Is Philosophy Wise?

[Anomaleigh]

I never studied philosophy in school.
I’ve read a few philosophers, such as Plato, Hume, Rousseau, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.

When I think of wisdom, the English word wisdom, not the Greek word Sophia, which may be a poor translation of the English word wisdom, I think of practical knowledge, knowledge virtually anyone can apply to their daily life to improve it.

Here’s how google defines wisdom:
noun: wisdom
the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment; the quality of being wise.

The above definition seems unsatisfactory, a marine biologist may have experience, knowledge and good judgment, at least when it comes to marine biology, but would we say he’s necessarily wise?
Google has failed to capture what I, and I suspect many if not most people, mean by wisdom.
Google is not my authority, is it yours?
The way I see it the word wisdom, like any word, belongs to me/us (Englishmen) as much or more than it does google or any dictionary, and if that’s not how you feel about it too than you may stop reading, here.

I would say wisdom is a kind of knowledge.
I may know more things about dogs than person A, I may know they’re vertebrates, mammals, carnivores, canines, that they were domesticated by man approximately ten thousand years ago, but if I go around yanking Pitt Bulls ears, am I wiser than person A, at least in regards to dogs?
No, I am not, because I am ignorant of that which is practical, how to deal with dogs, how to behave around them.
I am ignorant of that which is going to offer person A, a real world advantage over me.
You could know very little about dogs, and still be wise in your dealings with them, if you know what’s essential, and that’s what separates wisdom from other knowledge, such as specialist or technical knowledge: it’s important, it’s like what separates book smarts from street smarts.
It’s knowledge that’s going to help one/us survive, and thrive.
The most important knowledge is that helps us all to dramatically improve our lives, by changing our dealings with others and even ourselves, not only the way we behave, but our attitude and approach to life.
A wise man is someone who possesses, who exudes this sort of knowledge in abundance.
I am not claiming to be a wise man, on the contrary, far from it, but I am claiming to be someone who’s interested in pursuing wisdom.

Now, many philosophers aren’t interested in wisdom, as I define it, but in knowledge, knowledge of knowledge, such as epistemologists, or knowledge of abstractions such as being, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
For me, these two branches of philosophy, epistemology and metaphysics, make philosophy little different than the branches of science, except they’re more abstract.
Perhaps philosophy ought to be called love of abstractions then, rather than love of wisdom.
Of the major branches of philosophy, ethics comes closest to what Englishmen mean by the word wise, because it’s knowledge of what has value, what’s good and moral, but much of it is far too abstract to have any discernable, tangible benefits.
Applied ethics often deals with more concrete issues such as abortion or war, but this is philosophers advising politicians, as if politicians care, many if not most of them are at best aloof and at worst psychopaths, not philosophers advising common people, who themselves are little better than politicians, perhaps worse.
Then there’s logic and aesthetics, politics and law, mind, some of these things social scientists study too, but perhaps in a more concrete or empirical way.

Now I’m not saying I loathe abstractions, I enjoy discussing epistemology and metaphysics as much as the next person here I’m sure, but what got me interested in philosophy initially was wisdom, wanting to improve my life and maybe even the lives of others.
It’s that original spark or spirit, that inspiration which I want to return to.
As we can see, from the beginning, from Thales onward, philosophy wasn’t about this, or at least, it wasn’t its principle occupation, abstractions were, abstractions about all sorts of things, from the natural world to politics.
The so called Hellenistic period, which gave rise to the Cynic, Stoic and Epicurean schools comes closest to what I’m talking about.
Since that era, philosophy has been increasingly impotent to affect our lives meaningfully, so no wonder it’s fallen by the wayside culturally.

What I’m interested in doing, it may not even be worth calling it philosophy, I’ll just call it wisdom seeking and life aesthetics, tastes or preferences, I want to separate my thinking as much from Greeks as much as possible, while still pursuing wisdom.
So much of our thinking and the way we organize ourselves socially and politically goes back to Judaism and Christianity, Greece and Rome (assuming we can trust what scholars have said about them, and we can’t really, but that’s another matter) and what was later built upon these edifices, but I now want to separate myself and my thinking from them as much as possible, and begin anew.
I think if humanity is to survive the coming centuries, it must reboot sort of speak.

