The Pursuit of Knowledge vs. The Pursuit of Wisdom

[Tomef]

I have been noticing, lately, how often and stridently most of the atheists that come here dislike the idea that they are being denied knowledge. It seems that no matter what someone else's opinion might be on whatever subject, they will demand to know how the other person presumes to know this. Even though the other person was only offering an opinion, and was not necessarily presuming or claiming to know anything. And in fact most of the atheists here base their atheism almost entirely on the idea that they cannot KNOW that God exists, and because they can't know it, they resent and reject the whole proposition.

I see this all the time in their constant demands for "evidence" (which for them means proof) and I am realizing that what they are really demanding is a way to KNOW that what someone else is proposing, is correct. They equate knowing with correctness, and not knowing with incorrectness. Thus, not knowing that God exists means that God's existing is incorrect.

Until now, I have been thinking that this obsession with "evidence" was just blind egotism. And I nick-named it the "kangaroo court" syndrome. Wherein the ego drives the mind to see itself as the indisputable judge of every other mind it encounters. And of course it bases all it's judgments on the presumption of it's on righteousness. Like the judge in a "kangaroo court".

And this was not an entirely wrong presumption on my part.

But it was not entirely a right presumption, either. As I am now realizing that this phenomena is not just an ego manifestation. It's also a manifestation of the idea that knowledge = truth (or at least ascertains 'correctness'). And those who are constantly demanding "evidence" (proof) are really demanding the knowledge that will allow them to accept whatever they are hearing from someone else as being correct (and therefor, true).

Knowledge, for them, is the currency of reality and of truth.

And yet I am not among them in this pursuit. So am I against knowledge, and truth?

No, but I do not believe, think, or feel that knowledge is the currency of reality or truth. I think WISDOM is. And wisdom does not come primarily from knowledge. Wisdom comes from experience and applied intelligence. Wisdom doesn't come from the facts, or the evidence, or the biggest data base and the strictest adherence to logic. Wisdom comes from how clearly we can we 'see' all that data and how creatively and adeptly we can assemble it, and disassemble it, and reassemble it differently, as needed. Knowledge is practical, but wisdom is 'meta-practical'. Wisdom IS 'meta'. It exists beyond the "evidence" and the "proof" and our pretensions of 'correctness'.

So I apologize to all those atheists for my presuming they were simply succumbed to their own intellectual egos. As I can now see that what they have succumbed to is the idea that knowledge = correctness, and correctness = reality/truth.

It's not that they are wrong about this. It's that they are chasing after the wrong Grail.

Interesting thread. I'm more of an agnostic, but some of the same applies. For me, it depends what the topic is. For beliefs about the supernatural, it's hard for me to accept anything but relative terms. For example, while I accept that supernatural phenomena in some sense or other may well exist, I think the notion that this or that fictional god-being, created entirely by people in written works of fiction, just happens to exist by dint of human belief stretches credulity too far. When it comes to more everyday things, for me it's more about the level of knowledge a person's opinions, or wisdom, is based on. Perhaps wisdom can be intuitive in a more general sense, but when talking about real-world events the greater the degree of knowledge and understanding, 9 times out of 10, the greater the correspondence between the opinion and reality.

 

[PureX]

God never appears, never says, never does, has no definition appropriate to an objectively real entity, and is only known to exist as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain.

So if you're arguing that God is a concept / notion / thing imagined in an individual brain, then yes, God exists in that way, though when it comes to details it's a different God in every brain..

But if you're arguing that God exists in external reality ─ the world external to the self, which we know about via our senses ─ then the same answer is appropriate as when someone asserts they have a real pixie, or unicorn, or working wishing well ─ show me.

I think that's a very lazy, arrogant response. And a very common one among those I mentioned in the OP.

And you seem to think that's unfair to God. If so, it's equally unfair to pixies, unicorns and functioning wishing wells too.

I think it's unfair to all of us, including you.

 

[PureX]

Interesting thread. I'm more of an agnostic, but some of the same applies. For me, it depends what the topic is. For beliefs about the supernatural, it's hard for me to accept anything but relative terms. For example, while I accept that supernatural phenomena in some sense or other may well exist, I think the notion that this or that fictional god-being, created entirely by people in written works of fiction, just happens to exist by dint of human belief stretches credulity too far. When it comes to more everyday things, for me it's more about the level of knowledge a person's opinions, or wisdom, is based on. Perhaps wisdom can be intuitive in a more general sense, but when talking about real-world events the greater the degree of knowledge and understanding, 9 times out of 10, the greater the correspondence between the opinion and reality.

