Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Is there a path to wisdom?

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Is there a path to wisdom?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Is there a path to wisdom?

How can I know what I do not know? How can I trace that boundary between knowledge and ignorance?

In the dialogue "Apology" Plato writes about Socrates while in the dungeon just before drinking the hemlock that the citizens of Athens condemned him to be executed.

Socrates further adds that he is accused of teaching the people of Athens, to which Socrates vehemently denies that he is a teacher. He points out that in matters of wisdom he has only a small piece of that territory; the wisdom that he does have is the wisdom not to think he knows what he does not know. Socrates conjectures that he has the wisdom to recognize the boundary of his present knowledge and to search for that knowledge that he does not have. "So it seems at any rate I am wiser in this one small respect: I do not think I know what I do not."

For Socrates a necessary component of wisdom is to comprehend what one is ignorant of.

Am I wise? Do I know what I am ignorant of? I certainly know that I am ignorant of astronomy and music. There are many things about which it is obvious to me that I am ignorant of. Are there things about which I am not even aware of my ignorance? Are there matters about which I think I am knowledgeable of but which I am, in fact, ignorant of?

When I ask myself these questions I become conscious of a great number of things about which I am ignorant. Does this mean I am like Socrates in this matter? I do not think so. Socrates is speaking about two types of ignorance about which most people are unconscious of.

I think that Socrates is speaking of our 'burden of illusion'. People are unconscious of the superficiality of much that they think they know and they are unconscious of a vast domain of knowledge that is hidden from the non critical thinker.[/b]

The uncritical mind has no means for discovering these illusions. CT (Critical Thinking) is the keystone for discovering these illusions. The Catch-22 here is how can one develop a critical mind when they are deluded into thinking they have a critical mind?

When our educational system has not taught our citizens how to think critically how can our citizens ever pull themselves out of this deep hole of illusion?

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so"-Mark Twain

coberstakaDutchuncle

@coberst phil,

coberst wrote:

Is there a path to wisdom?

How can I know what I do not know? How can I trace that boundary between knowledge and ignorance?

In the dialogue "Apology" Plato writes about Socrates while in the dungeon just before drinking the hemlock that the citizens of Athens condemned him to be executed.

Socrates further adds that he is accused of teaching the people of Athens, to which Socrates vehemently denies that he is a teacher. He points out that in matters of wisdom he has only a small piece of that territory; the wisdom that he does have is the wisdom not to think he knows what he does not know. Socrates conjectures that he has the wisdom to recognize the boundary of his present knowledge and to search for that knowledge that he does not have. "So it seems at any rate I am wiser in this one small respect: I do not think I know what I do not."

For Socrates a necessary component of wisdom is to comprehend what one is ignorant of.

Am I wise? Do I know what I am ignorant of? I certainly know that I am ignorant of astronomy and music. There are many things about which it is obvious to me that I am ignorant of. Are there things about which I am not even aware of my ignorance? Are there matters about which I think I am knowledgeable of but which I am, in fact, ignorant of?

When I ask myself these questions I become conscious of a great number of things about which I am ignorant. Does this mean I am like Socrates in this matter? I do not think so. Socrates is speaking about two types of ignorance about which most people are unconscious of.

I think that Socrates is speaking of our 'burden of illusion'. People are unconscious of the superficiality of much that they think they know and they are unconscious of a vast domain of knowledge that is hidden from the non critical thinker.

The uncritical mind has no means for discovering these illusions. CT (Critical Thinking) is the keystone for discovering these illusions. The Catch-22 here is how can one develop a critical mind when they are deluded into thinking they have a critical mind?

When our educational system has not taught our citizens how to think critically how can our citizens ever pull themselves out of this deep hole of illusion?

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so"-Mark Twain

coberstakaDutchuncle

As always your posts are thought provoking and inspiring. To answer you question in my own words, the answer is yes. It depends on how how much hell we can endure. After all this is a "trial and error" process considering there was no book of instructions when we started making footprints on this granite planet. Enlightenment is a wonderful thing once we begin to dump all that crap we have been forced to learn to survive in this chaotic world. They say it is always darkest before the dawn and perhaps it just hasn't gotten dark enough yet.

It's good to communicate with you again.
William

@coberst phil,

There is a path to wisdom, but for a drive you would survive use the brakes more than the accelerater...If knowledge is virtue, as Socrates may have truely said, then we do good as good we know, yet if we only did as we knew we would do nothing...If you would do good, change little but minds, treat the pain, and not the cause...Certainty is easy, knowledge is impossible, so if you would be moral act according to your heart, your emotions, and not your mind...Learn good to learn truth... Having good, give it freely but never idealize it...Humanity has only one enemy worse than time and it is the ideal... Avoid the ideal, and seek the good as a reality...How is that for simple???

@coberst phil,

In the summer of 48 my older brother told me that if I wanted to play high school football I had to 'get ready'. In his terms, 'getting ready' meant running to get in condition for the rigors of football practice.

In the spring of 09 I want to begin the quest for wisdom. How do I 'get ready' for becoming wise?

Starting with the definition of wisdom as "seeing life whole" seems to be as good a place to begin as I can think of. How do I get ready to see life whole?

