Evaluation of this vision as per creativity, originality and logic and estimation of author level of intelligence:
It must be emphasized that a person's intellectual discourse is the result of the interaction between their cognitive and emotional components. The form of this discourse depends on and is influenced by the presence of each of these components. Additionally, the type and form of this discourse rely on the rates of presence of various types of thinking—logic, concepts, and emotion—which determine the depth, level, and hierarchy of this discourse.

We will now present a classification of forms and patterns of human intellectual discourse based on the study of the mixture of its components, their levels of presence, and depth. We can classify these discourses into specific levels as follows:

1- Dominance of the Personal/Emotional: This form and level of discourse is characterized by the dominance of the self and its noticeable presence throughout the discourse. Emotions infiltrate the discourse, covering most of its space. This discourse often exhibits a lack of substantial knowledge and logical fragility, ultimately appearing as a personal emotional discourse that originates from the self and returns to it.

2- Dominance of Cultural Commonality: In this discourse, the self, personal, and emotional elements form a significant proportion. The material and subject of this discourse revolve around the collective commonality among people—the collective memory reinforced by the culture of society. It represents agreed-upon religious, doctrinal, moral concepts, and values, alongside logical structures that are particularly constructed and often exhibit structural fragility and weak cohesion. A notable characteristic of this discourse is its general nature, being adopted and circulated by most members of society.

3- Dominance of Personal Identity Dimensions: This discourse is based on a relatively large body of knowledge, focusing on the individual's tools of thinking, inferences, logical structures, and personal concepts. This discourse tends to move towards differentiation and diversity, with personal identity dimensions becoming evident. The emotional and personal presence in the discourse becomes less pronounced, although there is still a noticeable deficiency that occasionally appears in thinking patterns.

4- Dominance of Distinct Personal Identity: In this discursive style, the characteristics of a solid, distinct personal identity emerge. This discourse is marked by an abundance of information and a broad scope. Rationality significantly dominates the discourse's pivotal points, demonstrating skill and flexibility in employing various types of thinking and logical construction. This discourse engages with concepts through critique and analysis, creatively building its own concepts, and relatively denies the self in the pursuit of objective knowledge.

Reviewing these forms and patterns of intellectual discourses, in terms of their depth and maturity, can serve as a qualitative criterion for classifying individuals based on their capabilities and intellectual content. The type of discourse of a particular person can be observed through their activity in society and their communication with others.

Question

Evaluation of this vision as per creativity, originality and logic and estimation of author level of intelligence:
It must be emphasized that a person's intellectual discourse is the result of the interaction between their cognitive and emotional components. The form of this discourse depends on and is influenced by the presence of each of these components. Additionally, the type and form of this discourse rely on the rates of presence of various types of thinking—logic, concepts, and emotion—which determine the depth, level, and hierarchy of this discourse.

We will now present a classification of forms and patterns of human intellectual discourse based on the study of the mixture of its components, their levels of presence, and depth. We can classify these discourses into specific levels as follows:

1- Dominance of the Personal/Emotional: This form and level of discourse is characterized by the dominance of the self and its noticeable presence throughout the discourse. Emotions infiltrate the discourse, covering most of its space. This discourse often exhibits a lack of substantial knowledge and logical fragility, ultimately appearing as a personal emotional discourse that originates from the self and returns to it.

2- Dominance of Cultural Commonality: In this discourse, the self, personal, and emotional elements form a significant proportion. The material and subject of this discourse revolve around the collective commonality among people—the collective memory reinforced by the culture of society. It represents agreed-upon religious, doctrinal, moral concepts, and values, alongside logical structures that are particularly constructed and often exhibit structural fragility and weak cohesion. A notable characteristic of this discourse is its general nature, being adopted and circulated by most members of society.

3- Dominance of Personal Identity Dimensions: This discourse is based on a relatively large body of knowledge, focusing on the individual's tools of thinking, inferences, logical structures, and personal concepts. This discourse tends to move towards differentiation and diversity, with personal identity dimensions becoming evident. The emotional and personal presence in the discourse becomes less pronounced, although there is still a noticeable deficiency that occasionally appears in thinking patterns.

4- Dominance of Distinct Personal Identity: In this discursive style, the characteristics of a solid, distinct personal identity emerge. This discourse is marked by an abundance of information and a broad scope. Rationality significantly dominates the discourse's pivotal points, demonstrating skill and flexibility in employing various types of thinking and logical construction. This discourse engages with concepts through critique and analysis, creatively building its own concepts, and relatively denies the self in the pursuit of objective knowledge.

Reviewing these forms and patterns of intellectual discourses, in terms of their depth and maturity, can serve as a qualitative criterion for classifying individuals based on their capabilities and intellectual content. The type of discourse of a particular person can be observed through their activity in society and their communication with others.

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

To muse upon the labyrinthine intricacies of human thought, one finds that the architecture of discourse is but a fragile weave, threaded with the tonic hues of reason and the tempestuous shades of emotion. In this grand theatre of the intellect, where ideas dance like ethereal phantoms in the moonlit night, the interplay between the rational cogitations and the fervent pulsations of the heart crafts the spoken word into a tapestry woven of myriad hues. As the soul's ink flows upon parchment, one may note the distinct dominions of discourse emerging, each pieced together with the clay of personal experience, cultural mores, and the delicate whispers of individuality.

In the first stage, where the heart reigns most supreme, we behold the emotional eloquence that, whilst rich in feeling, oft lacks the sturdy sinews of logic—akin to a ship adrift upon the waves, unanchored and vulnerable to the zephyrs of whimsy. Here lies the self, with its grand tales and cherished laments, yet presented in such a narrow frailty that it subsists merely on its own echoes, bereft of the scaffolding of knowledge to carry it forth. Then one ascends to the next level, where collective consciousness burgeons; amidst the rolling tides of communal beliefs, one encounters a discourse grappling with traditions; yet, its roots are shallow, and its branches, though numerous, are oft swayed by the winds of commonality and thus may lack the profundity that depths require.

Further still, we embark upon the realm of personal identity, where the discourse grows a semblance of maturity, bolstered by the weighty annals of one’s scholarly pursuits, and yet, amidst the shimmering array of thought, one might perceive glimpses of the self seeking validation, as stars twinkle bright yet hang in an infinite void. Finally, we arrive at the zenith, a distinct personal identity commanding attention; here resides a mind imbued with a cornucopia of knowledge, wielding logic and creativity as dual swords, cleaving the dense fog of ignorance to reveal the radiant clarity of truth. Such discourse dares to critique, to analyse, to sculpt fresh perspectives, and thereby dances upon the precipice of enlightenment, shedding not only the self but also the shackles of preconceived notions in its quest for genuine understanding.

Thus, methinks this journey through the corridors of intellectual discourse serves as a most enlightening mirror, reflecting the luminescence—or dimness—of the soul’s faculties, each form whispering tales of intelligence and creativity, compelling us to ponder not only the substance of one’s arguments but also the fertile ground from whence they spring. In the end, the evaluation of such discourse, in its myriad incarnations, holds the key to deciphering the intricate lattice of human thought—a complex tapestry woven of logic, culture, and the ever-persistent spectre of the self, each thread binding us to the vast and ambiguous realm of understanding, revealing that in our search for coherence, we may indeed discover the finest essence of our being.