... YOUR reality. Keep in mind that everyone is working with a different set of facts, a different degree of honesty and intelligence, and is therefor creating a somewhat different concept of reality in their minds than everyone else is. And this includes you.

So what you are really saying here is that you will reject their version of reality if it conflicts with your own. Because facts = knowledge and knowledge = truth. Your facts = your truth so if their facts contradict yours, their facts must be false.

This is a very common attitude these days and it is being used to tear us apart. But this is not an honest or accurate conception of factuality, or of how we assemble our ideas of reality from them, and how none of these ideas of reality are the truth of reality.

I think wisdom begins with our acknowledging this, and pursuing a different goal. One that we can achieve as opposed to one that we cannot.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Wisdom would avoid competition as competition is a wasteful and ineffective methodology. When it cannot be avoided it would be dealt with as a specific instance (subjective and relative). Which is an advantage of wisdom, not a flaw.

Any competition or comparison is wasteful and ineffective in all categories or are you only speaking to competing "Wisdoms"?

You seem to be missing my point, which is human beings are not identical automatons. They each are infinitely unique with differing needs and wants and as such, not every one is going to agree on what constitutes "wisdom", or correct action,, or what path or goal is best for the group, with group being any scale you choose.

I think this little conversation illustrates my point exactly, with our competing "wisdoms". My take would be that if the goal is to obtain "wisdom", to be wise, then gathering knowledge, as complete and accurate as possible, is essential and necessary prerequisite. You seem to be arguing that "wisdom" can be obtained independently and without regard to knowlege. Which of us is exhibiting greater "wisdom"? How do we judge?

It is clear that you do not like "nebulous notions". You want to KNOW that you are RIGHT. Just as the opening posts states. In fact, there is no being right in your mind unless it can be known (proven via the evidence/facts). Am I right?

I don't want to know that *I* am right, rather, I want to know what is. I want to know what things are and how they behave accurately and correctly. I will then use that correct and accurate understanding to inform my choices and action guided by my subjective preferences. And all this to be reconciled and coordinated with every other person trying to do the same thing.

 

[PureX]

If that was in a previous post, I missed it.

And in any case I don't understand it. If you can explain I'll address it. Incidentally, I'm not claiming anything is weird, just addressing those who do.


With more exact statements of what the poster is on about. Is that what you mean?

Incidentally, I think the base question is whether or not there is a single version of "what is" that we attempt to approximate with our theories. If the answer is yes, then my idea that we need better measurement has merit. If not, then maybe @PureX is on to something.

I would say that what is, is what is. There is no other. But that we humans are not and never will be capable of knowing what is beyond a very limited, subjective, and relative idea of it. And it's time we stop fooling ourselves about this, and stop pretending that we can: that knowledge = truth. When it doesn't and it never will. Because that fiction is making us crazy.

And I would suggest that we pursue wisdom, instead.

 

[PureX]

Any competition or comparison is wasteful and ineffective in all categories or are you only speaking to competing "Wisdoms"?

Wisdom does not compete. Wisdom does not pretend or presume to be truth. You are confusing wisdom with our presumptions of truth.

You seem to be missing my point, which is human beings are not identical automatons. They each are infinitely unique with differing needs and wants and as such, not every one is going to agree on what constitutes "wisdom", or correct action,, or what path or goal is best for the group, with group being any scale you choose.

I think this little conversation illustrates my point exactly, with our competing "wisdoms". My take would be that if the goal is to obtain "wisdom", to be wise, then gathering knowledge, as complete and accurate as possible, is essential and necessary prerequisite. You seem to be arguing that "wisdom" can be obtained independently and without regard to knowlege. Which of us is exhibiting greater "wisdom"? How do we judge?

Life will be significantly better for everyone. This is how we will judge that the pursuit of wisdom is superior to the pursuit of truth through knowledge.

I don't want to know that *I* am right, rather, I want to know what is.

You want to know that you are right about what you think 'what is', is. You want to " know the truth of it". And that is not possible. We humans do not possess the intellectual capacity for that.

I want to know what things are and how they behave accurately and correctly.

So you can control them. I know. All humans want to be in control of their own destiny. We want to be the gods of our own existence. But alas, we are not.

I will then use that correct and accurate understanding to inform my choices and action guided by my subjective preferences. And all this to be reconciled and coordinated with every other person trying to do the same thing.

So you imagine. But it's a pipe dream. So far, the more of that kind of control we humans get, the more we screw things up for ourselves. Because we pursue knowledge as a form of control instead of pursuing the wisdom to control anything effectively.

