The Pursuit of Knowledge vs. The Pursuit of Wisdom

[plodding inarticulateness]

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

Then by all means, define "wisdom".

 

[RestlessSoul]

Then by all means, define "wisdom".

The ability to use one’s knowledge and experience to make good judgments.

 

[Heyo]

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

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.

I interpreted that as "we can't know everything, so we shouldn't try to know anything" (exaggerated, but that's the gist I got).

 

[Tomef]

... 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.

Think over your own words - there are contradictions in what you are saying. At best you are partially right. The problem with this approach is that it is often taken far beyond its own scope of validity. Some people appear to misunderstand concepts put forward by postmodernist philosophers as some kind of 'everything is relative' free for all, and end up mired in indefensible positions that aren't really arguments, but just a series of random assertions.

There are plenty of examples in current events that demonstrate the difference between real and imaginary events, to different degrees. To what degree there are true ideas about these events does indeed depend on the facts that can be brought to bear. Was there, as Trump claims, massive election fraud in 2020? The answer is no, since this is supposedly something that took place in the real world and yet no facts can be brought to bear to demonstrate it, and plenty of facts can be brought to bear to demonstrate it is false. Hence it is proven to be true that there was no significant fraud in the 2020 election. Stepping down to a less clear cut example, is it true that Trump incited the 6 Jan rioters? While it seems obvious that if Trump had not been preparing the way with allegations of vote rigging since before 2016, and so it seems evident that the riot would not have taken place without his influence, can this be claimed as a fact, as true? Not without some hesitancy, as the whole business involves so many people and other possible influences that it would be difficult to establish the exact chain of events for each person involved.

Someone who claims there was massive election fraud is then categorically wrong. However much they may believe this to be true, their belief does not correspond to the actually reality of the situation they have a belief about. In this case saying it is 'true for them' is utterly meaningless, either the fraud happened, or it didn't, and it demonstrably didn't. Whether or not someone believes they were motivated by Trump to ransack the Capitol on Jan 6 is a different type of question, as it is no longer a straightforward question about factual events. It's the same type of question as 'does a Russian soldier killing civilians in Ukraine personally believe they are Nazis'?, i.e. did that individual soldier somehow form, entirely independently of state media, the opinion that Ukrainians are indeed Nazis, or was he led to believe that by someone else? If asked, could he be taken as a reliable narrator? Could someone else figure out at what point and why he started to believe that? What can be said is that the 'alternative facts' about widespread Nazi support in this case are, once again, objectively false, regardless of what some person believes. The only questions are why the person believes what they believe, despite the objective falseness of those ideas.

The only domains where the ideas you are trying to express have validity are questions of belief and interpretation. Is Russia right to invade another country in order to regain its own great power status is a question that cannot have a definitive yes/no answer. This is not because people have 'different facts' but because they interpret the meaning of that question and what it refers to differently. Are there real supernatural phenomena? This is not a question that can be answered according to known facts, only perspectives and belief can be offered.

Your OP was good, but trying to bundle everything together under an umbrella of relativism is like trying to make any other kind of absolutist claim, a contradiction in approaches. Everything isn't relative, but some things are, and your point only makes sense in relation to the latter.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

The ability to use one’s knowledge and experience to make good judgments.

"Good judgements" as evaluated by whom? Seems arbitrarily subjective and simplistic. I get the feeling that the traditional use of the word somehow implies more.

 

[Tomef]

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Ha, that was great. Thanks for sharing.

 

[RestlessSoul]

"Good judgements" as evaluated by whom? Seems arbitrarily subjective and simplistic. I get the feeling that the traditional use of the word somehow implies more.

Yes, the evaluation of wisdom is entirely subjective, that's the point. Since we experience life subjectively, we have no trouble recognising subjective phenomena. It's objectivity we struggle with, since no objective paradigm is available to us experientially. Truth and knowledge are, at least in principle, objective phenomena and therefore very difficult to access or affirm.

 

[PureX]

Yes we can , if the truuth is God alone.

That phase doesn't really mean anything. It's like saying "everything is everything". It's logical, but it's neither informative nor performative.

 

[bobhikes]

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.

I'm agnostic my definitions are:

Knowledge is correlated data
Wisdom is the application of knowledge
Truth is applicable universally. (Meaning if there are exceptions it is not truth)

 

[Dimi95]

That phase doesn't really mean anything. It's like saying "everything is everything". It's logical, but it's neither informative nor performative.

Well , yes , and that is because you know God in different way , probably..

I don't want to sound like doing apologetics , but we say that God is the truth for a reason.
That's a claim that is made by Jesus himself in the Gospels.

I don't agree with "everything is everything" since maybe you refered to it as a Pantheist.
Am i wrong to say that you are Pantheist?

You sound like one.

 

[Alien826]

In Orthodox terminology the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are called three divine persons. Person is defined here simply as the subject of existence and life—
hypostasis which is in the traditional church 'language'.

