<p>Something happened and I couldn't finish my post, so:</p>
<p>--Therefore, I think that you are either younger than you say or that you are completely devoid of any sense of grammar.</p>
<p>--You strike me as one of those people who have never thought for themselves for even a minute. Being part of a political party or tendency without truly understanding any of the concepts does not make you accepted, but rather pathetic.</p>
<p>"--Therefore, I think that you are either younger than you say or that you are completely devoid of any sense of grammar."</p>
<p>That's really funny. The grammar of my sentences is generally perfect. I type posts off the top of my head and have aspergers and adhd, so figure out that one. </p>
<p>"--You strike me as one of those people who have never thought for themselves for even a minute. Being part of a political party or tendency without truly understanding any of the concepts does not make you accepted, but rather pathetic."</p>
<p>Actually, it's the other way around. I always think for myself. I hate reading and believe that those who read cannot think for themselves.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, it's the other way around. I always think for myself. I hate reading and believe that those who read cannot think for themselves.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, this opens up a new can of worms. But, to keep it brief: </p>
<p>The problem is not that people who read cannot think for themselves (and for the sake of being less general, let's assume that philosophical or political texts are under discussion here); rather, it is that people who /don't/ read, who depend on entirely "their own ideas," run the risk of thinking that their old ideas are actually new, original ones. There are no new ideas, so they say, only old ones patched together in new and interesting ways. Why do you think people research? Why do you think people analyze old texts and apply them to contemporary subjects? How can you possibly understand the philosophies of your political party -- or the OTHER political parties that you criticize -- without studying them?</p>
<p>As an aside, I don't possibly see how a Liberal Arts education would benefit someone who fails to see the value in studying the forebears of thought. They're kind of a big deal, you know; people know them.</p>
<p>I was talking about people who read for leasure... I love history and poli sci. I never planned for this to be a political debate and didn't do it in that format. I was just talking off the top of my head. I'm just trying to say that my direct descendents, who've been in this country since 1630, promised the PURSUIT of happiness... They didn't say that when immigrants came that we'd just hand them everything on a silver plate. I don't have time to get into an argument, though. I've got a life, a job, and studies to work on. Later. Sorry for all of the problems that came up.</p>
<p>Also, that thread was a fake. I have several usernames: SemperSpero, Cbvikings2004, Harvard2011, and many more.... No one knows my real identity, I just like testing you people.</p>
<p>now that you harvard2011 have succeeded in completely hijacking the thread, I would like to get back to the original topic</p>
<p>if you sued a college and were later granted acceptance there, would you attend knowing that the admissions committe and probably many others hate you? I think I'd probably settle for another place altogether...those four years can become miserable</p>
<p>What's wrong with reading for leisure? I fail to see your point. In fact, reading expands cultural and personal knowledge. Reading something does not mean that you must agree with what it is that you're reading. For example, I am not communist, but I have read a few of Marx's works just to understand his point of view (and the reality of what it is as his words have often been intentionally or unintentionally misconstrued). </p>
<p>I think people who don't read have no frame of reference and often believe that their ridiculously commonplace ideas are fresh and orginial. You should know that your point of view is that of a very naive and unaware person. Your posts reflect serious ignorance. I understand that Asperger's and ADHD affect social skills... But what is the logic behind your testing people?</p>
<p>How can you start a debate and then say you have a life and can't respond. Obviously, you don't have a life if you spend as much time as you do on CC testing people with different user names. Don't lie and don't underestimate people's intelligence.</p>
<p>I only typed a few posts on my other user names. In fact, I haven't even logged onto most of them for quite some time. Here's the thing, some people I know only read to make people AROUND them think that they're more intelligent than the rest of the world. I just view that as being superficial. As a liberal, you say I can't speak English correctly and so on, which you know is a bunch of crap. You say that because I think the way I do that I'm naive and ignorant. Unlike you, I question my government and don't believe in welfare, abortion, etc. And yes, I'm a 6'3" blonde, blue eyed person of north-western european descent that's a protestant... There's your stereo-type.</p>
<p>Also, that thread was a fake. I have several usernames: SemperSpero, Cbvikings2004, Harvard2011, and many more.... No one knows my real identity, I just like testing you people.</p>
<p>^^^^^</p>
<p>HEY MODS, OVER HERE! The dude just admitted to having multiple user names!</p>
<p>BAN HIM!</p>
<p>Who ever said I was a liberal?</p>
