Wisdom, knowledge, intelligence. None of these are natural categories, but socially constructed means by which we tend to describe various phenomena related to positive conscious activities.
You might just as well say that we start with wisdom enough to seek knowledge as gain wisdom from it. Or that either intelligence is the egg from which wisdom grows or vice versa.
None of this leads to understanding. Its more like restatement of assumptions and prejudices.
By the same token charateristics we decide are negative attributes we nominate as stupidity etc…
But one man’s stupidity is another man’s wisdom.
First, of course, I note that I may well be mistaken about what I have surmised regarding him here. We would have to focus in on a particular set of circumstances and explore the extent to which his value judgments either have changed over the years since we began these exchanges or have not changed much at all. The extent to which he still sees himself as a moral objectivist.
But mostly what “I” note with him is how he never seems to be all that far removed from “retort” mode with me. Or from out and out Stooge mode. The caustic inflection he can sustain that [to me] seems to revolve around the sort of contempt that objectivists over the years have reserved for me precisely because I am chipping away at their once rock solid Self.
Well, in the is/ought world anyway.
Not that there wouldn’t still be an enormous gap between what we think we know about each other here and all that there is to be known about each other. From, say, the perspective of what he still might construe God to be?
Please, let him note another example of this. I’m not able to grasp his point here in regard to God’s mysterious ways at all. Who referred to “the gap” here as if they were doing what wrong?
As for God’s mysterious ways, my main interest remains as always focused in on the existential relationships I explore here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=186929
The paradox here though is that even though I acknowledge “the gap” renders these exchanges as no less ultimately futile, I am still predisposed existentially to pursue them anyway. The rest being ineffably entangled in this…
“He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest.” John Fowles
…and [of course] godot.
Yes, and of course, that infinite microcausm h a ultimately been reduced to the imperceptible, none the less, it remains an enigmatic and variable juxtopisition between the real and unreal
That variences is a flow, a sign wave that is precipitously speeding up, so as to create the film of illusive reality for real.
That means that ultimately, one becomes his only certain observer.
Don’t perceive this waaaay out, rather way in.
Take it up with nasa.
And, come on, admit it, the only reason you responded at all here is so that you can – yet again! – call something that one of us posted “rubbish”.
My best guess:
Something or someone in your life must have really pissed you off. You can’t do anything about that so you come into venues like this one and take it out on all the rest of us. Mostly in regard to God and religion but it can really be about anything at all.
Right?
That’s what most interests me about you. Not what you post but why you seem compelled to treat others who don’t share your own fulminating fanatic dogmas with such contempt. Sure, I feel much the same incredulous bewilderment about those like, say, FreeSpirit1983. How on earth did they manage to think themselves into believing such…nonsense?
But that’s my “thing” here. Exploring not what they believe about God and religion and Saints and Hell, but how existentially they came to believe it given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.
I’ve been after those like phyllo here now for years in regard to that. But they almost always keep everything up in the intellectual or the spiritual clouds. Their “world of words” psychologisms – think Maia!! – that will probably keep them comforted and consoled all the way to the grave.
Insulting them changes nothing. Just accept that with so much at stake on both sides of the grave for them not much that folks like you and I bring up is ever likely to change much.
Stoicism is the only practical reaction that one can have in dealing with the moral and political and spiritual and religious objectivists.
That and the part where one of them might actually be right and does succeed in allowing me to pull myself up out of “the hole” I’ve dug myself down into philosophically.
Alan Sokal to meno:
Consider one or another spell check app, please: freeappsforme.com/spell-checking-apps/
It’s quite embarrassing. For both of us.
I didn’t say wisdom comes from knowledge, I said that wisdom is the APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE. You can have knowledge and not know how to apply it, which means you don’t have the wisdom to apply that knowledge.
Having knowledge and no wisdom is basically just an encyclopedia. It “knows” the facts, but can not apply any of it to a real life scenario.
One can be “book smart” and have no wisdom. They don’t know what to do with their knowledge. They don’t know how to apply their knowledge.
Chickens didn’t pop out of nowhere, they came from an egg. Asking where the egg came from is changing the goal posts! 
Nasa and all science and maths agrees with me.
Well, all science and the maths then seem to confirm that the gap between “I” and “all there is” just in the Milky Way galaxy alone is nothing short of staggering.
Thus there’s still this part: that what any of us agree or disagree about is embedded in the fact that we are all but infinitesimally tiny and insignificant specks of existence in the context of all there is. Thus further noting that what we think about God and religion and philosophy ILP style given the gap between “I” and the complete understanding of existence itself is nothing short of unimaginably staggering.
And, with you, this part:
None of this changes the fact that a light year is a DISTANCE.
The only thing that is staggering is that you won’t admit to a simple mistake
K: space/ time… in other words, they are one and the same, at least according to
Einstein…how would you sort out something that is one and the same? with
all that said, move on with your points…to insists on that one point, distance… time
is on the road to becoming pedantic…notice I didn’t say it was pedantic, just
holding to this point is on the road to being pedantic…
Kropotkin
Course , have had a rough patch along the way with insomnia , sorry bout that. Too late to edit.