I wasn't expecting that! I do consider the concept of the Trinity to be "weird", not because I feel that most God concepts are weird, though I do, but because it seems to have an inbuilt contradiction (one God versus three Gods) which believers seem to be quite comfortable with. But that off topic and perhaps the subject of another discussion.

A theory about something has to be falsifiable in order to be considered a scientific hypothesis. The statement "all cats are gray" is falsifiable, because you can observe many cats and prove that it's false.
Unfalsifiable claims, which often pop up in conspiracy theories, can't be tested — it doesn't mean those beliefs are wrong, just that they're unscientific and impossible to prove.

non- always means "not".
un does not mean not , well yes in one case but when un- is used with an adjective it suddenly means "not".

To me unscientific means not based on or exhibiting scientific knowledge or scientific methodology : not in accord with the principles and methods of science.
This can be misunderstood and people often find themselfs in misconception.
There are branches of social Science that have much to say about the scientific method.
The scientific method works because it is consistent in every branch of Science.

Use of Scientific Method in Social Science for UGC NET Sociology Notes

Learn about the use of scientific method in Social Science in detail for the UGC NET Sociology. Also find a few related faqs and also key highlights of the article.

testbook.com

The historical events to be mentioned cannot be recreated and it is not possible to establish laws of history that remain true irrespective of the time and space.
Hence, it may not be possible to use the method of laboratory experiments and observation in historical research.

An experiment is a procedure designed to test a hypothesis as part of the scientific method.
Experimentation is often described as a method, approach, a test, a tool to generate evidence.
I can't say the same for everyone , but i have encountered those who don't understand the difference between them and i have noticed adressing some questions with wrong answers just because of silly mistakes.


I did my best to provide the information.
I understood that in the last part of your first answer and i agree with it.

OK, to all the above. I think that some subjects are less easily approached with the scientific method, but that doesn't mean it has to be abandoned altogether. In particular, the scientific method attempts to remove subjectivity as far as possible, and that can, and should, always be attempted.

Well , i think that He is a Theist adressing Atheist.
That's how j see his OS.

I'm not sure if @PureX is a theist according to the usual definition, but he does have a point where he wants to abandon evidence as a means determining truth.

I don't support his way of doing things , because it's just too many misleading words.Answers have to be clear and simple and easy to understand them.

Agreed.

I think that the measurment was always the same and that is the scientific method.
We didn't invent it , we discovered it.
To me , as i said i trust it because it is consistent in all science.
It is those who make science to be only natural and formal that should ask themselfs about the social part of it.
And 'Social Sciences' as part of science has its own History.
Rules change because in History it is very hard to force the answers to come out of lab , almost impossible..
Well lab helped about important things on the way , but that is not the driving force of it.
But rather experimentation is what helped historians to distinguish between myths and actual events.
I think that Atheist lack knowledge in History and Social sciences and PureX confuses that with 'ego'.
That's my opinion..
I totally belive an Atheist when he says that he sees no empirical evidence of God.
And most Theists have failed to demonstrate what empirical means and to opose some set of definitions.
Empirical aplies to observations and expiriences in all Science.

Is that definition OK?

Yes.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Yes, the evaluation of wisdom is entirely subjective, that's the point. Since we experience life subjectively, we have no trouble recognising subjective phenomena. It's objectivity we struggle with, since no objective paradigm is available to us experientially. Truth and knowledge are, at least in principle, objective phenomena and therefore very difficult to access or affirm.

So "wisdom" is that which conforms to my prejudice and bias. This does not seem to rise to the level of gravitas some give this word.

 

[Alien826]

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.

Well good. That's somewhere to start from.

Agreed that ultimate knowledge may never be attained, but why does that mean we should give up trying to attain it? I suggest the opposite, because the search for "the truth" has proved to be so very useful. I'm pleased that medical science didn't "give up " searching for greater knowledge, for example.

I'll start with a simple example which I don't see how you can disagree with. I want to get from point A to point B. I ask three people who say "go north", "go south" and "go west". These are all subjectively true (assuming honesty) but aren't going to get us to point B. We need more information. The next example is my groping for an understanding of your position.

We want to know the exact distance from here to a particular star. We have a reasonable approximation but an exact number is not worth pursuing because it's changing all the time, and we have no way to go there anyway, so trying to refine the distance is probably a waste of time.

If those are actually what you are getting at (which I fear they are not), what principle do we apply to determine the categories and either search for greater knowledge or not?

 

[PureX]

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



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.

This confuses a great many people, and often because they want to maintain that confusion. But I will not assume this upon you. So here is the answer ... relative truthfulness (what we humans can come to know through an accumulation of facts) does not mean that we possess any portion of the whole truth because the whole truth is not made up of parts. It is an absolute. It does not contain true or false "portions". It is of a singular whole. The whole truth is 'what is', and there is nothing other than 'what is'. To perceive it as having "parts" is to miss-perceive it. Because if we do not know all that there is to know about 'what is', we can never know how what we don't know about it would drastically alter what we think we do know about it, were we to come to know more. And even them, if we still did not know it all, the same issue remains.

