Does knowledge imply wisdom?

@Diogenes phil,

Diogenes;162290 wrote:

If I know how to tie a tie, what does that mean? That I simply know the act of tying two pieces of cloth together? Is there some inherent meaning in knowing something? What happens after knowing?

Knowing how to tie a tie is called "skills knowledge", or "knowing how". Skills knowledge is different from propositional knowledge like, knowing that London is the capital of the United Kingdom, or knowing that water is H20. Propositional knowledge is called, "knowing that" rather than skills knowledge which is called, "knowing how". The test of having skills knowledge is the ability to do something. The test of knowing how to speak French is being about to speak French. But the conditions of propositional knowledge are, at least, that the proposition known is: 1. true, 2. believed by the knower, and 3. adequately justified. So, for instance, A knows that London is the capital of the United Kingdom only if: 1. it is true that London is the capital of the United Kingdom, 2. A believes that London is the capital of the United Kingdom, and 3. A's belief is adequately justified. This is called the true, justified, belief theory of knowledge, and can be traced back to Plato.

@Diogenes phil,

Diogenes;162290 wrote:

If I know how to tie a tie, what does that mean? That I simply know the act of tying two pieces of cloth together? Is there some inherent meaning in knowing something? What happens after knowing?

Tieing a tie is not tieing two pieces of cloth together, but is tieing two ends of a single piece of cloth together, and there is an essential bit of knowledge in what I have told you, since knowledge is the ability to make fine distinctions, to classify to high degree based upon relevent criteria....

Knowledge does imply wisdom in this sense: That to pursue knowledge one must know a'priori that knowledge is valueable, which is meaning... Children learn... The ignorant learn which is the same as a farmer planting seed corn having never raised a crop... One can never appreciate the value of knowledge until one has it in full, so to sense it, and desire it before having it demands some understanding, and understanding is wisdom...

Books hold knowledge, and so do computers, and every example of technology past and present represents acquired knowledge... Without the effort of living people to give the knowledge there respect, and love, to not only learn it, but to preserve it, it is in danger of being lost... Look at all that was lost in the dark ages... We know of some philosophers by only scraps, or some references of another writer whose own work has been mostly lost...When people are struggling for their lives in a hand to mouth existence the meaning of higher knowledge is lost, and the distance between the most educated and the least educated shrinks...

---------- Post added 05-10-2010 at 07:07 AM ----------

kennethamy;162296 wrote:

Knowing how to tie a tie is called "skills knowledge", or "knowing how". Skills knowledge is different from propositional knowledge like, knowing that London is the capital of the United Kingdom, or knowing that water is H20. Propositional knowledge is called, "knowing that" rather than skills knowledge which is called, "knowing how". The test of having skills knowledge is the ability to do something. The test of knowing how to speak French is being about to speak French. But the conditions of propositional knowledge are, at least, that the proposition known is: 1. true, 2. believed by the knower, and 3. adequately justified. So, for instance, A knows that London is the capital of the United Kingdom only if: 1. it is true that London is the capital of the United Kingdom, 2. A believes that London is the capital of the United Kingdom, and 3. A's belief is adequately justified. This is called the true, justified, belief theory of knowledge, and can be traced back to Plato.

Knowledge is knowledge...No one can say they know that, without saying they know how... Those who say there is book learnin and practical learnin are making a meaningless distinction...Knowledge is not just a form but a morphem, a single thing that cannot be divided with a prefix or a suffix... It is like rights, and rights are rights, all having a common definition and funtion, but if one talks of civil rights, or personal rights, or property rights it is not to know, and to have the thing: Rights; but to confuse the issue and deny true rights so as to enjoy privilages...

Knowledge is a single form that we do not define better by defining as two or more thing... If we say knowledge is the Genus, and all specific areas of learning are the species of it, we are still saying they are the same, because knowledge is knowledge...When we learn we do not learn facts, like the rules of a game we will never play... When we learn we learn a certain relationship between one fact and all others, so we cannot learn unless we can classify... This is what concepts are: Certain judgements of finite reality..Knowledge is judgement...

@Fido,

Fido;162341 wrote:

Knowledge is knowledge...No one can say they know that, without saying they know how... Those who say there is book learnin and practical learnin are making a meaningless distinction...

It cannot be a meaningless distinction since you seem to understand it. It may be that you cannot have one kind of knowledge without the other kind, so they depend on one another. But that does not mean that the distinction is meaningless, does it. In fact, the distinction is clarifying, just as distinctions are supposed to be.

Suppose I say I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. Now, what is it I know how to do? Since according to you, I cannot know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador without knowing how to do something. What is that something?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;162345 wrote:

It cannot be a meaningless distinction since you seem to understand it. It may be that you cannot have one kind of knowledge without the other kind, so they depend on one another. But that does not mean that the distinction is meaningless, does it. In fact, the distinction is clarifying, just as distinctions are supposed to be.

