Wisdom- understood.
A wise man is boring to someone who is as wise as him; seeding wisdom to and from is intolerable- wisdom is disposable. There is wisdom, but there is also the possibility of greater wisdom; therefore, true wisdom is stillness- quietness- loudness and movement at the right time...
Wisdom is not knowledge, wisdom is above knowledge. Although the sky is blue, there are clouds of acknowledgements that encircle that matter; where it's blueness, it's sky-ness, the fact that it is, and more is accounted. Therefore, wisdom to do with quiddity of objects and subjects, and the quiddity of the why-query.
Why-queries are questions that are often associated with academic philosophy; why-queries are metaphorically, tools that philosophers use to delve deeper into data, allowing them to analyse deep quddity. Sometimes a why-query leads to unfulfilled quiddity that's data is abstruse- quiddity is then reshaped using personal intellect and what-queries.
What-queries are scientific questions; when a philosopher uses them, it's either a pre-scientific experiment to initiate philosophical thought(make sense of full data), or to dissect and reshape quiddity(make sense of partial data).
Wisdom is what philosophy produces using primarily why-queries and secondarily what-queries. What you learned here was science, and not philosophy; in the regard that it was primarily a what-query and secondarily, as of this statement, a why-query.
Wisdom is not knowledge, wisdom is above knowledge. Although the sky is blue, there are clouds of acknowledgements that encircle that matter; where it's blueness, it's sky-ness, the fact that it is, and more is accounted. Therefore, wisdom to do with quiddity of objects and subjects, and the quiddity of the why-query.
Why-queries are questions that are often associated with academic philosophy; why-queries are metaphorically, tools that philosophers use to delve deeper into data, allowing them to analyse deep quddity. Sometimes a why-query leads to unfulfilled quiddity that's data is abstruse- quiddity is then reshaped using personal intellect and what-queries.
What-queries are scientific questions; when a philosopher uses them, it's either a pre-scientific experiment to initiate philosophical thought(make sense of full data), or to dissect and reshape quiddity(make sense of partial data).
Wisdom is what philosophy produces using primarily why-queries and secondarily what-queries. What you learned here was science, and not philosophy; in the regard that it was primarily a what-query and secondarily, as of this statement, a why-query.
Comments (40)
It is not in my place to comment further.
:up:
Quoting 180 Proof
... like poor Sisyphus' yoga with the boulder .
I think there is more to Socratic ignorance than simply knowing or acknowledging that you are ignorant. The examined life is an inquiry into the question of how best to live in the face of ignorance of what is best.
Yes, nice quote; it outlines understanding of wisdom- he also promotes that it's beneficent with professionally cut examples.
Philosophy is importantrl, especially at the beginning of man. Philosophers should be in the field of experts, and the wisdom they share to changes the world, more than anyone else.
Nirvana fallacy?
I'm not sure I know what you mean. Despite the mythology of transcendence in the Republic, the Phaedo, and elsewhere, I think Socratic philosophy is grounded in the world of everyday experience.
How does one experience the forms? I can know particular things about justice, but how does one experience the form of justice?
:fire:
Pragmatic philosophy! Yay!
You don't.
Quoting Jackson
Hence Socrates profession of ignorance,
I don't find that inspiring.
Which do you think is preferable, to think you know what you do not know or to know you are ignorant?
False modesty. I know what I know and act on it.
My criticism of Plato is that he reduces the universe to knowledge claims. That the universe itself is a form of knoweldge.
The first part of this is intriguing. Knowing you are ignorant (in the Socratic sense) is more than just passive incomprehension. Is it not also knowing the kinds of questions and matters you are unable to answer or resolve easily for yourself or others? There is insight and depth to this illumminated or educated ignorance that exceeds everyday dimwittery.
Well, it is not false modesty in so far as he attributes ignorance to all of us.
Have you ever changed your mind about anything you regard as just or unjust?
There are many who make the same claim about knowing and acting who claim to know and act on things contrary to you.
Socrates acted in accordance with what seemed to him to be just, but was willing to change his mind given an argument he found persuasive or evidence that he was wrong.
Quoting Jackson
Plato took the problem of inspiration very seriously. Countless people have been drawn to philosophy through Plato's myth of transcendence. Only it would be far less convincing if it were presented as a myth instead of something closer to an initiation into mystical knowledge. That it is a myth is something that many reject. They see it either as a wrong theory or the truth itself.
Quoting Jackson
I do not think he reduces the world to knowledge claims, but rather, he gives us reason to be skeptical of such claims. The problem is what he calls in the Phaedo, misologic, a hatred of reasoned argument, a form of nihilism. It is to guard against this that he tells stories of transcendent knowledge.But for those who look more closely, he also points to the inadequacy of the Forms.
I have discussed this
Here
and
Here
and elsewhere, including my commentaries on Phaedo
and Euthyphro which is also germane to the problem justice and acting on assumed knowledge.
I think so. When I was teaching, many students, like Socrates interlocutors,became confused and were aware of their ignorance. But, of course, they were not thereby made as wise as Socrates.
That seems pretty normal.
I am more Aristotelian. Plato is too romantic and false for me.
And as an artist, Plato's bashing of images is offensive.
But not of one thinks they already know what is and is not just.
Arrogance. A psychological problem.
I agree with Nietzsche regarding the importance of taste for one's philosophy.
Quoting Jackson
This must be considered in light of his pervasive use of images.
No, words are not images.
I do not understand what you mean.
For both Plato and Aristotle psychology or matters of character are not separate from but rather a part of philosophy.
Ok, but not my point.
They are not visual images although something like the image of the cave continues to lead us to create our own images.
Again, do not understand what that means.
Plato in incredibly naive about how images and visual perception works. And I do not mean the neuroscience of perception.
Your preference for Aristotle based in part on your finding Plato too romantic I take to be a matter of taste.
Quoting Jackson
Arrogance is not simply a psychological problem, it is a philosophical problem, it has an influence on our thinking.
Quoting Jackson
The cave is said to be "an image of our nature in its education and want of education". (514a)
The shadows on the cave wall are referred to as images. The shadows on the cave wall are also referred to as images. An image is a likeness. We can often tell what a thing is by seeing its shadow because the shadow is a likeness. The cave dwellers mistake these shadow images for the things they are images of. Understandably because all they have ever seen is images or likenesses of things, not the things themselves.
The "image makers" include those who shape public opinion. Homer', for example, gives us images of those who are brave, just, and noble. These images are, for many taken to be what it means to be brave, just, and noble. The poets also gave them their images of the gods, and again, they are not taken to be images but who and what the gods are.
I don't. I take it to be about philosophy and truth.
By image I mean an actual spatial thing. Your sense is also used, but I do not mean it that way.
I would agree with you- on the face they are images.
When we talk vocally in word it is a reminder of those lines that we had written in school(a a a, b b b...) and our connection to that rotary in the present- it is still an image but a very subliminal one.
There is also a sound aspect to words, the chomping of normal thought frequencies and the placidity of silence in a worded mind; which can be beneficent but my no means should it overtake sign and symbology (it had already but it can be reversed; I'm not saying get rid of words but at least understand their gestalt usage).
For example . :eyes: