Posts by Ethan Gomez82

Eric Newman75 said:Not quite. Resourcefulness, being crafty, acting slick... those terms really point toward the ability to outsmart someone or pull a fast one on them. The meanings are related, sure, but they aren't the same thing as wisdom. Even in English, there's a connection—think about how wise guys refers to mobsters or criminals in slang; the emphasis is totally on unethical behavior. They aren't wise men; they're just con artists.

Here we go again, the so-called "wise men." Honestly, what even is a wise man? I’ve never met one in my life, nor have I heard of a single real one. To me, the whole concept feels like chasing a unicorn. I’ll admit, I’ve always treated the term "sage" as a joke. I’ve met plenty of pretenders, though. 😁

feralranger said:Human perception is fundamentally limited, which means any "truth" we claim to possess is inherently deceptive and subjective. Medina was discussing an objective truth—one stripped of human interpretation, perspective, or lived experience. Ethical "truths," however, don't function that way... our morality is built upon a foundation of human ethics tied to our biological makeup (including things like mirror neurons, for instance), our culture, and a whole host of other variables.

We have no way of knowing what the ethics of hypothetical extraterrestrials might look like, though it seems highly improbable they would mirror our own... seeing as we Americans can't even reach a consensus among ourselves (and that is precisely why human "truths" remain so subjective).

Thanks. That’s exactly where I was headed with this.

feralranger said:medonaodmoru is discussing truths that exist entirely independently of human perception, perspective, or interpretation.

To one person, the "truth" might be that a thousand dollars is a massive sum of money, whereas to someone else, that same thousand dollars feels like pocket change. However, the actual truth—the kind you could verify with an objective device or a simple counter—is simply that there are exactly one thousand dollars present. That is the kind of absolute truth medonaodmoru is referring to; it isn't a "human truth" that shifts based on individual outlook or subjective bias.

@medonaodmoru
Do you have any objections to my post or my attempt at illustrating your point? Have I managed to strike the right chord?

I don't disagree. I just have an addendum. 😁

The whole concept of "truth" is tied to human cognition—it’s about how we perceive reality. In that sense, truth doesn't exist outside our own mental processing. There are simply things and events that remain unconceptualized. When I talk about truth existing beyond humanity, I mean everything that *could* be understood if our minds possessed infinite reach. But they don't. So, those truths remain forever out of our grasp.

ruggedraven36 said:We don't need to sit around "agreeing on a definition." You can't separate deep insight from ethics—it's impossible. Just look at anyone throughout history who was actually considered wise; they all shared the same core. Every single one of them was viewed as both a good person and an expert on the things that actually matter. Wisdom is simply where theory meets practice—where the truth aligns with what's good.

There you go again, beating the same old drum. Why should I care about how people defined "sages" in some bygone era? We don't even talk about "sages" anymore; that's just intellectual archaeology, and frankly, neither do I. I’m talking about wisdom and wise individuals, not those ancient "sages." They're dinosaurs—an extinct species that hasn't been relevant for ages.

gentlerider7 said:Man, you would absolutely love Lyotard

"with the disappearance of the country, thought will cease—leaving this vanishing completely
unthought. (...) If death, as a boundary, is truly that which flees and is deferred, and as the result of which thought must deal with itself from the very beginning—then death is still merely the life of our minds. But the death of the Sun is the death of the mind, because the death of death is the life of the mind."

Fair enough. If a tree grows in the woods, it carries a truth that doesn't care whether anyone actually sees it or thinks about it. That reality is far greater and deeper than any passing thought we have about it.

Eric Newman75 said:

says:
Basically, you could have tactical wisdom, criminal cunning, sports intelligence, whatever you feel like calling it.

That’s just being crafty, not wise. It's about being shrewd or being a smooth operator.

Shrewdness, cunning, craftiness... to me, those all require wisdom. If you actually possess wisdom, you can master those traits. But if you try to act clever and cunning without having the actual wisdom to back it up, you just end up looking like an idiot. Such attempts are doomed to fail from the start. 😁

Well, there you have it—we've all defined this term differently. It mostly comes down to the context in which we first encountered the concept, and those contexts vary wildly. Once that's set, it stays with you for life.

Sigmund said:There are universal truths, and then there are particular ones—yours, mine, or anyone else's. The point is that truth as a concept only exists through the relationship between the subject and the object.

I’m not even talking about human truths or how we construct them. I’m talking about much larger truths that exist far beyond us—truths that simply *are*. We can only catch glimpses of them from a distance using various tools. Human truths are inherently limited by our own flaws, and frankly, they shouldn't be taken too seriously.

gentlerider7 said:The problem is, the meaning of words shifts so much that you can't just rely on whatever some random person on Twitter thinks or whatever slang is trending this week to define anything. Honestly, you’d think philosophers would at least have the decency to stay aware of how easily the words they use can be twisted or weaponized.

