I Love Wisdom

I think we are seeing more of I LOVE DEBATE. Same old shit. Wisdom is being shunted away like always.

You could add------------- I love wisdom and knowledge.

And I could add that I love the love of wisdom and knowledge. O:)

Yeah, most inllectuals ignore wisdom in debate. Hard to be right or wrong when wisdom hints at oneness.

I love wisdom. How pure and good and simple.

My favorite: There is no softer pillow than a clear conscience.

I watched a few hours of this video on Game Theory and the teacher was explainig logic and odds of winning and losing. Eventually he said the only other way to win would be to venture into wisdom. I stopped the video there.

Some people are so dumb early on, dumb for so long, when it’s finally time to know something, they skip knowledge to become the first wise ones.

Yeah, that bit about a clear conscience is a great quote. I also wonder if a clear conscience makes the pillow soft.

I wonder about the same thing.

I like Berkeley’s Idealism. It just appeals to me.

Please expound on that. I don’t know much about Berkeley.

I want to know also.

Berkeley talked about ideas over matter.

The table is made first with the idea of a table. The wood also being an idea.

Hard, flat, round are the ideas that went into making the idea of finished table. The idea of what it’s used for. The idea of why people will like it. The idea of comfort, leads us to the idea of table chairs.

All things considered. Not made. Really, you could use the table chair as the table. Your mental contruct creates the purpose behind objects. Your mind could change that purpose.

I if I take it to the extreme. Berkeley was not a real man. But my idea of the other, in my idea of history. In this case, the other who allowed me to see the other as only an idea.

Finally, people toss the word idealism around. Meaning a useless hope for the way things “should be”

Idealism does not mean that. It means matter is only an idea. Only ideas exist. Even practical ones.

David Hume went further to refine this. But I don’t find much reason to investigate any more. Some do. My idea of those who do.

Well, Hume and Berkeley are usually studied together. Anyway, Berkeley makes some sense. If you take his thoughts about idea preceding any physical representation, then the next question is: what are humans? Is each of us the representation of an idea? Whose idea? God’s?

I tend to think that idea and representation are, what’s the word, co-existent. I expect that’s pretty counter-intuitive to those of us stuck in the mental framework of consecutive time sequencing, but in the reality of holism that would be the case.

I also find attractive the notion that any physical thing made to represent an idea can somehow outgrow that idea and transform into something else. Even a table or group of tables can be transformed simply through the power of creative thought put into action. Take a few lowly binder clips and cup hooks and you can make very nifty holders for wall hangings and window coverings, or you can turn an industrial spool into a coffee table and make bookshelves out of bricks and planks, just like that.

Sometimes debate prods wisdom to the forefront. I love a good debate as it provides a good opportunity to provide some good ole wisdom or read it.

Sorry man, I have to say I hate Berkeley. I can’t help it. Of course I found it interesting, but not appealing, as you said. If I’m honest, I can’t remember much about his ideas, apart from the basic stuff. And I hated the format of the screenplay as an argument, like Socrates but more painful to read.

I’d recommend Heidegger’s Being & Time or the other similar book I think it’s called ‘Basic Problems of Phenomenology’ or something if you like the part about ideas and the construction of the world through our minds. Or phenomenology in general is awesome. I’m happy to let you convince me otherwise on Berkeley though if you can.

Imho, anyone who loves wisdom and good reading would avoid Heidegger like the plague.

I probably wouldn’t convince you because I think we move towards worldviews that justify our overall experience.

I know Berkeley can be argued against. (think your way through a closed door)

But I can’t argue against the way his ideas appeal to me. I compare this to taste in music.

I like idealism because I don’t think its too important to be right, especially since opponents are not around to make points that already come from me. I don’t mean my human identity. =D>

I think I’m actually going to read up on Berkeley again, because as I said I’ve forgotten a lot of the intracacies of it and I think it is an important segment of philosophy. But you are right about the worldview thing, I just didn’t think anybody could read Berkeley and go ‘that’s what i’ve always thought!’ as you do with your favourite philosophers. He is just so damn abstract and in stark contrast with how we (or I) live and experience life.

I find that once you get a good idea what he’s after you like it. But you like it in a way that makes you want to investigate it further. And by this need for another take on it, like Hume, you’ve already started to distrust it.

I’m not saying you should force any type of dedication to it. Because you can’t.