Quote: (10-14-2017 05:54 AM)Rush87 Wrote:I don't think that's the case, there seem to be highly intelligent people on both sides of the fence, or really everywhere on the spectrum. It's just a question of competing concepts of "the meaning of life" and what does one do when confronted with the notion that we all turn to dust. Illustrated perfectly by the story of Alexander the Great and Diogenes the Cynic.
A big thing I've noticed about highly intelligent people, is that the higher up the scale they tend to run, apathy seems to increase towards a range of endeavours with which others would deem 'great accomplishments'.
Essentially, they start to see things for what they really are, often times understanding that most accomplishments in life are largely inconsequential. You can surely argue against that [As I would] otherwise I'd be promoting an existence of futility, but I can see why outside of this burning question, nothing else may interest him.
Some highly intelligent people like Napoleon or Alexander or Louis XIV or Caesar think, as fleeting as life is, glory is the only way to have any meaning and to "cheat death" somehow by being remembered by posterity.
At the other end of the spectrum you have the likes of Buddha and the other spiritual masters and philosophers who figure, "we're all going to die very soon no matter what we do, so all that empire business isn't worth a bowl of shit, especially given the suffering it causes". So they just figure, live a virtuous life and do what makes you happy.
You could call it "doing" vs "not doing", or "soft" vs "strong" or "dynamism" vs "stasis" or whatever. Just another duality that seems to be woven in the fabric of the universe, like the Yin/Yang model illustrates.
"Doing" seems to be the engine that drives all we call progress, but the downside is a lot of suffering and death are used as fuel. On the other hand no harm ever came from a man quietly doing his gardening and going to bed early, but nothing good came from it either.
The thing is, these are not conscious choices, but merely rationalizing your own nature and calling it "virtue". Alexander couldn't have sat quietly in a monastery any more than Aristotle could have raised an army and started raiding.
As to what makes people what they are, that's the ultimate question, isn't it? One guess is as good as another. Personally I'm found of Timothy Leary's theory.
But really these are all the Big Questions that have existed since time immemorial. What makes people what they are? Do we have free will? Can we change? etc.
We won't ever get any answers because there probably are none. Just choices and perspectives.