The Pursuit of Knowledge vs. The Pursuit of Wisdom

[plodding inarticulateness]

There is no other logical explanation.

"It just happened" is not logical.

"It always was" is not evident.

Yet it is evident that something is happening, ... so how is it possible?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

The only "logical" answer is that we have insufficient data and perspective on which to reasonable speculate. It's fun and fine to guess and speculate, but that is all that it is and it is not supported by logic.

What is the source of what is possible and what is not possible?

This seems a different question to me. There is good evidence and we can be reasonably confident that what is possible and not possible in our world of experience, existence, is governed by the physical laws of the Cosmos, the laws of which we are slowly and methodically teasing out.

 

[Kathryn]

What is that saying about tomatoes being a fruit but not good in a fruit salad?

 

[osgart]

No two people can totally agree on what's good, and bad. Although almost everyone knows when they are being treated well, or poorly. I'm quite sure there are clear universal moral standards that are common to all, and should be quite obvious though language is often obfuscated so that what people mean is often lost in communication.

Wisdom is not derived from empiricism unless you know the difference between deserved treatment, and undeserved treatment by way of experience, hypothesis, and in relationship to others and the environment we live in. So wisdom is about fulfillment, and well being for living beings. Wisdom would negate undeserved treatment, and provide a framework for going about applying knowledge to pursue the greatest good, while avoiding commiting detrimental acts against life and environment.

Humans are beings of character traits, not units of productivity, or widgets to be coldly calculated as liabilities or assets.

Wisdom pursues the good of the others, for the benefit of all. As currently the institutions, and systems of governance that we have reflect a cold, impersonal world of put up, or shut up, perform, or die. However no one can ignore the fact that to pursue the good of life there's always the necessity of getting people to be productive.
Productivity often comes at the expense of personal relationship. Neverending growth and abundance is killing the environment, and we don't know who each other is. Time, and love of life is what everyone works for. Instead knowledge hungry, cold competitors is what we've become.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

No two people can totally agree on what's good, and bad. Although almost everyone knows when they are being treated well, or poorly. I'm quite sure there are clear universal moral standards that are common to all, and should be quite obvious though language is often obfuscated so that what people mean is often lost in communication.

Wisdom is not derived from empiricism unless you know the difference between deserved treatment, and undeserved treatment by way of experience, hypothesis, and in relationship to others and the environment we live in. So wisdom is about fulfillment, and well being for living beings. Wisdom would negate undeserved treatment, and provide a framework for going about applying knowledge to pursue the greatest good, while avoiding commiting detrimental acts against life and environment.

Humans are beings of character traits, not units of productivity, or widgets to be coldly calculated as liabilities or assets.

Wisdom pursues the good of the others, for the benefit of all. As currently the institutions, and systems of governance that we have reflect a cold, impersonal world of put up, or shut up, perform, or die. However no one can ignore the fact that to pursue the good of life there's always the necessity of getting people to be productive.
Productivity often comes at the expense of personal relationship. Neverending growth and abundance is killing the environment, and we don't know who each other is. Time, and love of life is what everyone works for. Instead knowledge hungry, cold competitors is what we've become.

So is it fair to say then that "Wisdom" is entirely a moral/ethical term? In other words, one cannot be describe as showing great wisdom by being able to discern and anticipate market trends early, make consistently wise investment choices resulting in an extraordinarily successful career?

I am also curious about your use of the phrase "knowledge hungry". Your use appears to be pejorative. Is that your intent? Is being "knowledge hungry" a bad thing, in your view?

ETA: If being knowledge hungry is a bad thing, what is an appropriate appetite regarding knowledge? Should one eschew the aquisition of knowledge?

 

[Koldo]

I curious as to what informs your confident assessment as to the nature and source of existence.

No other logical alternative. There is no source, since to be a source is to be and therefore to exist, but existence's source can not exist before existence itself.

