The Philosophy Of Wisdom

[Da Blob]

A much better topic that the Wisdom of Philosophy, IMO, for as Wittgenstein and others have pointed out, much of Western Philosophy is just a silly word game, tossing around abstractions and symbols of such, as if they were somehow real or meaningful. It is not a Love of Wisdom!

The philosophy of Wisdom, itself, is different for it can be seen as the foundation of Applied Science.

A basic definition of wisdom is the making use of knowledge. The opposite of wisdom is folly.

Researchers in the field of positive psychology have defined wisdom as the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and "its deliberate use to improve well being."[17] With this definition, wisdom can supposedly be measured using the following criteria.[13]
A wise person has self-knowledge.
A wise person seems sincere and direct with others.
Others ask wise people for advice.
A wise person's actions are consistent with his/her ethical beliefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom

How is that people who make wise observations are not seen as philosophers, by philosophers?

I pretty much limit my philosophy to one-sentence quotes/observations. It seems to work, as far as putting knowledge to work, so how are the 'great' philosophies of the Western world superior to my own?

Isaiah 29 :13
The Lord says:

“These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men.

14Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish.”

15Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the Lord,
who do their work in darkness and think,
“Who sees us? Who will know?”

16You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
“He did not make me”?
Can the pot say of the potter,
“He knows nothing”?

Is One truly wise, if One is simply able to avoid folly?

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

I also think that wisdom is a combination of avoiding folly and consistent self improvement. When you add learning from your past mistakes, I think you can call yourself wise.

[intpz]

Avoiding mistakes is wiser.

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

I said that. (I did say that right?) lol

[BigApplePi]

Um ... as you say, in the process of covering the ground, cover as wide an area as pleases you, but careful not to fall into a hole so deep you can't climb out.

[Da Blob]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

Um ... as you say, in the process of covering the ground, cover as wide an area as pleases you, but careful not to fall into a hole so deep you can't climb out.

Yep! One sentence philosophy is the best...

http://thinkexist.com/quotations/wisdom/


https://www.facebook.com/Philosophyp...ophiaknowledge

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Da Blob

Yep! One sentence philosophy is the best.

Well talking one sentence sound bites is not the same as having wisdom or generating it for others. (Talk no action.) A question is, how does one get wisdom? Well-rounded knowledge? Well rounded environment? A wise mentor? Choosing good parents? School of hard knocks?

[Hawkeye]

Wisdom comes from observation and experience.

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Wisdom comes from observation and experience.

This may be true, but what if one uses a bad filter?

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

This may be true, but what if one uses a bad filter?

Well, wisdom doesn't work like that. Perhaps I should have said wisdom is development from observation and experience.

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Well, wisdom doesn't work like that. Perhaps I should have said wisdom is development from observation and experience.

Development, if the source is wise, is a good thing. I keep thinking I try to do the right thing (there are lots of things), but one slip up and I fall on my face ... results of anything but a wise action.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

Development, if the source is wise, is a good thing. I keep thinking I try to do the right thing (there are lots of things), but one slip up and I fall on my face ... results of anything but a wise action.

On a positive note, you are gaining wisdom with each failure.

[Da Blob]

[quote=BigApplePi;309635]Well talking one sentence sound bites is not the same as having wisdom or generating it for others. (Talk no action.)

Yes, but...

Researchers in the field of positive psychology have defined wisdom as the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and "its deliberate use to improve well being

Again, while it is true that an astute observation of truth does not mean that the Observation will be co-ordinated with Orientation, resulting In Decision, then Action
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop
What about all of those loops that do not have a true observation as its generation?

A question is, how does one get wisdom? Well-rounded knowledge? Well rounded environment? A wise mentor? Choosing good parents? School of hard knocks?

I often quote Confucius

There are three methods to acquire wisdom
Reflection which is the nobliest
Imitation which is the esiest
Experience which is the bitterest...

[Polaris]

Well...one can be wise even if one makes mistakes. I guess wisdom is evident in those who learn from their mistakes, but also admits that they are still capable of making mistakes.

This makes for some healthy humility but also an ability to forgive others for their mistakes...I mean, we don't make mistakes on purpose, as a general rule.

The philosopher Arne Næss was frequently attacked for "inconsistencies" in his philosophical views, and the funny thing is that he admitted to these and also warned that he would be very likely to be changing his view again in the near future, depending on what he had learnt from previous his previous philosophical mistakes....