<p>I do not read to make the world around me think that I am intelligent, I read because I like to learn and think. It's not like I go around telling people that I'm reading. In fact, none of my friends know at all... They are not interested in reading and I never tell them that I do. We talk about other things.</p>
<p>Your logic is once again severely flawed. I think that you don't believe that anyone could truly enjoy reading for themselves, and for that reason you assume that people who read for leisure are doing so to show-off their intelligence. Some people actually do like to read. </p>
<p>Also, your English is not correct. How does saying this make me a liberal? Do only liberals value literacy and correct grammar. I think not.</p>
<p>I can tell by the way you express your opinions that they are not your own. You have gotten your ideas from your family or your surroundings and they have nothing to do with personal reflection or critical thought. Even more than your posts just being outright stupid, this is why I'm not even taking what you say into the slightest consideration.</p>
<p>"You have gotten your ideas from your family or your surroundings and they have nothing to do with personal reflection or critical thought."</p>
<p>That's a huge assumption. I could say the same thing about you or anyone else in this world. I don't like reading because I have a hard time keeping my mind on one single thought at the same time (as you can probably tell from previous posts), and that's why I came to the conclusion that people who read a lot do it only to "try to look intelligent." You changed my opinion on reading. Still, what's wrong with my grammar? My sentence structure is generally perfect. If you're talking about writing an essay and getting my ideas organized on paper, then you're correct; I'm a total mess. However, I feel that you've been a little rude. I'd like you to point out the "many grammatical errors" in this post. I've got to get going really quickly.</p>
<p>And, if you knew anything about Apergers and high-functioning autism, you'd realize that a lot of these "grammatical errors" of which you so often speak are actually problems with me getting my thoughts into words... Get this--- I ACTUALLY READ UP ON PSYCHOLOGICAL stuff for the heck of it!!!!!! Isn't that something?</p>
<p>I'd be happy just for apply...
The garbage of some it's the treasure of others</p>
<p>Harvard2011, you assaulted my thread. I was just harmlessly trolling and you come out of nowhere.</p>
<p>Everyone knows what the pursuit of happiness means, most people on here stayed awake during US Government classes, stop arguing over nothing.</p>
<p>As a conservative and a Harvard applicant, I'm ashamed of Harvard2011's posts. There are, indeed, many conservatives who are capable of critical analysis, who can express their thoughts coherently, and who enjoy reading. Please, don't give us a bad name.</p>
<p>There are also those of us who understand that this thread was intended to be lighthearted and aren't going to hijack it over some crazy nonsense.</p>
<p>Anyway, sorry, I'm new here. I've read some of the posts from time to time, but just signed up for an account recently. Interesting introduction, eh? :-P</p>
<p>And sure, what the hell! I'll sue for my happiness! (I think Harvard's endowment fund can handle it.) Though Anonymous99 certainly has a good point about making enemies.</p>
<p>Schopenhauer's On Thinking for Yourself raises some interesting points.</p>
<p>Search for the "Thinking for Oneself" in the text file.</p>
<p>Very illuminating.</p>
<p>For the lazy, here are one or two select quotes.</p>
<p>Reading_ is thinking with some one else's head instead of one's own.
But to think for oneself is to endeavour to develop a coherent whole, a
system, even if it is not a strictly complete one. Nothing is more
harmful than, by dint of continual reading, to strengthen the current of
other people's thoughts. These thoughts, springing from different minds,
belonging to different systems, bearing different colours, never flow
together of themselves into a unity of thought, knowledge, insight, or
conviction, but rather cram the head with a Babylonian confusion of
tongues; consequently the mind becomes overcharged with them and is
deprived of all clear insight and almost disorganised. </p>
<p>The people who have spent their lives in reading and acquired their
wisdom out of books resemble those who have acquired exact information
of a country from the descriptions of many travellers. These people can
relate a great deal about many things; but at heart they have no
connected, clear, sound knowledge of the condition of the country. While
those who have spent their life in thinking are like the people who have
been to that country themselves; they alone really know what it is they
are saying, know the subject in its entirety, and are quite at home in
it.
A man at times arrives at a truth or an idea after
spending much time in thinking it out for himself, linking together his
various thoughts, when he might have found the same thing in a book; it
is a hundred times more valuable if he has acquired it by thinking it
out for himself. For it is only by his thinking it out for himself that
it enters as an integral part, as a living member into the whole system
of his thought, and stands in complete and firm relation with it; that
it is fundamentally understood with all its consequences, and carries
the colour, the shade, the impress of his own way of thinking; and comes
at the very moment, just as the necessity for it is felt, and stands
fast and cannot be forgotten.</p>