 

[osgart]

So is it fair to say then that "Wisdom" is entirely a moral/ethical term? In other words, one cannot be describe as showing great wisdom by being able to discern and anticipate market trends early, make consistently wise investment choices resulting in an extraordinarily successful career?

I would classify that as a different type of wisdom. I was looking at the wisdom of the direction of humanity as a whole. There are moral/ethical imperatives in regards to wisdom. It's not entirely a moral term.

I don't think all wisdom is the same.

am also curious about your use of the phrase "knowledge hungry". Your use appears to be pejorative. Is that your intent? Is being "knowledge hungry" a bad thing, in your view?

If people live their lives as a cogs in the machine and work all their lives to serve as slaves to knowledge, and ambition without regard for making the world a better place, and using knowledge without wisdom, it's a bad thing.

In and of itself, knowledge is power, and it all depends on wisdom if it's good or bad.

I'm trying to look at the biggest possible picture, and the long run of life and living

 

[Kathryn]

I remembered the quote!
“KNOWLEDGE IS KNOWING that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.”
Brian O'Driscoll

 

[PureX]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

The only "logical" answer is that we have insufficient data and perspective on which to reasonable speculate. It's fun and fine to guess and speculate, but that is all that it is and it is not supported by logic.

"Insufficient data" is not a "logical answer". It is the response of someone that thinks "data = knowledge = truth". And they thus wrongly assume that a lack of data-knowledge means a lack of truth. And I can see the resentment in your post toward this "lack of data-knowledge". So much so that you think speculation is fun but is meaningless and not illogical. (You clearly do not understand the philosophical application of logic.)

This seems a different question to me. There is good evidence and we can be reasonably confident that what is possible and not possible in our world of experience, existence, is governed by the physical laws of the Cosmos, the laws of which we are slowly and methodically teasing out.

Those "physical laws" are our recognition that existence is the expression of what is possible, against what is not possible. But this recognition does not answer the question about the source of those possibilities and impossibilities. And that is the actual question at hand. That is the great existential question.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

If people live their lives as a cogs in the machine and work all their lives to serve as slaves to knowledge, and ambition without regard for making the world a better place, and using knowledge without wisdom, it's a bad thing.

Out of curiosity, in your opinion, what percentage of the population, first in the US and then a percentage globally, live as you describe above?

Again you seem to infer an implicit negative with the word 'knowledge' and 'ambition'. Couldn't a scientist ambitiosly seek the knowledge necessary to cure a particular disease?

Isn't all you are really saying is for folks to at least not negatively impact the world and if possible, help to make it a better place. Not sure why you have to specifically call out knowledge or ambition. Isn't wanting the world to be a better place an ambition?

Of course, what is "good" or "better" for the world is a subjective thing and everyone will not uniformly agree on exactly what that entails. We are still left with the task of reconciling those difference.

In and of itself, knowledge is power, and it all depends on wisdom if it's good or bad.

I'm trying to look at the biggest possible picture, and the long run of life and living

I just want to say that I'm all for making the world a better place, I just don't see "knowledge" as being a detriment to achieving that aim.

 

[PureX]

No other logical alternative. There is no source, since to be a source is to be and therefore to exist, but existence's source can not exist before existence itself.

You've painted yourself into a semantic corner and now you can't see out. So you claim there is no 'out'.

 

[Koldo]

You've painted yourself into a semantic corner and now you can't see out. So you claim there is no 'out'.

I have painted it as it is.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

You clearly do not understand the philosophical application of logic.

Oh, I think I have the measure of it. Invent a set of premises, call them axioms or "Truths", that will then lead to the conclusion you desire.

Those "physical laws" are our recognition that existence is the expression of what is possible, against what is not possible. But this recognition does not answer the question about the source of those possibilities and impossibilities. And that is the actual question at hand. That is the great existential question.

And that great question is currently unanserable.

