Home › Amanda Jackson5 › Posts

Posts by Amanda Jackson5

328 posts shown.

What is wisdom? in Philosophy · Jan 20, 2021

"Quote"

ruggedraven36 said:Now, that would be an interesting topic. If almost every philosopher ever has realized that truth and goodness are linked, then it’s pretty weird how many people today don't just ignore that connection, but actually go out of their way to deny it.

It’s not even that strange when you think about it; it’s actually just textbook "ordinary" thinking, which is exactly how Hegel describes that typical, everyday mindset. Every philosopher worth their salt has always understood that being someone is far more significant than simply having things, yet in the common world, people tend to flip that logic entirely on its head. It’s also pretty standard for ordinary thought to swap out genuine wisdom for a quick dose of cynicism. Honestly, if we started listing all the ways this happens, we’d be here all day.

What is wisdom? in Philosophy · Jan 19, 2021

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:In the example I gave earlier, we reached the truth by using specific tools to detect a fact—specifically, empty space. That fact doesn't depend on the tools themselves. It just exists.

It’s not like some mathematical truth where you conclude 1+1=2 based on one single experience.

My point isn't that truth depends on our hardware, but rather that it hinges on perception. A thing is only true or false if there’s someone there to perceive it, to know it, or to form an opinion about it. Truth requires a bit of reflection. Truth is essentially an accurate and precise reflection of reality. As for pure existence—whether something simply *is* or *isn't*—that claim might not even apply here. Or maybe it does. That's a debate for another day.

What is wisdom? in Philosophy · Jan 19, 2021

Harold Doyle3 said:Does wisdom equal truth?

Sages understand one another perfectly, whereas philosophers are always at each other's throats.
By that logic... have the Sages actually grasped the truth?

Not quite.

Harold Doyle3 said:Does wisdom equal truth?

Sages understand one another perfectly, whereas philosophers are always at each other's throats.
By that logic... have the Sages actually grasped the truth?

Well, look, maybe they've just drifted a little closer to the target than those who lack any insight at all. If we define wisdom as having the right mindset and the right conduct, then sure, you need some level of truth to function—you can't think correctly without leaning on logical truths, for one thing. And if we're talking about behaving properly, your underlying belief that a certain action will actually produce a good result has to be somewhat grounded in reality. So, wisdom isn't truth itself, but rather, truth is the necessary fuel that makes wisdom possible.

What is wisdom? in Philosophy · Jan 19, 2021

Sandra Murphy33 said:At that point, you’re talking about transcendence or pure guesswork. 😉

A Sage would be someone who, in most instances, "guesses" correctly—meaning they possess a predictive power reliable enough to base one's positioning upon.
If that foresight serves the entire community, then we call them a Sage.
If it serves nothing but their own interests, they aren't a Sage; they're just a trader... or perhaps an entrepreneur. 😎
That's it

Think about it this way: anything that isn't immediate is mediated rather than transcendent. Take a concept, for instance. Or look at existence itself—being is direct, whereas an absolute idea is essentially the same thing, just viewed through a lens of mediation.

What is wisdom? in Philosophy · Jan 19, 2021

Ethan Gomez82 said: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.

Truth is essentially what happens when a subject interacts with an object. There’s no such thing as a "non-human" truth out there floating in a vacuum. Honestly, I’m not even sure "human truth" is a valid concept—I wouldn't even know how to define it, and it doesn't seem to hold water even in a theoretical debate. If you're feeling lost, just look up standard definitions of truth. Generally speaking, you have particular versus universal truths, or partial and relative perspectives standing in contrast to absolute truth. For anything else, refer back to my previous point. Using specialized jargon or a specific metalanguage certainly has its perks because it streamlines communication, but that only works if both people actually speak the same language. If you don't, you're just talking past each other, which is why I suggested trying to frame your thoughts in plain, everyday English.

What is wisdom? in Philosophy · Jan 18, 2021

We could probably just touch upon this briefly, without getting bogged down in a deep dive, but it’s worth noting that pretty much every philosopher throughout history has recognized how truth and goodness are fundamentally intertwined. Take Plato, for instance; he argued in his work on the republic that the Good serves as both the source and the ultimate goal of all knowledge. Then you have Aristotle, who maintained that everything naturally gravitates toward what is good, essentially defining "good" as that which is desirable. If we want to take a page out of Wittgenstein’s book, we might say a "good" knife is simply one that functions as a true knife—it actually fulfills the very concept of what a knife is supposed to be. Even in Scholastic metaphysics, there was this idea that if something exists, it is inherently good; goodness was considered one of those four transcendental properties of being, alongside oneness, truth, and beauty.

What is wisdom? in Philosophy · Jan 18, 2021

Ethan Gomez82 said: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.

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)

What is wisdom? in Philosophy · Jan 18, 2021

boldsailor32 said:Does this "idea" of good depend on the scope of the sage's environment—where they apply their wisdom practically—or perhaps the environment where they live mentally and spiritually?

