The Escapist: Home of the Intellectual
- Thread starter Dufaunce
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Au contraire (French!), I'm getting smarter by the minute. There's research, don't you know. (Okay, that's enough from me. Sorry all.)Glefistus said:
I didnt mean I want it to be all smart all the time. Im just tired of seeng favorite this or that threads. I like having to flex the ol' mental muscle a bit. I come here primarily for gaming news and other related things, but also being able to hold a decent discussion on modern issues is a nice bonus.xmetatr0nx said:
Agree'ed pretty much(with just a pinch more of nations acting in their best interest, and being more concerned with relative gains) (that and i'm not as well versed on international relations as I am US law and governmentNeedsABetterName... said:
) I love political science but some of these theories drive me nuts. Especially in IR because nations(and their actions) never fall into place with one theory, some fall in line with realism , others with neoliberalism and still others with older theories(like earlier liberalism)/less accepted theories. I think the only IR theory that has actually seemed to be right is
structural alternative to neorealism
-assumes hierarchy in IR: the hegemon defines the status quo
-the hegemons power grows slowly
- challenger states are great powers whose power starts at a lower level then grows rapidly
-the challengers power overtakes the hegemon at the transition point
-if the challenger is dissatisfied the transition will result in war
-in order to have a war, you need two things:
1. rough parity of power
2. A dissatisfied Challenger
An example would be the US and England, when the US overtook them sometime in the early 1900s it was a peaceful transition as the US was satisfied with the status quo when a parity in power was achieved. Germany and and great briton in WW1-2, would be an example of a challenger who was dissatisfied with the status quo.
-assumes hierarchy in IR: the hegemon defines the status quo
-the hegemons power grows slowly
- challenger states are great powers whose power starts at a lower level then grows rapidly
-the challengers power overtakes the hegemon at the transition point
-if the challenger is dissatisfied the transition will result in war
-in order to have a war, you need two things:
1. rough parity of power
2. A dissatisfied Challenger
An example would be the US and England, when the US overtook them sometime in the early 1900s it was a peaceful transition as the US was satisfied with the status quo when a parity in power was achieved. Germany and and great briton in WW1-2, would be an example of a challenger who was dissatisfied with the status quo.
Its all a bit too subjective for me usually
. I prefer the stuff you can measure(or the things that are at least constant) rather than the more theoretical approach. I guess thats why I only took 1 class each from the IR and political theory sections of my schools curriculum.
Amen, and it's frustrating a bit because i'm not at the high enough level of knowledge to creatively delve into the theory in which an essay was assigned. I hate writing things that I know have been said before, but perhaps thats my job as an undergrad(re spout things until you know them inside and out)NeedsABetterName... said:
Anyways i'll quit derailing this thread now
No, no, no, no, no.Dufaunce said:This is just really a topic to pay The Escapist a well deserved kudos and a celebratory hear-hear for attracting a largely intellectual audience. I have noticed recently that the large majority of topics and posts on this site are either of great relevence to the current world state and often ask us to question ourselves as to what we really think of todays society or are based around scientific or philosophical concepts which really broadens our horizens and asks us to think outside the box.
Not to mention the content itself (ie videos, articles, etc) is often intellectually comical and leaves the viewer (in my case anyway) asking themselves "I wander if anyone else got that".
This website is a real gem in the pile of murky unintellegent shite that makes up the most part of the internet and I for one am glad to have found it
Intellectualism is, perhaps, even more irritating to me than environmentalism and vegetarianism.
Or at least, the aspect of it shown by these forums annoys me.
You are putting an incomplete action on a pedestal and dressing it in the robes of a god.
Intellectuals such as these merely debate whether a deed or event is ethical; the punishment of action. These are forums, home to would-be philosophers who wear masks and prattle on incoherently.
Intellect, opinions, beliefs, dreams; experiences, memories. To rely on a single aspect of the mind is hardly useful.
Intellectualism is a sad pastiche of the human mind's true capabilities. An architect's brain is worth much more to the world, and humanity as a whole, then some runny-nosed fat guy who just spends all his time mocking other people who contribute more than he does.
You have people on these forums who would give death sentences. People who would publicize others info. Not as a result of contemplation, but out of a twisted form of self-preservation. That's not to say that such treatments are wrong, or cruel; such matters are trivial when it comes down to the truth of human behaviour. No, the fact that such people do so because they refuse to recognize the targets of such statements as inhuman.
There is no "Right" course of action, because survival is murder and suicide is death. There is no "Wrong" course of action, because though you won't be missed much, every bit helps.
The distinction of humans and non-humans, in other words "Us" and "Not Us", comes from a very primitive part of the human psyche. Intellectualism is about discovering what is right and what is wrong. But these are highly dependent on the circumstances of one's life.
Should true love be pursued if it means the destruction of a family? There is an emotional conflict there. The same societies that say that love is important say that such actions are wrong. Which side would one, using only their mind, take? What would they place as most important? THESE are the issues that an intellectual SHOULD discuss, at least in my opinion.
The fact is, without practical applications, intellectualism is the same as doing nothing. An arrogant exercise in futility that works only to fill one with the joy of being above others. Those who engage in such toxic nectar wish to never lower their glass. They hope to consume it all, until either they run out or die of pleasure.
No one comes to these forums to be "enlightened", but rather to shine their light upon flowers in a field. They take one of two or three positions, comment to that effect, and believe that their contribution, while insignificant in the long run, is sufficient. Such rambling fellows only serve as a diversion from the true world.
It will not solve problems, nor is it commendable. It is faulty in its nature, its inception, and its actions. How many of said intellectuals care about the fact that people die everyday? That a baby fell in front of a train? How many merely feel content to sit and contemplate on such distant events, while at the same time stand away from harm's way? And, more to the point, what will they decide is the "Right" way to act?
There are few discussions here, on these forums, that merit such praises.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahehehehahahehaehohohehaheha...ha...ha.
That's a riot Oh. [small]Your serious.[/small]
We string sentences together; we (mostly) play nice; we don't insult the guys who talk (a little) more pretentiously than the rest. Not bad, but not intellectual. Hell, if it were really intellectual I'd be 90% lurker, 10% sporadic contributor. See my post count. I'd love it, seeing as I'd learn a lot more, but this place has its own thang goin' awn.
(And I really would like to see more of the political science. Please proceed.)
(And I really would like to see more of the political science. Please proceed.)