It seems to me that to see life whole I must learn a great deal more than I already have learned but I must start with where I presently am. I am convinced that learning new stuff requires three aspects (a position facing a particular direction) of mind; mentally I must have curiosity, caring, and an orderly mind.

I claim that curiosity and caring are necessary conditions for understanding. Understanding is a far step beyond knowing. I will not examine a matter for the purpose of understanding it unless I am curious about it. I must care enough about the matter to do the intellectual work necessary to understand.

Understanding is a step beyond knowing and is seldom required or measured by schooling. Understanding is generally of disinterested knowledge, i.e. disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic (due to the nature of the self) value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term 'disinterested knowledge' as similar to 'pure research', as compared to 'applied research'. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

Understanding is often difficult and time consuming and the justification is not extrinsic (outside cause) but intrinsic.

Questions for consideration:
Is caring necessary for understanding? I think so.
What is 'understanding'?
Is curiosity necessary for knowing? I think so.
Is curiosity necessary for understanding? I think so.
Is a knowledge of history required to 'see life whole'? Absolutely!!
Is difficulty our duty? I think so.

@coberst phil,

What you said of Socrates brings up a question...If there were a death sentence attached to doing philosophy, would people do it, do it better, or not at all... That is where we find ourselves, without a death sentence, and also in regard to life, with death waiting to put an end to it...So how do we live??? Many people do not as we conceive of life, live... Some out of understanding of their fate try to live better as they can conceive of the Better life...Some people go from one end of their lives to the other negating all, denying what may be the only opportunity they may have to do good... Consciouness is a gift, and accident... We are all given a certain amount of knowledge to begin building our own... Few enough want everything from life, to know all, see all, do all, and feel all...There is no getting around the fact that for all, the end is the same, and that it does not matter, and all is vanity...

@coberst phil,

The concept of 'an open mind' springs to mind.

We should always assume a point of ignorance as much as possible when asessing a task.
Always try to look at the issue from every side.
Do not dismiss out of hand any point of view that is passionately argued by someone.
Always try to see as many middle-of-the-road syntheses of opposing views as one can. This is not the same as fence sitting.
Never dispute the authenticity of evidence because it is simply in contradiction to an assumed point of view.
Rather try and modify the point of view to fit with the evidence.
At the same time recognise that evidence can be fabricated or falsely represented.
Look for internal contradictions as the best means to prove that evidence or another point of view is incorrect, rather than external contradictions.

I believe this is called hermeneutics, or phenomenology.

Example:
When I need to do a large multiplication in my head, I know I can easily make an error.
So I do the sum from 2 vantage points, and then do a check digit and if all 3 agree, then I am certain of my answer.

27x13
is
a) 27x10 + 27x3

it is also
b) 20x13 + 7x13

The check digit is 7x3, so it must end in a 1

Both a and b must get the same answer for me to be sure, and the answer must end in 1 to be extra sure.

The path to wisdom is never to accept that wisdom can be achieved by going along a single path.

One must be able to reach the same answer by going along multiple paths.
Only when multiple paths give the same answer can one be certain.

One was to be a bit obsessive-compulsive, but one also must value variety as being a method of being able to ensure error-trapping.

This is why philosophy in its pure form is so essential because every discipline has a philosophy behind it. No mode of knowledge is outside of philosophy.

From studying psychology I have come to realise, that if I am getting angry with the other person, there is a very very strong chance that I am making a critical error. This works a bit like a psychological check-digit. Its as if the subconscious is giving me a warning to reassess the situation. Ask yourself, what is it EXACTLY that is making you angry about the other point of view? Even if the other is threatening your life, you are better able to defeat him by being cool and rational than hot and temperemental.

In studying ethics, if I reach the same answer from a utilitarian and contractarian and religious point of view, then my path is assured.

@Poseidon,

Poseidon wrote:

In studying ethics, if I reach the same answer from a utilitarian and contractarian and religious point of view, then my path is assured.

Herein we discover the rub. We have all been taught that problems have correct answers and often the answers are in the back of the book. Problems that have correct answers are called puzzles. They are problems that are solved using correct algorithms.

Ethical problems and most problems of real life are not puzzles; they are not problems that are solvable using algorithms. They are problems that are multilogical, i.e. they involve multi dimensional domains of knowledge and are often if not always muddled by ideology. They are human problems and are not natural science or mathematical puzzles.

@coberst phil,

coberst wrote:

Herein we discover the rub. We have all been taught that problems have correct answers and often the answers are in the back of the book. Problems that have correct answers are called puzzles. They are problems that are solved using correct algorithms.

Ethical problems and most problems of real life are not puzzles; they are not problems that are solvable using algorithms. They are problems that are multilogical, i.e. they involve multi dimensional domains of knowledge and are often if not always muddled by ideology. They are human problems and are not natural science or mathematical puzzles.

Ethical problems are not logical, or multilogical...You can find some logic to ethical actions, but from the point of view of the individual, ethical action are counter logical in that they always involve self denial, and sacrifice... We have to get over the most obvious truth of self to behave morally, so it must spring from the emotions, and the emotional attachment of person to people...There is a logic to it, but not in the least logical, so it cannot be taught even while it can be learned...

@coberst phil,

William

Good to hear from you again!

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Is there a path to wisdom?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Is there a path to wisdom?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know