 

[Alien826]

They are only correct relative to other sets of fact. And yet they are not correct relative to other different fact sets. Facts are only bits of relative truthfulness.We assemble them into sets until we feel we have enough to generate an idea of reality. But that idea is only true relative to the relative truthfulness of the fact set we used to create it. But relative truthfulness is not truth because the truth is a singular absolute (the truth is what is and there is nothing else). So all the facts we can muster still cannot give us the real truth.

But, as I said, what makes a fact true is that it is a fact. That's what "fact" means. So if you say that facts are not true ("relative truthfulness is not truth") then you are using a different definition of the word, and maybe should state that meaning or use a different word. Maybe you could explain how to recognize the "real truth"? Some kind of test maybe?

Or, maybe not. To tell the 'truth" I've reached the point that I always reach when I discuss these things with you. I recognize that I'm getting nowhere and probably won't get anywhere. So I'll thank you for your time and move on.

 

[PureX]

I just want to say that I'm all for making the world a better place, I just don't see "knowledge" as being a detriment to achieving that aim.

This clearly illustrates the problem, I think ... the fact that you do not see it.

I could go to medical school and acquire the knowledge I would need to kill a lot of people very quickly and efficiently. And nothing WITHIN that body of knowledge would tell me why not to use the knowledge in that way. Because the knowledge itself is amoral. So if I do choose to use the knowledge in that way, the knowledge itself will do absolutely nothing to impede me. And it will, in fact, greatly aid my horrific quest.

And this is why the pursuit of knowledge to the neglect of wisdom is a very, very dangerous path for humanity to walk. And the fact that @plodding inarticulateness did not see this danger is proof of just how dangerous a path it is.

Meanwhile, we have whole plethora of science worshiping atheists among us that are constantly touting the mantra that 'facts (evidence) = knowledge and knowledge = (the real) truth. With wisdom being completely left out of the equation because they are that blind to the grave danger their own axiom presents to humanity. And on top of that they want to minimize and disparage the very human endeavors that most help humanity to engage with the world and with each other, wisely. ... Namely art, philosophy, and religion.

 

[Kathryn]

This clearly illustrates the problem, I think ... the fact that you do not see it.

I could go to medical school and acquire the knowledge I would need to kill a lot of people very quickly and efficiently. And nothing WITHIN that body of knowledge would tell me why not to use the knowledge in that way. Because the knowledge itself is amoral. So if I do choose to use the knowledge in that way, the knowledge itself will do absolutely nothing to impede me. And it will, in fact, greatly aid my horrific quest.

And this is why the pursuit of knowledge to the neglect of wisdom is a very, very dangerous path for humanity to walk. And the fact that @plodding inarticulateness did not see this danger is proof of just how dangerous a path it is.

Meanwhile, we have whole plethora of science worshiping atheists among us that are constantly touting the mantra that 'facts (evidence) = knowledge and knowledge = (the real) truth. With wisdom being completely left out of the equation because they are that blind to the grave danger their own axiom presents to humanity. And on top of that they want to minimize and disparage the very human endeavors that most help humanity to engage with the world and with each other, wisely. ... Namely art, philosophy, and religion.

I agree with you by the way.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

No other logical alternative. There is no source, since to be a source is to be and therefore to exist, but existence's source can not exist before existence itself.

As I've said elsewhere, logic doesn't apply here. Neither you nor anyone else has a complete and utter command on the physical laws of the Cosmos. We don't know what we don't know. How can one make logical inferences or deductions without the complete set of factual premises that are require to make them?

We have some workable theories that get us back in time to a general point, but they are simply theories and there seems to be a whole lot we still don't yet know. Regardless, logic will not provide the answer, empirical evidence is required, and as it stands that is well beyond our reach.

 

[PureX]

Oh, I think I have the measure of it. Invent a set of premises, call them axioms or "Truths", that will then lead to the conclusion you desire.

And that great question is currently unanserable.

