Who is your nominee for wise person?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Who is your nominee for wise person?

Some consider that wisdom is “seeing life whole”

John Henry Newman wrote that the pursuit of knowledge will “draw the mind off from things which will harm it,” and added that it will renovate man’s nature by rescuing him “from that fearful subjection to sense which is his ordinary state.”

Modern parents and students want universities and colleges to focus on matters of importance; how to get a good job. It seems that few recognize that education has an extrinsic and an intrinsic value. The extrinsic value is contained within the fact that a practical education is the key to making a better living.

What is the intrinsic value of learning? Why study history or literature or religion? Of what value is philosophy? Why study logic or how to think when I only care about learning how to build a bridge? Of what value is it for me to become a critically self-conscious thinker?

Everybody comprehends how the intellect can be used to build bridges, or repair a broken bone, or be an accountant but our culture has slowly removed from our comprehension the purpose of an ordered intellect in matters of providing meaning and purpose to life.

It appears that the mind has its own ‘grammar’ (system of rules). Many forms of thinking, i.e. math and music or logic, help us construct a solid structure for exercising this grammar. Other types of knowledge, i.e. history, help us because we understand the present through analogies with the past.

Creativity is greatly enhanced by the cross-fertilization of multiple sources and kinds of knowledge. The broad scope afforded by a liberal education prepares us to see things in ‘the whole’; we see things holistically (in combination, in completeness, not dissected or fragmented).

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”.

How do I ‘get ready’ for becoming wise?

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 of mind; mentally I must have curiosity, caring, and an orderly mind.

Understanding is necessary for wisdom. 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.

Winston Churchill is my nomine for wise man. He 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.

2

Zarathustra.

3

Michaelangelo. He kept to himself, didn’t get into sex scandals like Leonardo. Also, the statement “My work is my wife” scores him browny points in my books. A very focused man, who also died a very rich man, in contrast to Leonardo, who died an unbelievably poor man. Not that money equals wisdom but it does equal time well spent.

4

The nominee of the wisest man, would be Jesus. He is not just limited to
philosophy, but to all things outside it and beyond it.

5

I like Jesus, or rather the idea of him, because I regard him as a type of socialist who had time for everyone. I see eye to eye with Jesus. I believe most of society’s problems are born from a lack of discipline, acceptance and a fear that others will beat us at things in life ( a.k.a capitalism ). I tend not to like Nietaschean theories for this reason. The will to power causes an endless spiral of fear and competition and replaced inadequacy, which will make people unhappy to the last person. I prefer “The Will to Beauty”, not beauty as in “looks” [ please God no ], but beauty as in an entrancement and amazement at discovering things and making things. Power should not be the basis, but rather intrigue. Culture, art, music, numbers, philosphy, it should all be discovery. We are hampered and depressed by notions of “having to be the best” etc. Also, Nietzsche needed to gather a greater appreciation for the common man, the one who is not a genius in talent but in morality and basic survival, for otherwise these people become alienated and unloved and rebel against the “upper classes” anyway. The line between summarising and helping to formulate people and their actions is a very thin line.

6

Dick Cheney. His brilliance is misunderstood by the common man. History will be kind to him, it’ll just probably take 500 years.

7

Anyone semi-autistic.

-OKcomputer

8

Yes, you mention an important point – the idea of Jesus.

Since Jesus’ historicity is in question, what about looking at what Jesus stood for?

Same as Lao Tzu and Taoism.

Whether Lao Tzu was myth or real, we look at the teaching and no so much at the man.

Although, some of the teaching of heaven and God lose authority if Jesus is myth.

But teachings on charity and good will do not and are independent of Jesus’ historicity.

9

By the criteria outlaid above, the sermon on the mount alone is enough to confirm Christ as this Wise Person, but also, when considering Musi’s lovely idea, the most beautiful (and I too, prefer beauty, to power, to perfection and more).

In my years I have declared his non-existence with militant ferver, other times, cursed his name, but, all the while, were I ever to hear the slightest snippet, “consider the lilies of the field” or whathaveyou, and I’d go weak at the knee.

Beauty is truth, truth beauty.

10

I prefer the specification of philosophy as the “Science of Inquiry.” By this definition, my regard for the greatest philosopher is whomever is left as the most effective scientist regarding inquiry. That comes close to the “wisest” person. But the term “philosophy” was wisely rooted as a “wisdom lover.” In that case, whom was most willing to sacrifice for wisdom? With a great lack of knowledge in history and the psychology of historical people- I consider it impossible to know right now.

I suppose to get to the point, Nietzche is one famous person that seems to reflect my own ideal well.

11

Kahlil Gibran, with his “unique brand of mysticism.”