Suppose I say I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. Now, what is it I know how to do? Since according to you, I cannot know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador without knowing how to do something. What is that something?

Certainly I understand that it is meaningless... I read how to rebuild carburators and transmissions and motors, but until I did those jobs with the help of the books I did not know the job, or how to do it...I knew of it, something about it, and incomplete knowledge is not knowledge at all because it is all handicap and uncertainty without experience...As when you say a certain city is located in a certain country on a certain continent... You take it on faith if you have not personally made your way there...It does not mean your faith is unfounded, but often faith is unfounded, and as much as we can know about practical matters the better we can judge the value of those facts we must take on faith...

I wish I could give you an absolute standard of truth; especially in moral matters... The fact is that many people translate truth/knowledge into a physical form, as when people measure truth by how much money is in it for them to hold a certain position on the subject... Since, ultimately, truth is life, so wisdom is life, and those who hold a position contrary to my well being are not just wrong, but perhaps, even dangerous to me...

@Fido,

Fido;162386 wrote:

Certainly I understand that it is meaningless... I read how to rebuild carburators and transmissions and motors, but until I did those jobs with the help of the books I did not know the job, or how to do it...I knew of it, something about it, and incomplete knowledge is not knowledge at all because it is all handicap and uncertainty without experience...As when you say a certain city is located in a certain country on a certain continent... You take it on faith if you have not personally made your way there...It does not mean your faith is unfounded, but often faith is unfounded, and a much as we can know about practical matters the more we can judge the value of those facts we must take on faith...

I wish I could give you an absolute standard of truth; especially in moral matters... The fact is that many people translate truth/knowledge into a physical form, as when people measure truth by how much money is in it for them to hold a certain position on the subject... Since, ultimately, truth is life, so wisdom is life, and those who hold a position contrary to my well being are not just wrong, but perhaps, even dangerous to me...

I did not say you did not understand it was meaningless. I said that since you understood it, it could not be meaningless, for what is meaningless cannot be understood. Read more carefully. Otherwise, dialogue is a waste of time.

If incomplete knowledge were not knowledge at all, then it would be a mistake to call it incomplete knowledge. So, either incomplete knowledge is a contradiction in terms, or there is incomplete knowledge. But incomplete knowledge is not a contradiction in terms. Therefore, therefore, there is incomplete knowledge. QED.

What makes you think that in the sense of "certain" in which is means "error is impossible" that even if I wend my way to the heart of Quito, that I then could be certain, and not "take it on faith" that there is such a city, and that I am mistaken. I could be in the heart of Quito and still be mistaken that there is a Quito, and I am in it. Personal knowledge (as you and others like to call it) is not infallible either.

You probably have in mind personal knowledge of the contents of your own mind. But that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, or that you are in Quito even if you are in Quito, is not a part of the contents of your own mind. But, in any case, whether you can be infallibly certain of even the contents of your own mind is very dubious. People are often mistaken about what is going on even in their own minds. Self-deception is a common phenomenon.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;162392 wrote:

I did not say you did not understand it was meaningless. I said that since you understood it, it could not be meaningless, for what is meaningless cannot be understood. Read more carefully. Otherwise, dialogue is a waste of time.

If incomplete knowledge were not knowledge at all, then it would be a mistake to call it incomplete knowledge. So, either incomplete knowledge is a contradiction in terms, or there is incomplete knowledge. But incomplete knowledge is not a contradiction in terms. Therefore, therefore, there is incomplete knowledge. QED.

I understand your point; but it is worse than meaningless, because it is confusing the issue as most of those tacked on distinctions are...To say no meaning means no value... Garbage stinks, and may be said to have no value, and it would be without meaning if people everywhere did not make their livings off other peoples trash, so it is meaningless, having less of meaning, and valueless, having less of value...

Making fine distinctions about different kinds of knowledge deducts from the meaning of the word: Knowledge, -only to add to the confusion...Kant said knowledge is judgement... What is the value of your judgements, for that is the quality of your knowledge...

@Fido,

Fido;162396 wrote:

I understand your point; but it is worse than meaningless, because it is confusing the issue as most of those tacked on distinctions are...To say no meaning means no value... Garbage stinks, and may be said to have no value, and it would be without meaning if people everywhere did not make their livings off other peoples trash, so it is meaningless, having less of meaning, and valueless, having less of value...

Making fine distnctions about different kinds of knowledge deducts from the meaning of the word: Knowledge, -only to add to the confusion...Kant said knowledge is judgement... What is the value of your judgements, for that is the quality of your knowledge...

Sigh. ............

@kennethamy,

Does knowledge imply wisdom? Two words: British Petroleum. Smile

@Tony016,

Tony016;162445 wrote:

Does knowledge imply wisdom? Two words: British Petroleum.

All I know is I don't know... The condensed version of Socrates...

@Diogenes phil,

Diogenes;162290 wrote:

If I know how to tie a tie, what does that mean? That I simply know the act of tying two pieces of cloth together? Is there some inherent meaning in knowing something? What happens after knowing?

