Or why you only invite Socrates to a suicide party.

Thinking is overrated if your thinking controls you... However if you control your thinking then it is a resource,  a luxury reserved for those with time and money

But NOT thinking can be quite costly....in time, money, and even your freedom.

There are a lot of impulsive men and women in prision who made moves without thinking them out carefully.


However I've come to believe that people who sit around and think "too much" are often to stagnant and inactive.

Mel your comment made me realize the error in my post. Philosophizing is overrated unless that's your job.

There also people in prison that chose crime because it paid more. Some code it or were chosen by it. Since it was better than the alternative.

12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

But NOT thinking can be quite costly....in time, money, and even your freedom.

There are a lot of impulsive men and women in prision who made moves without thinking them out carefully.


However I've come to believe that people who sit around and think "too much" are often to stagnant and inactive.

I resemble that statement. It is a matter of time before I'll no whether I have been wasting my talent or not.

It took me years to learn there IS a such thing as thinking too much......

This is why most REAL movements tend to start from the streets, the people NEAR the very bottom of society.
The very educated intellectual types tend to think too much and over analyze various strategies when it comes to solving societal problems. And even when they finish drinking their tea/lattes, shake hands, and come to the people to announce their "solutions".... they usually don't work because they aren't PRACTICAL.  
Most  "solutions" arising from the intellectual classes are usually THEORETICAL and only look good on paper.

It's the same in the workforce of today.
There is a very high turnover rate in the modern workforce in the West because there's a gaping and growing separation between the middle class college educated executives and administrators who make many of the decisions and the inadequately educated and often unhealthy poor workers who attemp unsuccessfuly to meet their unrealistic expectations.


This separation isn't just economic, it's social, and even ethical.

Pioneer where would you place the following Black Intellectuals.

Booker T Washington

Frederick Douglass

Martin Luther King

Amiri Baraka

James Baldwin

Dr Alvin Poissant

Cornel West

Barack Obama

Mohinder Gandhi

Edited April 27, 20169 yr by Del
add

Del

Not sure who "Mohinder Gandhi" is/was, I couldn't find too much info on him.
However with the notable exceptions of Booker T Washington and Dr King, the rest were great intellectuals sho 'nuff but were not very good leaders or organizers of the Black masses.

Oh yes.....
People like brother Cornel West can articulate the frustrations of Black people and the poor excellently!

But aside from the two notable exceptions I mentioned (Washington and King), I doubt that the others you listed could mobilize and lead a street gang in the ghetto.

That's not to diminish their intellectual talents.  They were good at what they did.  But they weren't "leaders" of the masses and their skills weren't effective enough to spark and maintain a mass movement among Black people.

Even Booker T wasn't the most effective of leaders.
He was an excellent educator with brilliant ideas, but it took Marcus Garvey to come and AMPLIFY his message of self-sufficiency and turn it into a movement.
 

21 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

It took me years to learn there IS a such thing as thinking too much......

This is why most REAL movements tend to start from the streets, the people NEAR the very bottom of society.
The very educated intellectual types tend to think too much and over analyze various strategies when it comes to solving societal problems. And even when they finish drinking their tea/lattes, shake hands, and come to the people to announce their "solutions".... they usually don't work because they aren't PRACTICAL.  
Most  "solutions" arising from the intellectual classes are usually THEORETICAL and only look good on paper.

It's the same in the workforce of today.
There is a very high turnover rate in the modern workforce in the West because there's a gaping and growing separation between the middle class college educated executives and administrators who make many of the decisions and the inadequately educated and often unhealthy poor workers who attemp unsuccessfuly to meet their unrealistic expectations.


This separation isn't just economic, it's social, and even ethical.

Hi Pioneer,

You had made the point that intellectual theorize and don't do much. This was the reason I posted those names. I á hoping to see your defense. Which I didn't think you would have. However you cleverly ignore one of your own assumptions top maintain your position. Which is a tactical use of rhetoric when though it defies logic. In that you maintain your posting while jettisoning. The assumption that promoter me to post. Infusing I want going to post at all. Since I was a bit destroyed with your response. Not because you disagree with me but more so because you have likely cauterized your argument. So you are right and I am attempting to be clever. It's it a clever statement of it falls on death ears.

Cynique I miss your intellect. I didn't always agree with you but your logic was flawless and your style and flourishes impeccable. Except for parts of the Sara dialogue.

I love your mind.

Love,

Del

Huey Newton agreed with you which is why he didn't put Angela David in charge to intellectual. So another great thunder agrees with you.

 

Del

Which one of my assumptions did I ignore?

My position wasn't that intellectuals DID NOTHING.
To the contrary, they did TOO MUCH...lol

....but of the wrong thing.

My position was that highly educated intellectuals tend to over analyze things (too much thinking) and most of their "solutions" are convoluted and impractical.

I never said ALL of them did or were, which is why I used the terms "tend to" and "most".




Huey Newton agreed with you which is why he didn't put Angela David in charge to intellectual. So another great thunder agrees with you.

Ofcourse.
The mark of a good leader is to place people where their talents can be of best use to the movement.

Huey WAS a real leader and he came straight up from the streets so he had social experience necessary to influence and motivate the masses of Black people from the streets.
Unfortunately his drug use had influence over HIM. 
 

Hi Pioneer

My mistake I hadn't read your post critically. You said, "Real movements and real leaders come from the street."  So Huey is the only leader we can agree using your benchmark. 

Well done. 

Lol....alright my brother.