In a society it’s important to have professionals and hobbyists, thinking and creating all sorts of things, to have some degree of specialization, but I’m growing dissatisfied with established classes of thinkers, and of course people always have to think for themselves too.
I think there needs to be a new, revolutionary class of thinkers devoted to addressing more pertinent questions, as opposed to miring in whatever riddles and paradoxes happen to be in vogue in their ivory towers and psychic labyrinths.
Scientists and philosophers busy themselves with all sorts of things but each of them are equally impractical in similar and different ways, and so no wonder our civilization is impractical, and probably unsustainable, our ‘best and brightest’ don’t help us as individuals and as a collective to improve our civilization or make a better one.
This should be the chief concern of thought, thought is human, it cannot or should not abstract itself from what matters most to us.
We shouldn’t merely think for thinking’s sake, but mainly to improve our lot.
Our time, energy and resources are being squandered on abstractions and things far removed from the affairs of men, when we don’t even know how treat ourselves, others or the earth from which we sprung, and so no wonder we’re so lost, and so philosophy and science must be destroyed, and replaced with something new, if we’re to survive the coming winters.
Philosophy and science themselves are hedonistic and decadent, it’s knowledge or information hedonism, hoarding, and so we must all go on a diet and do some spring cleaning, decrease the quantity/increase the quality of thought, we must all become more ascetic or disciplined in our thinking, and perhaps purge some Greek and Jew thinking from our thoughts.
Englishmen need their own artistic, intellectual and spiritual traditions, apart from anyone else.

[Only_Humean]

@Anomaleigh

Here’s how google defines wisdom:
noun: wisdom
the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment; the quality of being wise.

…

I may know more things about dogs than person A, I may know they’re vertebrates, mammals, carnivores, canines, that they were domesticated by man approximately ten thousand years ago, but if I go around yanking Pitt Bulls ears, am I wiser than person A, at least in regards to dogs?

Doesn’t sound like experience or good judgement, to me.

Now, many philosophers aren’t interested in wisdom, as I define it, but in knowledge, knowledge of knowledge, such as epistemologists, or knowledge of abstractions such as being, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
For me, these two branches of philosophy, epistemology and metaphysics, make philosophy little different than the branches of science, except they’re more abstract.

Why do you think that? How do you assess whether what you’re doing is wise, if you don’t know whether you’re right or what it is to be right? Are you content to be wise by accident, and if not, why not?

Applied ethics often deals with more concrete issues such as abortion or war, but this is philosophers advising politicians, as if politicians care, many if not most of them are at best aloof and at worst psychopaths, not philosophers advising common people, who themselves are little better than politicians, perhaps worse.

Would you rather delve into self-help books?

Now I’m not saying I loathe abstractions, I enjoy discussing epistemology and metaphysics as much as the next person here I’m sure, but what got me interested in philosophy initially was wisdom, wanting to improve my life and maybe even the lives of others.
It’s that original spark or spirit, that inspiration which I want to return to.
As we can see, from the beginning, from Thales onward, philosophy wasn’t about this, or at least, it wasn’t its principle occupation, abstractions were, abstractions about all sorts of things, from the natural world to politics.
The so called Hellenistic period, which gave rise to the Cynic, Stoic and Epicurean schools comes closest to what I’m talking about.

Aristotle’s ethics seem to be as close to what you’re looking for as anything. Bentham and Mill were all about improving lives. But you have to know what you’re improving, and be honest about how much of an improvement everyone’s going to find it.

Since that era, philosophy has been increasingly impotent to affect our lives meaningfully, so no wonder it’s fallen by the wayside culturally.

Politics is applied philosophy, like engineering is applied science. The scientific method was (and is) largely shaped by philosophers.

What I’m interested in doing, it may not even be worth calling it philosophy, I’ll just call it wisdom seeking and life aesthetics, tastes or preferences, I want to separate my thinking as much from Greeks as much as possible, while still pursuing wisdom.
So much of our thinking and the way we organize ourselves socially and politically goes back to Judaism and Christianity, Greece and Rome (assuming we can trust what scholars have said about them, and we can’t really, but that’s another matter) and what was later built upon these edifices, but I now want to separate myself and my thinking from them as much as possible, and begin anew.

Regardless of their conclusions, they developed some pretty powerful methods. If you’re not using them, you might run into unexpectedly convincing counterarguments. You, like everyone else, wants to translate your values into principles and actions.

Alternatively, you could go a more Eastern route and reject logic and language entirely, rely on a spiritual appeal.

