Hearts and Minds

[plumjam]

Here's the scenario:

You are forced to spend some one-on-one time with one of two people: Mr Hart or Mr Mynde (or Mrs/Miss/Ms if you prefer - but the scenario prohibits any influence from sexual attraction).

Mr Hart is a morally perfect individual. He is unfailingly loyal, honest, compassionate, loving, forgiving, warm, caring, self-sacrificing...etc..
Unfortunately he's also as dumb as a brick. His conversation is mind-numbing. He has never said anything of intellectual or academic interest to anyone, and never will. Neither is he so dumb that you can find him in any way amusing.. he's just idiotic in a way which gets right up your nose.

Mr Mynde, by contrast, has an absolutely brilliant intellect. He is well read in all areas of inquiry. He is your dream conversationalist; ever intriguing, enlightening, and thought provoking. There is nothing you could ask him which would fail to result in the most fascinating response.
Sadly he is, morally speaking, an absolute nightmare. Without qualm or quandary he would betray you, slander you, present you with barefaced lies. He is utterly selfish and self-serving.
In short, he would do anything within his quite considerable power, to go behind your back and give you the bum's rush.

The question is:

Who would you choose to spend your one-on-one time with? Mr Hart or Mr Mynde?

I recognise that there could be a strong situational influence on your replies.. but that might make the thread more interesting.. so I'm leaving that open.

Happy pondering.

 

[joobz]

To be more accurate the OP title should be Heart and Intellect, but that just ain't as poetic, is it.

So here's the scenario:

You are forced to spend some one-on-one time with one of two people: Mr Hart or Mr Mynde (or Mrs/Miss/Ms if you prefer - but the scenario prohibits any influence from sexual attraction).

Mr Hart is a morally perfect individual. He is unfailingly loyal, honest, compassionate, loving, forgiving, warm, caring, self-sacrificing...etc..
Unfortunately he's also as dumb as a brick. His conversation is mind-numbing. He has never said anything of intellectual or academic interest to anyone, and never will. Neither is he so dumb that you can find him in any way amusing.. he's just idiotic in a way which gets right up your nose.
The man is a bore.

Your version of perfect morality is my dog?

 

[plumjam]

Your version of perfect morality is my dog?

lol
possibly, yes.
I don't know your dog well enough to judge.
Would he leave a wonderfully tasty morsel for another dog, rather than snaffle it himself? Out of doggie empathy?

 

[steve s]

Who would you choose to spend your one-on-one time with?

Natalie Portman.

Steve S.

 

[joobz]

lol
possibly, yes.
I don't know your dog well enough to judge.
Would he leave a wonderfully tasty morsel for another dog, rather than snaffle it himself? Out of doggie empathy?

DOn't know. I know she is with me. Can't see how a person of perfect morality could be unfailingly loyal to everyone.

 

[danielk]

I voted for Ms Hart because I don't like to be betrayed. But in the real world, where there are more than two choices, I wouldn't socialize with either of them. Dumb people drive me crazy.

 

[plumjam]

Natalie Portman.

Steve S.

I have to agree, to a considerable extent.
They reckon Natalie is pretty bright.. she went to Harvard or somewhere like that, didn't she?

 

[joobz]

I voted for Ms Hart because I don't like to be betrayed. But in the real world, where there are more than two choices, I wouldn't socialize with either of them. Dumb people drive me crazy.

It's a question of which would you choose to give up, food or water.
You need both. So the real question becomes what would you rather die of? Starvation or dehydration?

 

[Distracted1]

Mr Hart. Who will obviously get smarter in the warm radiance of my intellect. Whereas Mr. Mynde sounds too much like me.

 

[danielk]

So the real question becomes what would you rather die of? Starvation or dehydration?

Yeah, I agree. Besides, I cannot see how an intelligent and rational person could be wickedly immoral. It isn't self-serving to be self-serving in the long run.

 

[plumjam]

DOn't know. I know she is with me. Can't see how a person of perfect morality could be unfailingly loyal to everyone.

Well, yeah. That's why it has to be one-on-one time. Desert Island kind of idea.
So who would you prefer the company of? Your lovely dog? Or a effing b*****d Einstein?

(Your dog ain't quite a perfect example, cos a dog can't force you to be engaged in a massively boring conversation.. but I'll let that one through, for the moment )

 

[plumjam]

It's a question of which would you choose to give up, food or water.
You need both. So the real question becomes what would you rather die of? Starvation or dehydration?

Oooh, you're sooo materialistic

 

[Mobyseven]

You know, most hypothetical situations are supposed to have a point to them - allow me to demonstrate:

What would you rather do: Answer a meaningless nonsense hypothetical that has no point to it, or freeze your nipples to a carrot?

 

[plumjam]

Mr Hart. Who will obviously get smarter in the warm radiance of my intellect. Whereas Mr. Mynde sounds too much like me.

I like the idea of your warm radiance.
Do itinerant Irish labourers gather round you of a night, and in the morning... oh, I won't say it.

 

[joobz]

You know, most hypothetical situations are supposed to have a point to them - allow me to demonstrate:

What would you rather do: Answer a meaningless nonsense hypothetical that has no point to it, or freeze your nipples to a carrot?

is it a baby carrot?

 

[plumjam]

You know, most hypothetical situations are supposed to have a point to them - allow me to demonstrate:

What would you rather do: Answer a meaningless nonsense hypothetical that has no point to it, or freeze your nipples to a carrot?

Mobyseven, I've been reading some of your posts over yuletide. It seems you must have had a rather incompetent priest.
If you examine it for 20 seconds longer than you've examined religion you'd realise that the point of this hypothetical situation is for you to examine, in your own heart and mind, which human qualities you value as most important (if any)
Keep going though, and thanks for responding.

 

[plumjam]

Yeah, I agree. Besides, I cannot see how an intelligent and rational person could be wickedly immoral. It isn't self-serving to be self-serving in the long run.

You never know. My Grandma has a neighbour across the street. She has known the neighbour for 30 years or more, and the neighbour was an ok person. Now, apparently, the neighbour has some rare condition wherein her intellect is unaffected, but she has no emotional response to anything at all in life. The neighbour's daughter has said to my Grandma that she (the daughter) could die, and it would have no impact on her mother's heart.

I understand your point though. You're kind of arguing for a kind of enlightened and calculating self-interest, which most of us do in life (me included, of course)
You're saying the perfect intellect would recognise that to get what it wanted it would have to take moral concerns into account.
I can understand that.

 

[Furi]

I had to say Ms Mynde, go with the Lulz.

Sounds like an almost perfect match to me, are you sure sex is out the question?

and since when has morally bankrupt in the sense that you've given been a bad thing

 

[tsg]

I'll take Miss Body.

 

[blobru]

Mr Mynde, in the conservatory, with Mr Hart's paddleball...