But this begs the question of applying knowledge effectively and appropriately according to whom?
Exactly the kind of question that we need to be asking ourselves.
If each of us is a unique product of our genetic makeup and set of life experiences, then there are as many differing opinions on the matter as there are individuals. Wisdom is subjective and differences would have to be resolved politically.
Wisdom involves the imposition of criteria upon the application of knowledge. So what will this criteria be based on? What will be it's goal(s)? What should they be? What shouldn't they be? These are not political questions, they are philosophical questions. And they are the very questions we humans need to be asking ourselves and each other at this moment in history. Not; "how does this work so we can manipulate it to our advantage?"
Ok …. Not sure if we’re in agreement here or you are trying to explain how I’ve missed the mark.
Just pointing out one of several reasons why art is important to the well-being of humanity.
Today’s complex interwoven institutions of social norms, religion, and government are the culmination of millennia of social evolution that all began with an instinctual social animal, whose behavior early on was most likely very similar to other pack and small group mammals. That is where intergroup dynamics began and set the stage for all that has followed. I'll skip going into detail as to how religion evolved from that beginning.
Religion and politics are just the social expression of our collective human nature. They didn't create us, we created them. They are the institutional reflections of who and what we already are.
In terms of religion, are you saying that society needs an institution that requires society members to periodically review and affirm social norms and values in the presence of others as a proactive way of encouraging compliance, as opposed to simply relying on legal institutions to act as a deterrent by providing a mechanism for punishment of transgressions upon social norms and values?
Our "legal institutions" are just imposed reflections of who we already are. They do not create us, we create them. And how wisely or unwisely we do so will determine how well or badly we live.
There may be something to that, but it still brings us back to how we decide what the social norms and values are and why.
Yes, that is one of the very important questions that we need to be asking ourselves and each other right now, but we are NOT asking, because we are instead obsessed with ever new and more technological trinkets, and the illusion that we are ever more in control of our own destinies as a result. (We aren't.)
It also means that everyone in the society would need to be reviewing and affirming the same set of social norms and values to have a hope of achieving the desired result, which means there can be only one “religion”.
Religions can't tell people what to think. Some of them try, and some people want that, but by and large that just doesn't work. And no one wants it to. Instead, religions invite people to think for themselves, and about themselves: to self-reflect, and to consider their relationship to a world that's bigger and at least as important as they and their own desires are.
There are probably 100 churches in the county I live in, and in nearly every one of them this Sunday the sermon will be about asking how we are failing to live up to the ideals that we consider to be divine, and how we could perhaps do a little better in that regard in the future. Sure, there will be a couple of preachers spewing hatred and condemnation toward the "sinful world" and all that, but they will be by a great margin, the oddities.
And where else in our culture are people being invited or inspired to reflect on exactly those kinds of questions; that we need to reflect on to begin to define and understand what wisdom might be, as opposed to knowledge and control? Perhaps in a college level philosophy class? But even there, it will tend to be presented as an "intellectual lesson" rather than an earnest quest. Is there even any real philosophical debate going on anywhere, anymore? Certainly none that an average citizen would ever encounter.
Except perhaps in church.
I thought it was clear that I am suggesting people cling to obsolete belief systems.
So what? People cling to new equally idiotic belief systems, too. 'Scientism' being an excellent case in point.
I am also all for existential inquiry. I am all for spitballing, hypothesizing, speculating, ruminating, and guessing about any topic you care to name, but I also expect such activity to be treated as such and viewed with appropriate skepticism and reserve until there is sufficient support to justify greater confidence in whatever conclusions may result.
It doesn't work that way. We aren't going to think and talk our way to becoming wise. We're going to have to engage in it as an actual deliberate quest, and be willing to play a bit part in a much bigger saga. But none of this is happening now, nor will it happen so long as we are all completely distracted and obsessed with our technological trinkets, and with the illusion that we can or will somesay control our own destinies if we can just figure out how it all works so we can manipulate it all to our advantage.
Belief/believe is one of those squishy words that have lots of colloquial connotations. I rather like your notion that “belief systems” assign firm answers to the unknown, which is exactly what I take issue with and advocate against.
Me too. I see "belief" as a kind of mental/emotional illness. Like an addiction. Because it's fundamentally dishonest, and dishonesty is the long dark hallway that leads to insanity and the death of the mind. But you seem to only see belief as belief in some religious god-image. And you ignore faith all together even as faith is the antidote for the sickness of belief. Whereas this new belief in science as the only true pathway to truth is just as sick and twisted as any religious zealot's unquestioned belief in his mythological, inerrant god.
Nothing can be believed about the unknown for it is just that, unknown. Given that, I suppose what I advocate is ‘knowing’ instead of believing, with knowledge being a reasoned expectation based on experience. Whatever is known is known only within some range of confidence depending on what supports and corroborates the knowledge. What we do with that knowledge is subjective preference. I am all for setting “belief” aside.
All we humans will ever know will be a bunch of facts that are only true relative to other sets of facts. That isn't knowledge, really, because it's partial, fleeting, and dependent. And it's certainly not wisdom.
As to religion broadly having both positive and negative impacts, I do not disagree. What I would ask is whether the positive aspects can be achieved by other means and methods.
It doesn't matter, because it is NOT being achieved by any other method, currently, with the rare exception of fine art. It's barely being achieved by religion. And anyway, who cares what the method is being called? The point is that we are being invited to reflect on ourselves, and on our ideals, and on our relationship with the world around us. And we are being invited to ask ourselves about the values, meaning, and purpose that we are currently ascribing to life, and if these define the human being that we really would like to become. Because it's in asking these kinds of questions that we will finally begin to confront our own lack of wisdom. And perhaps begin to see the steps we need to take to gain some for ourselves.
). I suspect that you would not be in favor of eliminating sexual reproduction and pivoting solely to implantation of genetically modified human eggs. Since early childhood development can have a large impact on a person, you would also have to raise the genetically modified babies in a controlled environment to avoid undesirable behavioral contamination or an insufficiently stimulating environment. Heck, might as well hold on to them till they reach adulthood just to be sure. Of course there is also the issue during the experimental phase of what to do with the attempts that do not meet the mark. Oh, and the issue of what marks we should actually be shooting for. So what do you think? Shall we unleash the full force of scientific ingenuity to create better humans? No?
