Because at least one remains aware of the effects of not repudiating these things and doesn't seek to justify its actions.

It's a million times better if I steal your money saying "what I'm doing is wrong, I know it, but I'm forced by whatever reasons to do it" than if I steal you money saying "fuckin scum, this is my money, you don't deserve it!"

Real, bona fide geniuses are always rare (at least, that's a characteristic I like to apply to "genius". But even when they are born, they may not flower. Einstein also built on the foundations of previous thinking, previous discoveries, the essential pieces of which were available to him by way of his own education. Had Einstein been born 100 years earlier, he would almost certainly have not been able to come up with relativity and everything preceding it in one fell swoop. — Bitter Crank

Yes. But this does not change the fact that the Renaissance and Enlightenment period had more geniuses than the Dark Ages or nowadays. Why? Because society was organised in a way that was more conducive to the production of genius.

So your whole write-up is a red-herring.

That does not follow at all Agustino. Geniuses, or those so considered, are only so considered after their demise. You cannot possibly estimate a persons worth until after they are gone... That is why it is almost impossible to point out the geniuses of today or the very recent past. Moreover, the dark ages suffer very much to the lack of scholarship and lack or records that attend such a period, though the Muslim world did do a damn sight well...

That does not follow at all Agustino. Geniuses, or those so considered, are only so considered after their demise. You cannot possibly estimate a persons worth until after they are gone... That is why it is almost impossible to point out the geniuses of today or the very recent past. Moreover, the dark ages suffer very much to the lack of scholarship and lack or records that attend such a period, though the Muslim world did do a damn sight well... — Phil

Tell that to Albert Einstein :) or Wittgenstein. Or many others.

Amazing thread — Πετροκότσυφας

I'd almost conclude that Agustino is trolling, but Poe's Law makes it impossible to tell

what if they do not want to be under islamic rule but were born into that world? Are you going to deny them that? Along with that the left seems to side to Muslim tradition the most. Despite them being even more strict than Christian tradition.

The main difference between Conservative and Liberal, is Conservative, as the name implies, tries to conserve the past, It conserves the past, which has a test proven history of working. Liberalism is more about fad and change; novelty items. Liberalism is more analogous to R&D , while Conservatism is more about long term production, based on long term proven claims. The Conservatives want a literal interpretation of the Constitution; conserve. The Liberal is more about R&D; changes.

For example, the nuclear family is not new. It is very ancient and world wide. It is still the most efficient way to deal with a wide range of social issues; childhood to elderly care. This will be a Conservative issue. It is based long term thinking, is test proven, and ready for production. The left will attempt R&D and alter this to include other perturbations, such as the single parent family. This may also work, but it is not very efficient. It requires much more propping up by government programs. There is a higher overhead and social cost due to the scaffolding/prosthesis needed to create the illusion of being the same.

The left is like an R&D team, that can be useful for creating new approaches; think out of the box. However, it often goes into production, before the science is fully settled, and all the data is collected. The result tends to be inefficient and wasteful and need a high prosthesis or scaffolding requirement. The Conservatives try to get back to proven production techniques, that are cost effective. This may seem old fashion but it works, but with fewer whistles and bells.

The Liberals instituted PC, to help out people who get hurt feelings, due to words. However, this has a hidden social cost; loss of freedom of speech. Conservatives will look to the past to see what worked best; least social cost. They will stress freedom of speech, and require the over sensitive and neurotic, mature and grow. The higher level of emotional maturity, than leads to even more freedom of speech for all.

In the USA, President Trump is a threat to the left, because he may reduce the funding for social prosthesis and scaffolding. This will make ideas that are not ready for production, appear more suspect since the propping up illusion will be impacted. Tis may result in going back to the R&D drawing board, or looking to the past for efficient solutions. As long as government grows, half baked ideas can appear to look better. If government starts to shrink, only good ideas will look good.

The analogy is in construction. You need a lot of scaffolding to help support some structures, so it looks self standing. However, it is only standing because of the scaffolding. If you take that away it will collapse. Big government is full of scaffolding rigs. Old school ideas did not have the benefit of big government, so they needed to develop different building techniques, not as scaffold dependent.

This is an absurd characterization. Have you even read a book about liberalism by a liberal?

Liberalism is more analogous to R&D , while Conservatism is more about long term production, based on long term proven claims. — wellwisher

I would agree with this part at least; liberalism is quite analagous to R&D. And companies/liberal societies that focus on R&D tend to thrive and lead, while companies/conservative societies that are afraid to innovate (invest in R&D) tend to stagnate and fall behind. Of course, there has to be a balance, and implementing the results of R&D can be a risk, but what separates successful companies and successful societies from unsuccessful ones is as much as anything else the extent to which they are willing to discover and implement change.

The analogy is in construction. You need a lot of scaffolding to help support some structures, so it looks self standing. However, it is only standing because of the scaffolding. — wellwisher

This analogy doesn't fit. Scaffolding does not support the structure being built. Scaffolding is erected to enable the workers to stand safely next to the structure while they build, paint or renovate it.