Meanings evolve. They tend to expand rather than contract. You can't build a foundation for truth based solely on how many people use a word incorrectly. It isn't just a handful of people talking; everyone is participating in this linguistic drift. I agree that philosophers need to be aware of this and should stop hijacking mass-marketed terms to describe something highly specific and technical. They ought to coin new terminology to prevent confusion. Then again, if they didn't do that, nobody else would likely care anyway. 😁

Amanda Jackson5 said:Truth belongs to the realm of the ideal just as much as Goodness does. In fact, the entire concept of truth is built upon the relationship between the subject and the object. You see this clearly in pretty much any standard definition of what truth is.
The reason you aren't seeing the necessary link between truth and goodness (which are also tied to beauty) is likely because you haven't quite grasped the underlying metaphysical categories and how they interact—it’s basically an argument from ignorance, where one claims something isn't true simply because it hasn't been personally recognized as such.
When you suggest that something is merely a matter of human perspective, what you're actually implying is that it belongs to an ideal mode of existence. Those aren't the same thing.
The fundamental thing to realize is that truth is a product of knowledge. From there, you have to look at the connection between knowing and acting—that is, the bridge between the theoretical and practical sides of an idea. You might find it easiest to think of Goodness as rationality (the ideal sphere) transitioning into objectivity (the real sphere). Put another way, goodness only truly exists when the subjectivity and objectivity of an idea are in sync; essentially, it happens when that which was previously just a thought or a directed will finally becomes an objective, physical reality:

"Goodness is rationality seeking realization, or rationality functioning as an end goal. Just as pure objectivity is insufficient to constitute truth, pure subjectivity is insufficient to constitute goodness if it lacks a corresponding determination of objectivity."

(Erdmann: Outline of logic and metaphysic, p. 243)

Hegel puts it even more pointedly and comprehensively:

"The Idea, as a process, moves through three distinct stages during its development. The first form is life—the Idea in its state of immediacy. The second stage involves mediation or differentiation, where the Idea emerges as cognition or knowledge, appearing in a dual form as both theoretical and practical ideas. The process of cognition eventually results in a renewed unity, now enriched by that previous differentiation, which yields the third stage: the Absolute Idea. This is the final stage of the logical process, revealing itself as the only entity that truly exists through its own essence."

("Encyclopedia" Logic, p. 158)

It never crossed my mind to suggest that human perspective belongs to an ideal mode of existence. It belongs strictly to the human (particular) mode. Sure, it could belong to a lion's mode or a monkey's mode, but it doesn't go much further than that. Human "truth" fares no better. It’s nothing more than a little truthlet—a mere shadow of Truth that doesn't even emerge from the subject-object relationship. In fact, the very assumption of a subject-object relationship is itself untrue.

feralranger said:Could you please define what you mean by "profound insights"?

Aside from that, the qualities you described in the latter half of your thought sound more like mere cunning to me. Cunning doesn't require empathy, whereas true wisdom certainly does. If my reasoning holds, there would have to exist some sort of "wisdom belonging to an egocentric swine," but to my ears, that sounds like a total oxymoron; I simply cannot decouple wisdom from empathy.

The meaning of any concept is dictated by how people communicate it. How else? A wise person usually communicates with extreme shrewdness and intelligence, so that's what the term implies. Like many other terms, this one is poorly defined, so once you get into the weeds, everyone ends up thinking something slightly different. Of course, egocentric pigs can be wise. Even you can find a bit of wisdom among politicians. Criminals can be wise, too. They are the ones who are so skilled and calculated—who weigh every variable and anticipate exactly what their pursuers are thinking so they never get caught. You can't pin them down; they're just too smart (both clever and wise). It isn't an oxymoron to me. Wisdom isn't a virtue; it’s just a quality, much like strength or speed. Everything depends on how you choose to use it.

feralranger said:Broadly speaking, knowledge might be viewed as a mere collection of interconnected data points. Wisdom, however, transcends that by incorporating ethics—and, if I may venture an opinion, intuition as well. Ethics are fundamentally inseparable from empathy (unless, of course, one is a dualist who believes such things originate from some "otherworldly" realm, which you, given the established themes of your work, most certainly are not).

Deep insights don't necessarily have anything to do with ethics unless that's specifically what they're addressing. You can't really link wisdom to any other personality trait; you can't identify it by anything other than the wisdom itself. A wise person could be a total recluse or the life of the party; they could be an extrovert broadcasting their views or an introvert keeping them to themselves. They might be practical and use what they know, or completely impractical and let it go to waste. Honestly, a wise person can be anyone—including someone who isn't wise at all. But, like I said before, it's all about perspective. You could view it as a form of social intelligence. In that case, a wise person might be somewhat dim-witted in many other areas. Personally, I wouldn't call those people wise, but if others do, that's fine. It all depends on where you set your focus and what you value most.

Amanda Jackson5 said:To me, wisdom is basically just thinking and acting the right way—both in theory and in practice. Of course, that immediately opens a massive can of worms regarding what "right" actually means, but I’d argue it’s simply whatever aligns with the truth or the fundamental concept of good.