In a society it’s important to have professionals and hobbyists, thinking and creating all sorts of things, to have some degree of specialization, but I’m growing dissatisfied with established classes of thinkers, and of course people always have to think for themselves too.
I think there needs to be a new, revolutionary class of thinkers devoted to addressing more pertinent questions, as opposed to miring in whatever riddles and paradoxes happen to be in vogue in their ivory towers and psychic labyrinths.

You said earlier you never studied philosophy, but read a few philosophers. How well do you know what you’re arguing against? It sounds more like a general prejudice you can’t be bothered investigating. Is that a problem for your philosophy? If so, why, if not why not?

Our time, energy and resources are being squandered on abstractions and things far removed from the affairs of men, when we don’t even know how treat ourselves, others or the earth from which we sprung, and so no wonder we’re so lost, and so philosophy and science must be destroyed, and replaced with something new, if we’re to survive the coming winters.
Philosophy and science themselves are hedonistic and decadent, it’s knowledge or information hedonism, hoarding, and so we must all go on a diet and do some spring cleaning, decrease the quantity/increase the quality of thought, we must all become more ascetic or disciplined in our thinking, and perhaps purge some Greek and Jew thinking from our thoughts.
Englishmen need their own artistic, intellectual and spiritual traditions, apart from anyone else.

See now, this is politics.

[James_S_Saint]

@Anomaleigh

…When I think of wisdom…I think of practical knowledge, knowledge virtually anyone can apply to their daily life to improve it.
.
.
The most important knowledge is that helps us all to dramatically improve our lives, by changing our dealings with others and even ourselves, not only the way we behave, but our attitude and approach to life.
A wise man is someone who possesses, who exudes this sort of knowledge in abundance.
.
someone who’s interested in pursuing wisdom.
.
.
Of the major branches of philosophy, ethics comes closest to what Englishmen mean by the word wise, because it’s knowledge of what has value, what’s good and moral, but much of it is far too abstract to have any discernible, tangible benefits.
.
.
It’s that original spark or spirit, that inspiration which I want to return to.
.
.
What I’m interested in doing, it may not even be worth calling it philosophy, I’ll just call it wisdom seeking and life aesthetics, tastes or preferences, … pursuing wisdom.
.
.
begin anew.
.
.
I think there needs to be a new, revolutionary class of thinkers devoted to addressing more pertinent questions, as opposed to miring in whatever riddles and paradoxes happen to be in vogue in their ivory towers and psychic labyrinths.
… improve our civilization or make a better one.
This should be the chief concern of thought, thought is human, it cannot or should not abstract itself from what matters most to us.
.
.
Englishmen need their own artistic, intellectual and spiritual traditions, apart from anyone else.

“Because it works like this, it is wise to do that.” - The impetus for metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology.

But okay, all in all, it sounds good. Although, I get tired of hearing how other people should do this or that while the one suggesting it just sits back and actually does nearly nothing. So let’s see how far this one goes.

When I went to investigate metaphysics, in effect, I formed a box labeled “Rational Metaphysics” (I wasn’t interested in any other kind). Then I wondered and wandered around finding bits of things that seem to belong in that box. Every now and then I would shake up the box, dump it out and see what all would fit together and become coherent. Eventually, skipping the extensive details, I built a crystal clear mountain of coherent metaphysics - the “Why” to anything and everything (“42” found to be only an approximation). And then thought, "All well and good, but isn’t it wise to pursue wisdom instead?" Sounds like that is what you are saying as well. And now that I have some serious experience building mountains from scraps, perhaps a new box as you suggest…

Such boxes have need of a special lid, a filtering lid that strains out the inappropriate pebbles from the valued jewels. Since this box is not merely something for one person to fill, a bit of coordination and communication is required (a larger burden for the filter). And that concern rationally leads us to the need for definitions for the words we choose and use concerning the content of the box.

So okay, a brand new empty box, label it “Rational Wisdom”. “Rational” because the word means the logical (rationed, coherent) pursuit of a chosen goal. And “Wisdom” because … well … that’s the chosen goal as loosely defined above in your post:

Wisdom ≡ “knowledge is that helps us all to dramatically improve our lives, by changing our dealings with others and even ourselves, not only the way we behave, but our attitude and approach to life.”

Okay. I have provided the box and fastened a filtering lid. How about you start filling it for us.

Enthusiastically awaiting.