Relative bits of truthfulness simply do not, and never will, equate to knowing the truth (even in part). So chasing after relative knowledge is not going to result in knowing the truth.

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.

Until you have ALL the facts, (which we never will, or could), we will never know how the facts we don't have would change our conception of the truth of it all, if we were to finally get them. You seem to be insisting, here, that by accumulating more and more facts, you will somehow getting closer and closer to the absolute truth. But it's simply does not work that way, logically. Because the facts are all only true relative to each other, ONE SINGLE FACT can change the entire conceptual picture that a thousand other inter-related facts painted in our minds. And we know this to be so because it has happened to us many times.

Since this process of knowledge aquistion is clearly working, ...

Working at what? We are gaining in our ability to manipulate the physical realm of reality, but as we do so, we have a great tendency to make things worse for ourselves and the world instead of better. Mostly because we're chasing after this 'clever ability' to manipulate our world instead of pursuing the wisdom needed to live in it successfully without all the forced manipulation.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. We are clearly and continually expanding our understanding.

No, we aren't. We're just getting better at manipulating the physicality of things. We still don't have a clue why we even exist. Or how to best go about it.

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 no "half truths". And it's time we stopped lying to ourselves and pretending that our acquired cleverness equates to half-truthfulness.

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

That's a semantics question. Is "deceiving" ourselves the same as "lying to ourselves"? Are we lying when we believe our own lies? It doesn't matter to me. The result is the same.

Wisdom is the art of recognizing and assembling all the facts that we have available into a single cohesive conception of reality, so that we can respond to it as positively and effectively as possible.

And then being willing to drop that concept and start over again with the additional factual results gained from having just taken that action. Wisdom does not seek a "truth conclusion", it just keeps building and acting upon the previous reality concept. Wisdom is a way of being, not a truth conclusion.

 

[RestlessSoul]

So "wisdom" is that which conforms to my prejudice and bias. This does not seem to rise to the level of gravitas some give this word.

No, that doesn’t sound like wisdom at all, and of course you know it doesn’t, which rather proves my point. Presumably you have lived long enough to acquire a little wisdom, and even exercise it from time to time. Even if only enough to recognise how scarce a commodity it is.

 

[PureX]

Well good. That's somewhere to start from.

Agreed that ultimate knowledge may never be attained, but why does that mean we should give up trying to attain it?

I am not suggesrting that we humans stop seeking knowledge. I am suggesting that stop pretending that out pursuit of knowledge is a pursuit of truth, when in fact, it is our pursuit of CONTROL. We seek knowledge as means of manipulating and controlling our own destiny within reality.

If those are actually what you are getting at (which I fear they are not), what principle do we apply to determine the categories and either search for greater knowledge or not?

We should apply WISDOM to our pursuit of knowledge, as the overseer of that pursuit. We currently do not do this because we think any and all knowledge is good knowledge; because it further enables our ability to manipulate and control our experience of reality.

Pursue WISDOM, first. Then pursue knowledge as wisdom dictates.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

No, that doesn’t sound like wisdom at all, and of course you know it doesn’t, which rather proves my point. Presumably you have lived long enough to acquire a little wisdom, and even exercise it from time to time. Even if only enough to recognise how scarce a commodity it is.

Again, I think the OP and others have a notion of "wisdom" being more than experience that enables one to predict outcomes of potential choices and actions which is the little that I am exercising from time to time. But if that is the extent of what "wisdom" is for you, then so be it.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Pursue WISDOM, first. Then pursue knowledge as wisdom dictates.

Ah, I think I get it now. You want a universal moral framework in place before we (humanity) carries on with its pursuit of knowledge.

 

[Dimi95]

I wasn't expecting that! I do consider the concept of the Trinity to be "weird", not because I feel that most God concepts are weird, though I do, but because it seems to have an inbuilt contradiction (one God versus three Gods) which believers seem to be quite comfortable with. But that off topic and perhaps the subject of another discussion.

We don't belive in three gods , but i understand why you think that of the Trinity.
To me , Roman Catholics and Protestants just f**** it up with new dogmas.
But in Orthodox is the same as was in the 4th century.
It has to do with the doctrine of the Filioque , but maybe we can continue this in another topic.

OK, to all the above. I think that some subjects are less easily approached with the scientific method, but that doesn't mean it has to be abandoned altogether. In particular, the scientific method attempts to remove subjectivity as far as possible, and that can, and should, always be attempted.

I agree.

I'm not sure if @PureX is a theist according to the usual definition, but he does have a point where he wants to abandon evidence as a means determining truth.

I understand from his answers that maybe he is a Pantheist and he can correct me if i am wrong.

I find Panantheism much more compatible with reality then Pantheism.

That is why i asked him twice about that.