Of course it's unanswerable. Why are you looking for ... DEMANDING ... an answer when you already know you can't have one? And if you despise philosophical speculation so much because it won't give you an answer, why are you responding to it? And why am I the only one recognizing all of this and not you?

 

[osgart]

Out of curiosity, in your opinion, what percentage of the population, first in the US and then a percentage globally, live as you describe above?

I would say we have a declining middle class for that reason. A lot of people end up poor.

The world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of people, with the top 1% of the world's population owning more than 40% of global financial assets and 50% of global assets.

• Top 1%: The world's richest 1% own 45.8% of global wealth.
• Top 10%: The top 10% of the world's population own 85% of the world's wealth.
• Bottom 50%: The bottom half of the world's population own less than 1% of the world's wealth.

Wealth inequality has been growing globally for decades. Some countries have reduced extreme poverty, but economic gaps have continued to grow. Wealth inequality is considered to be more extreme than income inequality.

This is according to an AI overview from Search Labs.

Again you seem to infer an implicit negative with the word 'knowledge' and 'ambition'. Couldn't a scientist ambitiosly seek the knowledge necessary to cure a particular disease?

Yes they can. That's employing wisdom though.

The only ambitions I see as harmful is criminal self gain, and hoarding wealth with only self interests in mind.

Of course, what is "good" or "better" for the world is a subjective thing and everyone will not uniformly agree on exactly what that entails. We are still left with the task of reconciling those difference.

I believe there are universal commonalities in regards to what is good and better for the world as well as subjective differences.

just want to say that I'm all for making the world a better place, I just don't see "knowledge" as being a detriment to achieving that aim.

Knowledge is the means. Wisdom is the methods, goals, the why's, and how's of how knowledge is applied.

Do you not see that knowledge can be weaponized to do serious damage to the world; intentional, and unintentional damages both?

 

[PureX]

But, as I said, what makes a fact true is that it is a fact. That's what "fact" means. So if you say that facts are not true ("relative truthfulness is not truth") then you are using a different definition of the word, and maybe should state that meaning or use a different word. Maybe you could explain how to recognize the "real truth"? Some kind of test maybe?

Or, maybe not. To tell the 'truth" I've reached the point that I always reach when I discuss these things with you. I recognize that I'm getting nowhere and probably won't get anywhere. So I'll thank you for your time and move on.

It is a "fact" that my car is outside in the parking lot. This "fact" is only true, however, so long as my car remains outside in the parking lot. But it will not remain there. It will move, and then the fact that was once true will no longer be true. Because it's truthfulness depended on a set of other facts also being true (facts involving the where, and when, and what).

So, a whole set of facts were being assembled into a probable (acceptable) vision of reality involving my car. But the facts are constantly changing as the reality that we exist in is constantly changing. And so the truthfulness of those facts depend on the ever-changing facts they are being associated with.

This is why facts do not gain us access to the whole, or to the absolute truth of anything. And why the accumulation of facts (knowledge) does not provide us the "real truth" of things, either. They only gain us a relatively (and momentarily) truthful illusion that we then call "reality" to act on. And sometimes that works for us and sometimes it doesn't.

Does this help to clarify my assertions for you?

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Of course it's unanswerable. Why are you looking for ... DEMANDING ... an answer when you already know you can't have one? And if you despise philosophical speculation so much because it won't give you an answer, why are you responding to it? And why am I the only one recognizing all of this and not you?

You seem to have lost the gist of the conversation. I'm not demanding an answer to that unanswerable question. You are claiming that logic is applicable in answering it, and I am simply point out that that is not the case.

I am responding to your comments, "philosophical" or otherwise, because this is a discussion forum and I am not only addressing you but also any who may be reading along, and therefore providing them an alternative take (if that is what I see as appropriate) on your comments. If I agree with your comments I might simply provide a thumbs up emoji or similar, or respond with why I agree or to expand on your point.