[Arcturus_Descending]

James,

So okay, a brand new empty box, label it “Rational Wisdom”. “Rational” because the word means the logical (rationed, coherent) pursuit of a chosen goal. And “Wisdom” because … well … that’s the chosen goal as loosely defined above in your post:

What if the situation/circumstance call for something which doesn’t come out of the rational wisdom box?
Does wisdom have to always be based on the rational or logical?
Is there a box called “heartfelt” wisdom - wisdom which is applied as a result of “seeing” or “experiencing” a need in another thereby acting accordingly in an empathetic or compassionate way? with one’s heart/emotions as opposed to one’s mind?
Wisdom asks: Hot or cold, unrestrained or disciplined, balanced or topsy turvy, discreet or indiscreet, just a little or a lot more.
Wisdom is that which “sees”, “evaluates” and judges the direction to be taken.

Wisdom understands the definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. lol

[shellytrokan]

I deal in logical conclusions: should something exist if its replication would mean insanity? With respect to philosophy, I’m torn between the conflict of philosophy being nature, and its ability requiring no replication.
By the latter, I mean that philosophy possibly is only because of contrast (as many people don’t philosophise as people do), and therefore if the link is true, philosophy period shouldn’t be practised by anyone.

I’m more and more aware of causality, even being able to ponder if physics is dependent on contrast (culture, movie studios, late night shopping, nightclubs, chat shows and sports); overall, I’d posit that philosophy is redundant.

[Diekon]

@Anomaleigh

I never studied philosophy in school.
I’ve read a few philosophers, such as Plato, Hume, Rousseau, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.

When I think of wisdom, the English word wisdom, not the Greek word Sophia, which may be a poor translation of the English word wisdom, I think of practical knowledge, knowledge virtually anyone can apply to their daily life to improve it.

Here’s how google defines wisdom:
noun: wisdom
the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment; the quality of being wise.

The above definition seems unsatisfactory, a marine biologist may have experience, knowledge and good judgment, at least when it comes to marine biology, but would we say he’s necessarily wise?
Google has failed to capture what I, and I suspect many if not most people, mean by wisdom.

The definition didn’t qualify good judgement, i’d sooner assume it’s about people living their lives, then about marine biology specifically.

Google is not my authority, is it yours?
The way I see it the word wisdom, like any word, belongs to me/us (Englishmen) as much or more than it does google or any dictionary, and if that’s not how you feel about it too than you may stop reading, here.

I would say wisdom is a kind of knowledge.
I may know more things about dogs than person A, I may know they’re vertebrates, mammals, carnivores, canines, that they were domesticated by man approximately ten thousand years ago, but if I go around yanking Pitt Bulls ears, am I wiser than person A, at least in regards to dogs?
No, I am not, because I am ignorant of that which is practical, how to deal with dogs, how to behave around them.
I am ignorant of that which is going to offer person A, a real world advantage over me.
You could know very little about dogs, and still be wise in your dealings with them, if you know what’s essential, and that’s what separates wisdom from other knowledge, such as specialist or technical knowledge: it’s important, it’s like what separates book smarts from street smarts.
It’s knowledge that’s going to help one/us survive, and thrive.
The most important knowledge is that helps us all to dramatically improve our lives, by changing our dealings with others and even ourselves, not only the way we behave, but our attitude and approach to life.
A wise man is someone who possesses, who exudes this sort of knowledge in abundance.
I am not claiming to be a wise man, on the contrary, far from it, but I am claiming to be someone who’s interested in pursuing wisdom.

Now, many philosophers aren’t interested in wisdom, as I define it, but in knowledge, knowledge of knowledge, such as epistemologists, or knowledge of abstractions such as being, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
For me, these two branches of philosophy, epistemology and metaphysics, make philosophy little different than the branches of science, except they’re more abstract.
Perhaps philosophy ought to be called love of abstractions then, rather than love of wisdom.
Of the major branches of philosophy, ethics comes closest to what Englishmen mean by the word wise, because it’s knowledge of what has value, what’s good and moral, but much of it is far too abstract to have any discernable, tangible benefits.
Applied ethics often deals with more concrete issues such as abortion or war, but this is philosophers advising politicians, as if politicians care, many if not most of them are at best aloof and at worst psychopaths, not philosophers advising common people, who themselves are little better than politicians, perhaps worse.
Then there’s logic and aesthetics, politics and law, mind, some of these things social scientists study too, but perhaps in a more concrete or empirical way.