When reading articles and interviews, one will find many instances where he is confronted with his mistakes and it is almost as if he relishes in these moments; completely detached from the egoic tendency that most others in this instance would display where they would venture into furious defence of their cemented view rather than stopping for a moment to consider the other aspects introduced.

The interesting thing is that he had this ability to talk to people of all beliefs and backgrounds, and people found themselves deeply affected and influenced by this man, not so much because of his actual views....he insisted that the last thing he intended was for people to adopt his view; the actual purpose of his methods was to introduce a new way of thinking where one is invited to encourage dialogue that includes rather than excludes a multitude of views. In this way, a diversity of views is what constitutes the whole which would be the more true reflection of a society; much like ecosystems where the system has a healthy function through the profound integration of each part, and not through division, isolation or worse: the destruction of single components.

In any case, I think this is where his suggestion of philosophical method becomes entirely useful; it invites to open dialogue without making the mistake of becoming involved in value-attachments. That is not to say values are not important, philosophical discussions can serve the very purpose of defending values, but during philosophical discussion emotions could cloud judgement and thus cause emotional conflict which rarely leads to anything positive.

I think I just rambled a little......anyway, this dude's worth exploring:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arne_N%C3%A6ss



RIP Arne Næss

[Da Blob]

Thanks! The name is unfamiliar but the methodology is not, for it is my own as well. It seems as though he was talking about the fuzzy logic/fuzzy sets of language well ahead of anyone else (?). His view of words being inherently ambiguous seems to feed right into Godel's Theorem of Incompleteness as well.

Arne Næss' main philosophical work from the 1950s was entitled "Interpretation and Preciseness". This was an application of set theory to the problems of language interpretation, extending the work of such semanticists such as Charles Kay Ogden in The Meaning of Meaning. A simple way of explaining it is that any given utterance (word, phrase, or sentence) can be considered as having different potential interpretations, depending on prevailing language norms, the characteristics of particular persons or groups of users, and the language situation in which the utterance occurred. These differing interpretations are to be formulated in more precise language represented as subsets of the original utterance. Each subset can, in its turn, have further subsets (theoretically ad infinitum). The advantages of this conceptualisation of interpretation are various. It enables systematic demonstration of possible interpretation, making possible evaluation of which are the more and less "reasonable interpretations". It is a logical instrument for demonstrating language vagueness, undue generalisation, conflation, pseudo-agreement and effective communication.[12]
Næss developed a simplified, practical textbook embodying these advantages, entitled Communication and Argument, which became a valued introduction to this pragmatics or "language logic", and was used over many decades as a sine qua non for the preparatory examination at the University of Oslo, later known as "Examen Philosophicum" ("Exphil").[13]

[redbaron]

Sincerity, honesty, modesty, endurance, courage and simplicity.

[addictedartist]

minimum effort, maximum effect

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

Originally Posted by addictedartist

minimum effort, maximum effect

I like that.

[IdeasNotTheProblem]

"The philosopher Arne Næss was frequently attacked for "inconsistencies" in his philosophical views, and the funny thing is that he admitted to these and also warned that he would be very likely to be changing his view again in the near future, depending on what he had learnt from previous his previous philosophical mistakes...." Polaris

Wisdom shouldn't only be measured by how much you know, but also by you're awareness of how much you don't know. You always hear the wisest people say stuff like, the more I learn the more I realize I know nothing at all...I hear that and I know someone is wise. The ones who seek attention and claim to know all there is know, even if they know a great deal, always strike me as fools.

[~~~]

Originally Posted by Polaris

...Arne Næss...

No irony and sarcasm...how boring.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by ~~~

No irony and sarcasm...how boring.

Uhmm....yes, he doesn't resonate with everyone of course. May I ask why you find him boring?

[~~~]

I was just saying that not using irony and sarcasm does place limits on humour which is not unimportant. There are some links from here about humour and its role: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.p...eativity-1991/.

[Da Blob]

The relationship between humor and wisdom is one well worth contemplating.

Is not the Thespian symbol a mask that displays a tragi-comic paradox?

Is not humor an adaptive skill that allows one to learn wisdom from 'tragedy' or pain?

Perhaps the most successful comedians were once mere philosophers...

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Mark_Twain/

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Will_Rogers

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/George_Carlin/

Click for original size

[scorpiomover]

"Who is Wise? He who learns from everyone."

(Ethics of the Fathers)