It’s about wisdom

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

It’s about wisdom

Does Winston Churchill qualify as a good example of a man of wisdom? Definitely!

In the spring of 08 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.

Does Winston Churchill qualify as a good example of a man of wisdom? Definitely!

I think that there are at least three forms of intellection: textual intellection is what we do when we reason in text form, artistic intellection is reasoning in artistic form, and practical intellection is what we do in our day-to-day living.

I think that one must acquire a significant degree of understanding in each of these three forms of intellection to qualify for the distinction of “seeing life whole”.

Winston was an accomplished painter, he was a historian with many books to his credit and he was accomplished broadly in practical intellection as he demonstrated in his political career.

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.
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.

2

If I may be so bold, the paths of wisdom are as individual as we are, but they all follow the same pursuit, Truth, with it’s aspects: science (natural law), justice, love and beauty (art)–the purely objective, blending into, the purely subjective. Learn what you’re good at (which is often what you like), and what you’re really not, then go from there.

3

Well said. Thank you.

What do yuou think about disinterested knowledge?

4

I think it’s a bad term since, if absolutely nobody is interested, then there will be no discovery or creativity and thus no knowledge or Truth. It’s called knowledge of no value, but what knowledge would that be. A corn flake in the shape of the state of Illinois sold for thousands of dollars recently. #-o And of course art works that no one appreciated during the author’s life have sold years later for millions. There’s intrinsic value and material value and they’re very hard to separate, and I’m not even sure it’s necessary to try. Even natural grandeur can be given a material value via a National Park pass, time on a telescope, or commercial dollars bringing it to our TVs.

The pursuit of Truth often leads to what others claim is of no material or intrinsic value, but the pursuer can have a vision of something’s personal value for himself, and the further insight that it could eventually be appreciated by others. Having the courage to pursue such a path in spite of the seeming opposition of everyone else is the true nature of faith, as opposed to the blind faith of the revealed religions. But you better be right. Imagine getting to the end of your life, only to find that your life’s work was merely the pursuit of a set of illusions–and further, without the opportunity, or fortitude, to admit that what you’d advocated was false.

5

Disinterested knowledge is the energy bunny. It generates the energy for exploration and for overcoming some of the inhibitions conscious reason places on the unconscious.

Studying disinterested knowledge is like taking off a month every year to visit a strange new land. Curiosity is reinvigorated and new meaning is created.

Knowledge is like a jigsaw puzzle. We have created many puzzles in coping with reality and when we received a new piece (knowledge) that does not fit our present puzzles we forgetaboutit. However, if through disinterested knowledge we have created new puzzles we might find a place for this new fragment of knowledge to fit, thereby this fragment becomes our new knowledge.

Our mind is constantly working for us and when we do not give it a worthwhile project, i.e. a new puzzle, it will just waste away in boredom or worry.

6

I disagree

it’s the otherway around , it is the unconscious which produces the consciousness

7

Coberst, I agree with all of your last post, it’s just the misleading label I’m disagreeing with. And for the record, I think our inhibitions are generated by both our conscious and unconscious, but it is the conscious that has the final say as to whether they influence our choices or not.

8

Unconscious thought forms 95% of all thought. Both cognitive science and psychology stress the importance that our unconscious plays in our life. Consciousness is the tip of the iceberg of our mental action.

In the 1970s a new body of empirical research began to introduce findings that questioned the traditional Anglo-American cognitive paradigm of AI (Artificial Intelligence), i.e. symbol manipulation.

This research indicates that the neurological structures associated with sensorimotor activity are mapped directly to the higher cortical brain structures to form the foundation for subjective conceptualization in the human brain. In other words, our abstract ideas are constructed with copies of sensorimotor neurological structures as a foundation. “It is the rule of thumb among cognitive scientists that unconscious thought is 95 percent of all thought—and that may be a serious underestimate.”

Categorization, the first level of abstraction from “Reality” is our first level of conceptualization and thus of knowing. Seeing is a process that includes categorization, we see something as an interaction between the seer and what is seen. “Seeing typically involves categorization.”

Our categories are what we consider to be real in the world: tree, rock, animal…Our concepts are what we use to structure our reasoning about these categories. Concepts are neural structures that are the fundamental means by which we reason about categories.

Human categories, the stuff of experience, are reasoned about in many different ways. These differing ways of reasoning, these different conceptualizations, are called prototypes and represent the second level of conceptualization

Typical-case prototype conceptualization modes are “used in drawing inferences about category members in the absence of any special contextual information. Ideal-case prototypes allow us to evaluate category members relative to some conceptual standard…Social stereotypes are used to make snap judgments…Salient exemplars (well-known examples) are used for making probability judgments…Reasoning with prototypes is, indeed, so common that it is inconceivable that we could function for long without them.”

When we conceptualize categories in this fashion we often envision them using spatial metaphors. Spatial relation metaphors form the heart of our ability to perceive, conceive, and to move about in space. We unconsciously form spatial relation contexts for entities: ‘in’, ‘on’, ‘about’, ‘across from’ some other entity are common relationships that make it possible for us to function in our normal manner.

When we perceive a black cat and do not wish to cross its path our imagination conceives container shapes such that we do not penetrate the container space occupied by the cat at some time in its journey. We function in space and the container schema is a normal means we have for reasoning about action in space. Such imaginings are not conscious but most of our perception and conception is an automatic unconscious force for functioning in the world.

[b]Our manner of using language to explain experience provides us with an insight into our cognitive structuring process. Perceptual cues are mapped onto cognitive spaces wherein a representation of the experience is structured onto our spatial-relation contour. There is no direct connection between perception and language.

The claim of cognitive science is “that the very properties of concepts are created as a result of the way the brain and the body are structured and the way they function in interpersonal relations and in the physical world.”[/b]

Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson

9

How does all of that relate to the generation of our inhibitions and will to make choices, particularly moral choices?

This is from a post I made not long ago on another forum. (I did a Google search and this what the only hit for this statement. :-k )

"I may have dreamt this quote, it’s been with me for years. I used to attribute it to Stanley Kubrick quoting somebody else, but I can’t find it anywhere. Just thought I’d ask if anyone had ever heard it before (maybe even know its source), as well as throw it out on the table for discussion:

‘If you can’t say what you mean, you don’t know what you mean.’

Failing the production of any source, I hereby assume credit."

10

If you value wisdom you should exalt Zarathustra, for he is the wisest man of all.

11

how so ?