In Plato Phaedrus, Focault interpretats the object of love is truth and not beauty. For boys loves their master because he knows the truth not because they are homosexual.
If a philosopher means he desires for wisdom, then he does not possess wisdom. So who does, one who is not a philosopher? Is there one?
tell me , is focault right?
Can you define wisdom?
Words like ‘beauty’, ‘truth’, ‘power’, ‘perfection’, ‘god’ all insinuate a desire to approach an absolute state of being.
Truth and Beauty can be said to be manifestations of the same desire for completion expressed in different ways.
Both point to a need to find the perfect.
Is it wise to believe that one possess wisdom? is it not rather foolish, thus one always desires for wisdom, yet the destination makes no difference, only the journey.
I’m reading Bertrand Russell on the matter right now… and from what i’ve read so far my opinion is that Plato’s ideeas about love and politics should not be held up high because he was greatly influenced by Sparta.
Love was looked down uppon in the Spartan society and Plato inhereted that view. Also his “Republic” although it is a nice concept when you read it, in practice would turn out quiet awfull.
In my view his theories on the “Perfect, Eternal Ideea World” are the only one of real value because they’re the best metaphysical theories constructed by 1 man in history.
Also i appreciate the fact that he sees Time itself as one such ideea.
However we now know that time is not a universal constant but that it is relative.
So Colin McGinn’s theories on this matter; although borrowed i think from Plato make more sense.
Basicly instead of ideeas Colin sees the laws of nature as eternal and unchangeable and time is not one of them; asn time breaks down and is always depandant on velocity.
My definition of wisdom is something that is not wisdom. What is not wisdom is wisdom. So what does that mean? should i go on?
what is not wisdom mister two believes?
So I should go on, you perfer iman. I guess I am not crazy, and you would like to hear more.
Wisdom is something without a doubt , one does not need to think about.
IT is pure natural and pure instinct, pure logic, pure reason and all that stuff.
In example is a person who places life as the highest object, therefore he live life to the fullest, in the other hand, there is a person who places knowledge as the highest object, he may find invent or discover things but his life will certainity not be a happy one. This person will go on living and taste the bitterness of life without knowing salvation is the highest priorty for many and the individual. He needs to be enlighten by some mistical chance.
To sum up what is not wisdom, are, necessities of things . How are we going to acheieve this is certainty will be wisdom, because it is about life.
And if one wish to remain in the household life, money would be the highest necessity of all. How this is achieve , is really by how one is going to live by.
I disagree when plato saids in order for everyone to do good, every one must have one good skill, but I say one must have a dream worth doing, as long he did not renounce the houshold life.
So you can agree or disagree. I do admit that I am ignorant . The lazy ignorant one, who knows nothing. if I know, why would I ask many questions.
i see you love mass speechs to give, it is very soft your wisdom thing, there is nothing to disagree about and surely not to agree
Do you want to say that wisdom should be some kind of absolute state of being? Of what, then?
dan020350, so you’d say that wisdom is something genetically incorporated? And the “necessities of things” is not wisdom? Did I get you right?
there is nothing as you say, there is to BE from the moment you are, which means even in your dreams, positive OR negative that is all you can classify these words of useless desires of being outside the truth, act of positive take into account values and love and investments in solving any problem happened to you to see, at of course different levels of strength being, you dont need to talk about just feel this truth and admit it as the truth of all men, act of negative, not positive you desire from total inerty to pretend your blindness to what you can see to the pleasures to destroy all the positive acts, positive and negative, is your jesus duality, he alone can be both at the same time and very proud of that, he thinks that it makes him more large, duality is to void, inerty of death, what frustration is to feel a lot and never move a step, i cannot understand that, whatever, you are means both at each second, but it is as in balance somtiemes your acts could appear to say positives hopes more, usually it always minus that you are in and of
Everything is in the mind, that is all.
iman~
agree
To start, “love of wisdom” is not “desire for wisdom.” A person is capable of having and loving what he has.
Secondly, the acquirement of that wisdom did not have to come from a desire to receive it. There are plenty of instances of passive learning, where a person acquires and retains knowledge, as well as using it to the greatest benefit (These two qualifiers are a popular definition for wisdom.), but does not do so through some sort of objective desire to attain or retain it.