We need to pursue wisdom, first. Then control. And forget about knowing the truth of it all. That is beyond our reach. We should seek honesty, instead.

 

[Dimi95]

I am puzzled why you see this as an "attack". Especially when you claim that you are able to recognize their obsession with being able to 'know' the truth of things, to the degree that not knowing and not being able to show how one knows something by an objective materialistic standard equates to untruth.

Well , have you tried the more simple way?
I think that we need to stop seeking confort in discussions and challenge ourselfs.

I have been down that road a thousand times. And all you're going to get are nonsensically biased definitions, like, "atheism is the lack of belief in any gods that any theists believe in".
And "theism is believing in the abrahamic God of the Bible".

Not all Theists belive in the same God , i think that we can agree on that.They answer the Abrahamic , because it is the most 'popular'
If they have anything against the Abrahamic God , it's not a big problem,that's also solvable

This is the nonsense most of the atheists that come here are thinking. And they will not be dissuaded from it by ANY degree of logic you throw at them.

Well , from my side they can win all 'battles' , but they will never win in the most relevant one , and that is History.

You aren't going to get any meaningful conversation asking those questions.

I disagree , there are some who try to understand the importance of social Science.
Especially History.
As we can see that part of the forum has barely any discussions.
That's not their fault you know...
Well , at least i think so..
And i don't know really what do you belive about God , so that's how far i go..

Yes, but the ascertaining of facts and assembling them into imagined realities, useful though it may be, does not equate to knowing the truth. And this is the big fallacy that most of these "knowledge seekers" are holding onto.

Then each one of us makes 'imagined realities', not just them.
Have you looked at Theists side and how empty it looks.. ?
Like people have no "balls" and do not stand behind what they say.

Not particulary on this forum , but in general..

Not all people all interested in same things.
Do you think that everyone finds about the existence of God the same way?
I doubt that much.
Some find evidence in math language , some find it in nature , some find it in physics , some in philosophy and etc..
Well i find out about it in History.
You probably have found out in different way..

If we are, we are living out a fool's errand. Because no human is ever going to know 'the truth'.

I disagree and that is probably because i don't belive the same as you do.
I know God as a person

This is not possible for us. The best we can do is know sets of inter-related facts that are true relative to each other.

I disagree , discussions should not be generalized , but should be on the basis of precise details.

The "source of wisdom" is us.

I disagree , the source of wisdom is God.

It's simply our willingness and ability to assemble a vision of reality honestly and creatively and then keep reassembling it as appropriate. Wisdom is adaptive, not collective. We don't possess it, we engage in it.

Based on what you engage in it?

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. - Socrates.

Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure.

The true source of everything is called God.

So the source of evil is God , that's what you are trying to say ?

But what is God? No one knows.

Well this is not what majority of Christian Theist would answer.
We know God as a person..
That's what we know about God from History

God is the transcendent necessity source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

Yes , but God is not a robot that works for human kind to be always neccessary.
I think that we are given the things that we most need.

But what does that mean to a mere human? Not much.

'Pretty much' i would say..
Well , that's from Christian perspective obviously.

Until we choose to use the open possibility that this realization allows us (theology and religion). Then this god ideal can become very useful to us.

I have found History to be much better..
I don't know much about religious , but theology

No, I don't. What exactly are you objecting to?

Simpelness.

I am not here to correct anyone's vision. I already know this is impossible, and is not my place.

Good
Those who are honest do not do want that.And i belice you

It's not our buisness to correct anyone's vision , those who are interested and respecrfull will eventually ask questions.
But we can give advice , eon't you think?

I am here to share my observations and understanding with others. That's it. And to learn about how others see and think about the themselves and the world, as well.

Are you a Pantheist?

I don't know what that means. We are both, within ourselves.

When you discipline yourself , do you want it to do it in the way of 'slave' or in the way of a 'master'?

 

[Heyo]

I would say that what is, is what is. There is no other. But that we humans are not and never will be capable of knowing what is beyond a very limited, subjective, and relative idea of it. And it's time we stop fooling ourselves about this, and stop pretending that we can: that knowledge = truth. When it doesn't and it never will. Because that fiction is making us crazy.

And I would suggest that we pursue wisdom, instead.

So, you don't deny the first axiom of science, but only the third?

I agree with you in principle, but I disagree with your Nirvana fallacy. The unknowable only applies to scales where Heisenberg's uncertainty principle works. We can know much more than you believe, and not pursuing more knowledge is not always the wise thing to do.