Honestly, I could never wrap my head around that logic. Truth and "the Good" aren't even in the same ballpark; they aren't related, they didn't grow up together, and they certainly don't walk the same path. There is no point in linking them. "The Good" is strictly a matter of human perspective—outside of our own view, talking about it is pointless. Truth, on the other hand, is entirely superhuman (and frankly, quite inhuman). If "truth" starts depending on our individual perspectives, then we can say with certainty that it isn't truth at all. Whether wisdom should target the absolute truth or focus solely on the human condition is entirely up to you.

ruggedraven36 said:A sage has always been seen as a good person, regardless of the era or culture. So, saying wisdom has nothing to do with empathy? That’s just plain wrong.

Hardly.

We should probably start by defining what wisdom isn't. It certainly isn't drawing connections where none exist, nor is it failing to see connections that clearly do. People tend to trip over both mistakes. As for what wisdom actually *is*, we can't even begin to discuss it until we agree on a definition—which, let’s be honest, is nearly impossible. Some link it to knowledge and deep insight, others to ethics, and so on. Let everyone hold their own opinion; there's no point splitting hairs when we already know we won't reach an agreement and will just end up shouting our own monologues at each other.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Hierarchy is a must—you could even say it's necessary for freedom itself—but the real question is what kind of hierarchy we're talking about and what's actually backing it up?

It matters...

Power is always the bedrock. Whether it's physical, political, or financial, it doesn't matter. These structures emerge spontaneously and collapse just as quickly, only to be rebuilt by new players. Power dynamics and revolutions are two sides of the same coin; they feed off one another in a perfectly natural social cycle. You could argue that whatever happens spontaneously is inherently free, but we shouldn't forget that the top tier is always suppressive—it constantly pushes down on the base and chokes its freedom. The more oppressive the leadership, the bloodier the revolution. It's only natural for those at the top to fight to stay there, spinning narratives to justify their status. But let's be honest: those justifications are usually just distractions, scams, or outright nonsense (like those old tales about aristocracy). There is no reason why Kurt wouldn't become Murta if he manages to consolidate enough strength.

ruggeddriver21 said:It’s almost like Berdyaev is posing this big question: can you actually have freedom if there isn't any hierarchy?
His whole take seems to be that order is the essential foundation.
I mean, without some kind of structure, you don't really have order—you just end up sliding straight into total chaos. And honestly, can anyone truly be free when everything is just falling apart in a chaotic mess?
Technically, sure, you could.
But what’s the point of being a free person if you're just a corpse floating in the void?!

Honestly, he’s just another guy whining about his own fate. It’s human, sure, but you shouldn't take it all too seriously. ☕

Harold Doyle3 said:No, that's not it at all... From their point of view, the actual utopia existed maybe 5,000 or 6,000 years ago, but we got kicked out because we completely botched the dirty work.

That was back when you’d just toss a bone over your shoulder. Then someone suddenly decided it actually needed to be put in a bin out front. 😁

gentlerider7 said:When people pitch these utopian ideas, they're basically banking on the assumption that most folks just want more of the exact same stuff we already have. They act like there are these set-in-stone, objective benchmarks for what actually counts as "good."

If that were true, we wouldn't need architects or planners at all; we’d just vote on stuff and call it a day. Most people don't want the same things because we aren't clones, and there is no such thing as an objective metric for "good"—that's entirely subjective. We manage by making compromises, however messy they might be, and that's basically how society functions.

Harold Doyle3 said:In some perfect utopia, the most grueling, terrible jobs would be handled by enthusiasts.
They'd set an example that makes everyone else feel guilty... eventually, you'd probably have a line of people waiting to take the worst shifts.

Not happening in my case. I’m strictly against that idea. 😁

bluemason3 said:I’d say it’s actually spot on.

Sure, if you're looking at specific schools of psychotherapy, you could argue otherwise. But since he didn't employ any actual scientific methodology—much like Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and the rest of that crowd—he isn't particularly relevant to psychological science. Real psychology is rooted in the Anglo-American experimental behavioral tradition, which has always been openly opposed to those pseudo-scientific German psycho-philosophers.

😁

An epistemological Big Bang.

The fatal flaw in any utopia is that the architect starts with their own ego and grievances, then tries to force those solutions onto the entire world. It’s a desperate hunt for a paradise born from one person's imagination rather than actual consensus. This proves one fundamental truth: you can theoretically build a utopia for yourself, but you can never build one for everyone else. Just leave people alone.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Well, if that's the case—and if being fair is really our top priority—then I guess we should probably start rotating through all the dream jobs, too. Personally, I think I'd be a pretty decent surgeon, or maybe a university professor, a ballerina, a theater actor, or even a pilot! 🤔

I'd happily step into Eric Adams' shoes, but he seems pretty set on staying put. 😁