I don’t know much about Focault, but the aforesaid is my initial impression about the problematic assumption that a man possesses only what he intends to possess.
the love of wisdom and the desire of wisdom is the same.
what is the difference between you love someone while you desire someone?
no it is different, he is right absolutely right, desires are more to express your fears of the truth, justifying that you can be escaping to see what you feel you cannot, then to express your hopes of being what you are in real, certainty of being is in what you act positively, to love in acts is to be, and this cannot be unless you know what love is of God, i think your desire of love is coming of a sense to know love relatively, but if your desire say what you know are it is not making you be you have to see your actions to see if it was really that to say because desire is of everything we receive as human beings informations complete of different stimulations in factors combined to be
that is why i presume we are borned without the conscience of who we are so our acts would reveal to us and to others that would be for us another stimulation factor to act as we, as i picture the truth of receiving and giving, we all receive the same information level of truth in being human as God made it of one spirit from his depth to his will to say a depth of him in smallest conditionned body who would reach above by being in his acts of God depth in him, your desire is an information you receive touching your soul of all she can be in the reality infront, you would see in mind all could give you to be in the situation brought to you from the truth of being regarding the will, at that state it is the superior boss mind who is being talking in your brain and heart with what he sees of your soul of all you can be in his one being, i want to say that when the superior is in you it is always of your desires and always in one that cannot be outside all the major faces of beings combined in a level of one depending to your level of soul to be, but as your soul would choose one of these faces, fear the power be small of the desire to survive, or be in charge of your desire to free your soul from its submissions, whatever the face you choose to say your soul it is always appearance of one in all, as the superior mind would appear as all in one, which means that your acts would say one man being considering at the same time all beings in him of his one two, what i am trying to elucidate is the truth that God would not talk to you as one not only because He is too big for you to appear as one but more because you have to be one and choose it, it is his plan to proove that only God IS and HE IS BECAUSE HE IS and cannot be anything else than what IS, as all men are like all creations of God of His depth mostly if this is his plan to say for men, than all men would reach the depth at an end to be logically that is what He is making too, some will be more quick as they will suffer a lot from not being able to be in world made basically for whom are so far from the depth that they could feel being in any that denies it, and even pleased of what they feel so far that they want to deny the truth of God, i hope God could allow to whom are of his truth to be much more as they would make peace for all and paradise for them, but God is more in prooving his point against all who denies it, my fear is that would be the only end, that is why to confirm it all the saints died in pains why should be else when everything from the truest perspective is the same from the start till the end as God way to make it say what it is
He is more in using the ones of his point to give words and feelings to whom are not than to proove the point being in itself, that is why i say it seems like a story of God revenge that is all, his way of honoring his pride that is a shame of God i hope he will proove me being untrue saying that, but what is a hope but a desire to escape what you see as you see it all clear, hopes are for weaks like me but he said the best are who cannot the world well he said so much it doesnt mean anything, hoping is so humilating of not being able to be, this is not fair, He could made men of him suffer to be most closely to him than to be as him free above and forever happy to give and grow but he didnt make that, it is the same cd all the ways, to get some respect of who denies him in him from the weakest points of him to say him just to tell them i dont care and kiss my feets my dogs, i dont like that at all and that all it appear in real, nobody is here to love this is an adding proof, you seem to enjoy so much getting of the truth to feel more powerful to say i am, it is the sickness of neverending truth of God being first strength of pride which i am not
You could go into the etymology of philosophy and realize that the “love” (philos) involved is more or less a “feeling of kinship.”
Now, this feeling of kinship may lead me to desire more of it, as indeed you desire the things to which you have an affinity. However, it is also possible for someone to find the feelings of kinship he has with something to be sufficient as they are. They are not lacking, and so there is no need to desire them, to objectify them as an ends to possess.
There are plenty of things that I desire for which I do not have feelings of kinship. Masturbation, for instance, is not something that gives me a feeling of kinship with my hand, the act, or the benefits, even though I desire it on occasion.
If there are things I can desire that do not demand that love, and if there are things I can love without further desiring them, then love and desire are separate. Further, any consideration of love and desire to any one term (in this case, wisdom) also leads to a separation between meanings in predication.
Uh…thanks for hearty explanation of kinship. Take no offense, but I’ll try not to remember it.