Now I’m not saying I loathe abstractions, I enjoy discussing epistemology and metaphysics as much as the next person here I’m sure, but what got me interested in philosophy initially was wisdom, wanting to improve my life and maybe even the lives of others.

Maybe it’s about both improving lives and about abstractions, and if you are missing one or the other, you either get bad philosophy or no philosophy at all.

It’s that original spark or spirit, that inspiration which I want to return to.
As we can see, from the beginning, from Thales onward, philosophy wasn’t about this, or at least, it wasn’t its principle occupation, abstractions were, abstractions about all sorts of things, from the natural world to politics.
The so called Hellenistic period, which gave rise to the Cynic, Stoic and Epicurean schools comes closest to what I’m talking about.
Since that era, philosophy has been increasingly impotent to affect our lives meaningfully, so no wonder it’s fallen by the wayside culturally.

I sort of agree but… It’s was all about abstraction, it was the origin of abstraction probably, which is why the ‘original spark’ was misguided. It affected out lives alright, but not necessarily in a good way. Now finally the mistake can maybe enable us to affect our lives in a good way.

What I’m interested in doing, it may not even be worth calling it philosophy, I’ll just call it wisdom seeking and life aesthetics, tastes or preferences, I want to separate my thinking as much from Greeks as much as possible, while still pursuing wisdom.
So much of our thinking and the way we organize ourselves socially and politically goes back to Judaism and Christianity, Greece and Rome (assuming we can trust what scholars have said about them, and we can’t really, but that’s another matter) and what was later built upon these edifices, but I now want to separate myself and my thinking from them as much as possible, and begin anew.
I think if humanity is to survive the coming centuries, it must reboot sort of speak.

Rebooting seems the wrong word, and sums up the classical philosophers mistake i think. Both that history of valuations and the by now refined methodology seems to me the two things we can take away from all this. Rather than rebooting, we can learn from past mistakes.

In a society it’s important to have professionals and hobbyists, thinking and creating all sorts of things, to have some degree of specialization, but I’m growing dissatisfied with established classes of thinkers, and of course people always have to think for themselves too.
I think there needs to be a new, revolutionary class of thinkers devoted to addressing more pertinent questions, as opposed to miring in whatever riddles and paradoxes happen to be in vogue in their ivory towers and psychic labyrinths.
Scientists and philosophers busy themselves with all sorts of things but each of them are equally impractical in similar and different ways, and so no wonder our civilization is impractical, and probably unsustainable, our ‘best and brightest’ don’t help us as individuals and as a collective to improve our civilization or make a better one.
This should be the chief concern of thought, thought is human, it cannot or should not abstract itself from what matters most to us.
We shouldn’t merely think for thinking’s sake, but mainly to improve our lot.
Our time, energy and resources are being squandered on abstractions and things far removed from the affairs of men, when we don’t even know how treat ourselves, others or the earth from which we sprung, and so no wonder we’re so lost, and so philosophy and science must be destroyed, and replaced with something new, if we’re to survive the coming winters.
Philosophy and science themselves are hedonistic and decadent, it’s knowledge or information hedonism, hoarding, and so we must all go on a diet and do some spring cleaning, decrease the quantity/increase the quality of thought, we must all become more ascetic or disciplined in our thinking, and perhaps purge some Greek and Jew thinking from our thoughts.
Englishmen need their own artistic, intellectual and spiritual traditions, apart from anyone else.

Yes, yes, yes, and no kindof… stay close to the earth, boo to scientists and philosophers (they’re mostly doing it for status and money…), diet by eliminatig bad ideas… but there’s no need to destroy science and philosophy altoghether, just to use it in better ways. We have no other methods.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

There are important points which need to be said in defense of philosophy.

The most important function of it, at least to some men’s minds, is that philosophical trends, tend to flow, from sources toward goals. When we read about these trends, patterns are discovered , and at times coincide with our own personal experience with them, reinforcing our views, or to offer substantial facts to help us along with our life’s experience.

Sometimes we discover hidden wealt within our own mind, and wonder, 'now, where did that come from?
The be-humbling effect of such discovery, gives us pause, to re-examine the traits which have worked in our favor, from those that have not.

If that is all, which philosophy has contributed to our life, it is more than enough, but the fact is, there is much , much more.