Why can’t Biggus just admit that he made a mistake on the distance to Galactic Center and he meant to write “years” instead of “light-years”?
So much simpler and more honest than what he is doing.
Actually, the fact is that you accuse me of this when the points raised in bold above was taken from an article I read in regard to an assessment from nasa. So, if there is a mistake, I am not the one who made it. Besides, the point was that even if we could travel at 186,000 miles a second it would still take us four and a half of our years to reach that destination. The main point then being to note just how simply staggeringly immense just our own galaxy is in an observable universe containing about 200 billion additional galaxies: nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 … ly-thought
Now, in regard to your own particular “I” here what are the odds that those who don’t agree with everything that you say are talking “rubbish”?
Taking me back to this:
Let’s explore this together, okay? If nothing else, you may well succeed in embarrassing yourself less.
How did I make the mistake in merely noting an assessment from nasa above?
Oh, and when are you going to get around to responding substantively to the points I raised about the points you raised about me above. Think of all the additional mistakes you might find!!!
And mostly what I am doing with you is chipping away at whatever is left of your very own Real Me. Convince me that it is as rock solid as it once was 10 years ago.
After all, how else to explain your at times barely contained reaction to me? 
Even regarding something that is basically irrelevant to the point I am making about “the gap” in exploring what you think you know about abortion and Communism and all that there is to be known going back to all that none of us really know about the existence of existence itself.
Chip…chip…chip, 
Do you need someone to talk to?
Maybe you just did not understand what you were posting?
Why don’t you go back and look at your mistake?
The error is with you, not NASA.
You typed this
“To reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would take 100,000 light-years.”
This is bollocks.
Obviously you are not big enough to admit it.
This makes you look stupid.
Do you need me to explain your mistake again?
You are demonstrating exactly the sort of bullheaded intrasigence of the ILP Forum.
iambiguous is, of course, incorrect when he writes that it would take “100,000 light years” to reach the center of the Milky Way from here, and I’m sure he misread whatever NASA source he used.
From here, the distance to the center of the Milky Way is about 25,000 light years. This means that it would take light, which always travels at c in a vacuum, 25,000 years to travel from earth to the center of the galaxy.
How long it would take an astronaut to travel to the center of the galaxy is an entirely different matter. It would depend on his velocity.
What iambiguous meant to say is that it would take an astronaut 100,000 years, not light years, to travel from here to the center of the galaxy, but even this is true only if the astronaut were traveling at 25 percent of the speed of light. At different velocities, the transit time would be different.
No material object can travel at light speed. However, in principle anyway, space ships could be accelerated to an appreciable fraction of the speed of light — though almost certainly this can’t be done in practice, since the energy requirements would be, well, astronomical. The faster an object travels the greater its mass, hence the more energy that would be needed to accelerate it faster. For a material object to travel at light speed means it would need an infinite amount of energy, clearly impossible.
But if you could accelerate a ship to, say, 99 percent of the speed of light, then it could arrive at the center of the galaxy in a little over 25,000 years.
But there’s a catch! This transit time would only be as judged from the earth. It would be an entirely different matter on the space ship. The traveler’s clock, ticking normally, would estimate the transit time to the center of the galaxy as a few weeks, a few days, even a few minutes or seconds depending on how fast it was actually traveling. This is because space is relativistically length-contracted in the direction of the ship’s motion. So the trip could be quite short indeed from the standpoint of the ship if it were traveling very close to the actual speed of light. This fact, of course, is the root of the so-called Twin’s Paradox, which isn’t really a paradox.
The fact is that it’s 25,000 light years to the center of the galaxy, and if a traveler’s clock reads a few seconds to get to the center of the galaxy, then it’s a fact that his clock is WRONG!
If it took him 1,000 years according to his clock to get to the center of the galaxy, he MUST be saying he is traveling 25 times faster than the speed of light, because it takes light 25,000 years to get there!
I posted this 10 years ago:
Say a star was 100 light years away from you. It emitted light in the year 1911, and the light arrived at your position in the year 2011. Just as the light reached you, you started traveling towards the star at 2c (twice the speed of light). As you traveled towards the star you would be encountering younger and younger light from the star that was emitted after the original light that emitted in 1911 that reached you when you started traveling.
When you get to within 50 light years of the star, you will have traveled for 25 years, and traveled a distance of 50 light years. So the year is 2036, and the light that hits you there was emitted 50 years ago, so the light left the star in the year 1986.
When you get to within 25 light years of the star, you will have traveled for 12.5 more years (37.5 total), and traveled a distance of 25 light years (75 light years total). So the year is 2048.5, and the light that hits you there was emitted 25 years ago, so the light left the star in the year 2023.5.
When you get to within 1 light year of the star, you will have traveled for 12 more years (49.5 total), and traveled a distance of 24 light years (99 light years total). So the year is 2060.5, and the light that hits you there was emitted 1 year ago, so the light left the star in the year 2059.5.
When you get to the star, you will have traveled for .5 more years (50 years total), and traveled a distance of 1 light year (100 light years total). So the year is 2061, which is 50 years later than when you left in 2011, because you traveled for 50 years.