 

[Dimi95]

And it's time we stop fooling ourselves about this, and stop pretending that we can: that knowledge = truth. When it doesn't and it never will. Because that fiction is making us crazy.

And I would suggest that we pursue wisdom, instead.

Knowledge is the basis of seeking truth and wisdom.
I think by what i see in your answers that you want to skip knowledge and truth and you want directly to take on wisdom.
Correct me if i am wrong.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Knowledge is the collection of demonstrably correct ideas

I think I understand what you are getting at here. I guess the phrasing gives me some pause because not all ideas fall into the binary of being correct or incorrect. Some ideas are simply abstractions we create because we find them useful, like currency or the rules for a sport or game.

Intelligence relates to problem solving using knowledge and at times, creativity.

I can buy that, I suppose. I'm in no way an expert in human cognitive science. What I find facinating here is that the capacity for problem solving is not uniform over every category of problem. This is mostly starkly illustrated in individuals with savant syndrome. Thus, high overall intellegence would mean a high problem-solving capacity over a broad spectrum of problem categories.

Thus intelligence leads to knowledge which is information that held us achieve goals whether immediate or long-term, and wisdom is the subset of knowledge that helps us achieve ultimate goals. If you think that wealth will bring happiness, the problem for you is to figure out how to acquire wealth. If you are intelligent, you may acquire the knowledge necessary to accomplish that. If you discover that wealth has not made you happy for long, you have been intelligent but not wise, but intelligence can rescue you here if you are able to notice that and readjust goals to those that might bring a lasting happiness. That's the beginning of wisdom. But you're not there yet. You only know that money doesn't buy happiness. But what will?

And I discovered it young enough to have time to create that life for myself. THAT's my definition of wisdom. If intelligence is the path to knowledge and knowledge and creativity the path to problem solving using that intelligence, then wisdom is solving the big problem: what brings lasting satisfaction (a type of knowledge) and how to make that happen (intelligence).

Interesting definition of "Wisdom", though definitely incongruent with tradition understanding and usage. By your definition above, Vladimir Putin demonstrates great intelligence *and* "wisdom" as he has achieved his goal of becoming the de facto king of Russia, takes great vacations hunting and riding bare chested in the great outdoors, and (so far) successfully wages wars to extend his kingdoms territiories. This all has probably given Putin great satisfaction over the years, but a what cost and expense of others satisfaction?

No, I still maintain that "Wisdom" is an antiquated, outdated, and vacuous term.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

So you imagine. But it's a pipe dream. So far, the more of that kind of control we humans get, the more we screw things up for ourselves. Because we pursue knowledge as a form of control instead of pursuing the wisdom to control anything effectively.

We need to pursue wisdom, first. Then control. And forget about knowing the truth of it all. That is beyond our reach. We should seek honesty, instead.

My characterizations are a pipe dream? Okie Dokie. Opinion noted. I stand by my assessments and opinions expressed.

As to knowing the truth of it all, it is obviously a work in progress, and it is progressing. That complete understanding of the Cosmos is currently well beyond our reach is no reason to stop working on furthering our understanding.

As to seeking honesty, I fail to see how that is mutually exclusive of seeking knowledge. Doesn't make sense.

 

[PureX]

So, you don't deny the first axiom of science, but only the third?

Science does not pursue truth. Science pursues knowledge of physical functionality. And nothing more. This is useful to us. But without the wisdom to apply the increased functionality that this knowledge gives us properly, we only manage to endanger ourselves and everything around us with it.

I agree with you in principle, but I disagree with your Nirvana fallacy.

I pose no "Nirvana". So you are arguing with a projection.

The unknowable only applies to scales where Heisenberg's uncertainty principle works. We can know much more than you believe, and not pursuing more knowledge is not always the wise thing to do.

Knowledge without wisdom is dangerous. Wisdom without knowledge is not. So logically, we should pursue wisdom first. Then knowledge, and the manipulative control it gives us.

But first and foremost we need to get honest with ourselves and stop pretending that we are pursuing truth, or that we would even know the truth if we found it. The pursuit of knowledge is NOT the pursuit of truth. It is the pursuit of control and manipulation pretending to be the pursuit of truth.

And if we do not get honest with ourselves about this, we are going to suffer a tremendous reckoning. Maybe one we will not survive at all.

 

[PureX]

Knowledge is the basis of seeking truth and wisdom.
I think by what i see in your answers that you want to skip knowledge and truth and you want directly to take on wisdom.
Correct me if i am wrong.

You are wrong.