Knowledge does not equal wisdom, that's why we have the term "hippocryte".

I remember back in the days, when England had this hig moral ground, cencoring anything remotely undecent, then it came to a breaktrhough when the cencorchip was revealed to engange and endulge themselfs in highly undecent activities, involing whips, latex ..and all other kinds of weird things, and suddenly after a minor purgatory the populus was allowed more indecent movies, magazins ..etc.

Too many times I see enlightend people smoke, because of their inner selfish desires drive them, overwriting their concious knowledge.

Too often I see politicians break their own laws, the same with judges and their great knowledge of law .............and pigs! ..eh cops!

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;164433 wrote:

Knowledge does not equal wisdom, that's why we have the term "hippocryte".

I don't understand why you say that, but isn't the word you want, "hypocrite"?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;164468 wrote:

I don't understand why you say that, but isn't the word you want, "hypocrite"?

zt0pz p1c1nk 0n m3 zp3111nx!! Very Happy

Yes, it's that word, sorry I don't know how to spell it.

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;164535 wrote:

zt0pz p1c1nk 0n m3 zp3111nx!!
Yes, it's that word, sorry I don't know how to spell it.

Was originally one of the characters in Greek drama, the repeater, I believe...I am afraid I loaned that book to the wrong person...

@Diogenes phil,

I personally think wisdom is having the ability to implement knowledge. Like using the concept/formula of tying a tie to expand and create better and more complicated versions.

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;164535 wrote:

zt0pz p1c1nk 0n m3 zp3111nx!!
Yes, it's that word, sorry I don't know how to spell it.

Not that way, I assure you.

@kennethamy,

I may be able to answer this if I understood what imply here means. Little help.
Wisdom could easily be as much knowing what knowledge you lack and are in need of,
but whether it is wise to have knowledge is another matter.
You can have all the knowledge in the world and still be highly unwise.

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;165012 wrote:

I may be able to answer this if I understood what imply here means. Little help.
Wisdom could easily be as much knowing what knowledge you lack and are in need of,
but whether it is wise to have knowledge is another matter.
You can have all the knowledge in the world and still be highly unwise.

I would suppose that "imply" would mean what it always means, namely that P implies Q = if P is true, then Q is true. So that in this case it would mean that if one has knowledge, then one is wise. Now that seems to me to be false. As I understand the term "wisdom" a person who is wise has understanding of what he knows, an understanding that can be manifested in wise actions using what he knows effectively. If that is so, then knowledge does not imply wisdom since a person can know many things but not be wise in the sense I just explained. What I think is true is that wisdom implies knowledge. And, obviously, for a person to be wise, that is for that person to understand what he knows, and for him to utilize that knowledge effectively, he must have knowledge in he first place. So although knowledge does not imply wisdom, wisdom does imply knowledge. Sometimes in philosophy converses are confused with one another: Knowledge implies wisdom (which is false) is the converse of wisdom implies knowledge, which is true.

Of course, to understand what "implies" means, and how converses can be confused with one another, requires some knowledge of logic, since, the notion of "imply" and the notion of "converse" are, of course, logical notions.

@kennethamy,

implicate; 1to shoe or suggest that (a person) is involved, especially in a crime2 to imply.

implication; 1 the act of implicating or state of being implicated. 2 the act of implying or state of being implied 3 that which is implied- by implication by suggestion and without being stated directly.

implicit; 1 implied or meant, although not stated directly 2 present, although not explicit or immediately discernible: there was a disappointment implicit in her words. 3 unquestioning, complete.

implied; hinted at, suggested

imply; 1 to suggest or express indirectly; to hint at 2 to suggest or involve as a necessary result of consequence.

All sounds like guess work to me, in this vein knowledge certainly does 'imply' wisdom. For the sheer and simple fact almost everything is suggested or meant or guessed or 'implied'.
You could very well say anything is implied by anything else if it is implied.
Anything can be implied.
Is this a question about guessing about suggestion or is it a question that is trying to find the un-reproachable?
So I would say sure anything is implied by anything else.
'Mean' may be a fantastic word but also in its self is pretty empty, (do you get what I am saying?)
The question obviously does not mean this, it probably means something like 'does knowledge require wisdom?' or 'does knowledge exhibit wisdom?'
'does knowledge include wisdom?' or 'Is the consequence of knowledge wisdom?'
Sorry but not I know this is a little off the beaten track, I do know what you mean.
But the imply means it could mean something else, do you see what I mean?

Yes I like that, knowledge does not necessarily imply wisdom, but wisdom does imply knowledge.

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;165023 wrote:

i
Yes I like that, knowledge does not necessarily imply wisdom, but wisdom does imply knowledge.

How about just, knowledge does not imply wisdom, but wisdom does imply knowledge? (Let's just drop the "necessarily").

Philosophy Forum

Does knowledge imply wisdom?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know