Do you agree with Eleanor Roosevelt's Quote about Great, Average and Small Minds
Eleanore Roosevelt has a number of famous Quotes...the following being one of them. Do you agree with her synopsis of Great, Average and Small Minds?
I bring this up due to the recent context around certain members acting out as trolls and the "feeding" of the trolls which has kept them around. I would like to see if you agree that it is the simple minds who discuss people?
Yes, she was spot on!
Side Score: 15
|
No, she was wrong!
Side Score: 5
|
|
|
|
1
point
I just want to point out that the fact that the name "Eleanor Roosevelt" is included in the title and that the word "she" is included in the title of both options, makes it look like we are discussing the person, not the idea ;) Also, it seems to me that a quote is an event. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is hard, at best, to discuss ideas without delving into the other levels. So long as we don't wallow in those other levels, we should be OK ;) Side: Yes, she was spot on!
Yes, but there's a difference on a debate site. Here, we are trying to debate to find truth or objective superiority. To do that, we need to bring up an idea, and back it up with real evidence, such as events or people or objects. Right? But we still NEED an idea, or else we're just debating about events or people, which is boring. Side: Yes, she was spot on!
1
point
1
point
Hah! Yeah religion and politics are not necessary for the human mind. (sarcasm) As much as I myself do not enjoy speaking on politics (it's boring), I have a great time speaking of religion and spirituality; I thoroughly enjoy it, and I believe religion and spirituality are extremely important to the human mind. Oh wait, spirituality is on the "greater mindset", that must mean I'm capable of going from a "greater mindset" to the "simple mindset", bypassing the "average mindset"...(not sarcasm), OR...I am also capable of going from the "simple mindset" and just chit chat and gossip, but wait! then when I want to speak of other things like science, philosophy, societal agenda and conflict, or the strategy behind sports (average mindset), or mother nature, or creativity and art; film and music; I went from simple mindedness to greater mindset in the "flip of a switch".... And SO, perhaps I enjoy dabbling in all of the "mindsets" because I can. At least I'm being real and honest about the situation. Unlike others on this board that enjoy keeping their levels to the average joe and/or small mindset, because they can and enjoy being what they are. wink wink Side: No, she was wrong!
1
point
1
point
Here is an idea worth discussing. http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Except that pirateelfdog got a jump on everyone else with his well crafted argument ;) Side: Yes, she was spot on!
1
point
Here's another idea worth discussing: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ ;) Side: Yes, she was spot on!
1
point
Side: Yes, she was spot on!
1
point
|
1
point
People with small minds that want to discuss Eleanor instead, should post on this side. Brainiacs should post over there <--- ;) Now that we got that taken care of, Eleanor was rather ugly; don't you think? That might explain why she was so smart. She basically just accepted the fact that she was ugly and thus spent most of her time thinking deep thoughts for people to remember her by ;) Does anyone know if she was pompous? Do you find that deep thinkers tend to be pompous? Can someone quote me, "Deep thinkers are pompous." I want to be remembered as a deep thinker..., wait... ;) Side: No, she was wrong!
The opposite to 'great minds', in the context we usually use it (meaning geniuses), is 'weak minds' e.g. stupid people. She has chosen the things that she likes to talk about and claimed them to be what intelligent people talk about. I don't believe that people who talk about different things than Eleanor Roosevelt and her ilk are stupid. Side: No, she was wrong!
1
point
I disagree strongly. There tends to be a great arrogance around many philosophers, that believe that their opinions, their ideas, their interests are more important than anyone elses. Their happinesses are greater, their depressions deeper, and their existence more meaningful, simply because they can look down on other people. I have seen people who I have little respect for, that have little capacity for critical and reasonable thought (a 'small' mind) discuss philosophy, theism, and other similar ideas. I have seen very intelligent people (a 'great' mind) discuss other people, gossip and tease. I am against any idea of ranking people in such absolute ways. People, their opinions and their minds are much more complex and varied and diverse than any simplistic comparison will be able to show. Most people are capable of so much more than they often demonstrate, if you only give them a chance and a prompt to express themselves properly. Side: No, she was wrong!
I don't agree in any way. It appears that the more abstract you think about the world the cleverer you are in her paradigm. To beat her in her own game I basically would have to talk about nothing but prime numbers my whole life without knowing how to open a door to be the greatest mind ever. That she thinks great minds talk a lot about abstract ideas I think is more or less coincidental and may just be a result of a confirmation bias than anything else. So in a sense, she is a slave to her own idea that greats minds are slaves to ideas. Side: No, she was wrong!
|