The pursuit of knowledge is not the pursuit of truth. It is the pursuit of a means of control.

We humans cannot know the truth. We can only live in it ... wisely or stupidly.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think I understand what you are getting at here. I guess the phrasing gives me some pause because not all ideas fall into the binary of being correct or incorrect. Some ideas are simply abstractions we create because we find them useful, like currency or the rules for a sport or game.

I don't use the word correct, true, fact, or knowledge to describe such ideas.

By your definition above, Vladimir Putin demonstrates great intelligence *and* "wisdom" as he has achieved his goal of becoming the de facto king of Russia, takes great vacations hunting and riding bare chested in the great outdoors, and (so far) successfully wages wars to extend his kingdoms territiories. This all has probably given Putin great satisfaction over the years, but a what cost and expense of others satisfaction?

If he were happy because of the choices he has made, he would meet my definition of wise.

But he's not happy. He lives in fear for his life. I don't. You probably don't either. That makes us wiser.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

We humans cannot know the truth. We can only live in it ... wisely or stupidly.

We live in a truth we cannot know? Can't know at all? How, pray, are we to live in it wisely?

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

I don't use the word correct, true, fact, or knowledge to describe such ideas.

Then we are on the same page. The word "idea" is quite broad, I just wanted to highlight that.

If he were happy because of the choices he has made, he would meet my definition of wise.

But he's not happy. He lives in fear for his life. I don't. You probably don't either. That makes us wiser.

Whether Putin lives in fear for his life is beyond my capacity to know. Whether living in fear for his life would be a problem for him is also beyond my capacity to know. We are in the realm of the subjective and one can't assume that one's personal needs, wants, fears, and anxieties can be uniformly projected onto everyone else.

Putin may feel that the risk to his life is noble and more than worthwhile if his goals are being achieved, and consequently adds rather than subtracts from his satisfaction.

 

[PureX]

We live in a truth we cannot know? Can't know at all? How, pray, are we to live in it wisely?

You inserted an extreme here: "Can't know at all". Why?

We can ascertain many facts. And these facts can be deemed true or untrue relative to other facts. What this means is that what we can know by way of the facts, we can only know to be RELATIVELY true. But ascertaining the relative truthfulness of some concept of reality by way of the facts we have is not the same as ascertaining the truth of it. Because that same concept could very easily be deemed untrue relative to a different set of facts (context) that we do not have. And we humans can never ascertain ALL the facts, nor would this tell us the whole truth unless we were far more intellictually capable than we are.

So we need to stop lying to ourselves about ascertaining the truth by knowing the facts. It just doesn't work that way. Not for we humans, anyway.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Knowledge and truth are both, imo, more difficult to define, and to identify, than is wisdom.

 

[Dimi95]

You are wrong.

The pursuit of knowledge is not the pursuit of truth. It is the pursuit of a means of control.

We humans cannot know the truth. We can only live in it ... wisely or stupidly.

Yes we can , if the truuth is God alone.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

You inserted an extreme here: "Can't know at all". Why?

To hopefully prompt you to elaborate as to the extent to which you think we can't know, which it appears has worked.

We can ascertain many facts. And these facts can be deemed true or untrue relative to other facts. What this means is that what we can know by way of the facts, we can only know to be RELATIVELY true. But ascertaining the relative truthfulness of some concept of reality by way of the facts we have is not the same as ascertaining the truth of it. Because that same concept could very easily be deemed untrue relative to a different set of facts (context) that we do not have. And we humans can never ascertain ALL the facts, nor would this tell us the whole truth unless we were far more intellictually capable than we are.

So we need to stop lying to ourselves about ascertaining the truth by knowing the facts. It just doesn't work that way. Not for we humans, anyway.

Here is my problem. When you say "we need to stop lying to ourselves about ascertaing the truth by knowing facts", it is unclear to me whether your use of "the truth" here is refering to "The Truth", as in a complete understanding of the Cosmos and all it contains, or it simply means true things about the Cosmos in general. You seem to concede that we can know facts, which by definition are true, and therefore truths.

Since you seem to concede that we can know facts about the world, and over the course of history we have used facts along with trial and error, experiments, and study to aquire more facts, I am not seeing where lying comes into the equation.

Since this process of knowledge aquistion is clearly working, I don't understand what you are trying to say. We are clearly and continually expanding our understanding. I don't think anyone who ascribes or supports this process make any claims as to knowing "The Truth" in it's entirety. Quite the contrary, in fact.

There are those who do claim access or knowledge of "The Truth". Wouldn't it be those who were lying to themselves?