Could someone be considered a sage within specific frameworks:

- Themselves
- Their family
- Their clan
- Their clan
- A spiritual community
- A religious community
- A business corporation
- A nation
- A state
- A continent (socially speaking)
- A planet
- The universe
- The Multiverse
- Beyond the bounds of space and time

🤔

To get things rolling, you have to realize that dialectical thinking is basically built on the marriage of the universal and the particular. If you look at this through that lens, the concept of "the good" is a solid, universal idea—it’s a metaphysical category that stays constant regardless of how much space you occupy. But, obviously, figuring out how to actually *do* good in a specific moment, right here and right now, depends entirely on your surroundings. That’s just the particular side of the coin. Every single concept is really just a three-way intersection: it’s the self (the universal), the other (the particular), and the fusion of both (the individual). So, if you’re looking at this from a dialectical standpoint, you can’t claim an idea relies solely on the general or strictly on the specific; it’s tethered to both simultaneously. You can't pull them apart because truth itself lives in the tension between those two aspects.

boldsailor32 said:Does this "idea" of good depend on the scope of the sage's environment—where they apply their wisdom practically—or perhaps the environment where they live mentally and spiritually?

Could someone be considered a sage within specific frameworks:

- Themselves
- Their family
- Their clan
- Their clan
- A spiritual community
- A religious community
- A business corporation
- A nation
- A state
- A continent (socially speaking)
- A planet
- The universe
- The Multiverse
- Beyond the bounds of space and time

🤔

Yeah.

What is wisdom? in Philosophy · Jan 17, 2021

mistybison said:I am not searching for wisdom; I am simply looking for a clear definition of the term wisdom.

Let's see if we can distinguish between the two! 🧐

When you truly love something, you ought to understand what it actually is. 🤔 That is how it should work, at least. 🙂

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.

Philosophy of books vs. books about philosophy in Philosophy · Jan 16, 2021

He took it.

Philosophy of books vs. books about philosophy in Philosophy · Jan 16, 2021

bluemason3 said:Real science is exhausting and tedious. It requires endless work, constant scrutiny, and facing nothing but criticism and skepticism until things finally crystallize over time.

It’s much easier to indulge people in popular literature. If you play that game, you can end up with more fame, influence, and money than you ever would grinding away at a university or staring at equations for ten hours a day. 😁

To be seen, look at how many academics here in the States, once they hit an age where they aren't making major breakthroughs, let their egos take over. They start making noise in the media, jumping into political debates, and generally talking out of turn (think Radman or Paar...).

Turning scientists into icons is incredibly damaging to the field. Even within academia itself, (research shows there's a massive bias toward the work of famous colleagues, despite a system specifically designed to prevent that), let alone among the general public. It's also useless to drag unresolved scientific debates to the masses by using simplified, populist methods that turn serious topics into partisan shouting matches.

Basically, if you aren't a specialist actively working in a specific field, you should completely ignore anything that isn't a peer-reviewed, published, and ideally replicated study that has reached a broad consensus. Names like Penrose, Paar, Djikic, or Einstein shouldn't carry any weight when they step outside strict scientific protocols. Their personal reputation shouldn't give extra validity to ideas that haven't become established scientific standards or moved beyond being mere fringe theories.

Unfortunately, most people don't care about rigorous papers; they prefer authority figures. So, if you want to stop pseudo-scientific nonsense from flooding the airwaves, you have to deal with "science popularization." But for anyone taking this seriously, it’s all just noise and a circus not worth the attention.

I’m with you there.

bluemason3 said:Real science is exhausting and tedious. It requires endless work, constant scrutiny, and facing nothing but criticism and skepticism until things finally crystallize over time.

It’s much easier to indulge people in popular literature. If you play that game, you can end up with more fame, influence, and money than you ever would grinding away at a university or staring at equations for ten hours a day. 😁

To be seen, look at how many academics here in the States, once they hit an age where they aren't making major breakthroughs, let their egos take over. They start making noise in the media, jumping into political debates, and generally talking out of turn (think Radman or Paar...).

Turning scientists into icons is incredibly damaging to the field. Even within academia itself, (research shows there's a massive bias toward the work of famous colleagues, despite a system specifically designed to prevent that), let alone among the general public. It's also useless to drag unresolved scientific debates to the masses by using simplified, populist methods that turn serious topics into partisan shouting matches.

Basically, if you aren't a specialist actively working in a specific field, you should completely ignore anything that isn't a peer-reviewed, published, and ideally replicated study that has reached a broad consensus. Names like Penrose, Paar, Djikic, or Einstein shouldn't carry any weight when they step outside strict scientific protocols. Their personal reputation shouldn't give extra validity to ideas that haven't become established scientific standards or moved beyond being mere fringe theories.

Unfortunately, most people don't care about rigorous papers; they prefer authority figures. So, if you want to stop pseudo-scientific nonsense from flooding the airwaves, you have to deal with "science popularization." But for anyone taking this seriously, it’s all just noise and a circus not worth the attention.

I actually disagree. I’d draw a parallel here with how we look at history. In both science and history, for the average educated person—someone who thinks reasonably well—individual data points, specific papers, or raw archival records don't hold much practical weight, not even for satisfying basic curiosity. What people actually care about is the big picture, the overarching narrative, the universal themes that allow them to connect with events, whether they are natural phenomena or historical shifts. You can't really learn anything about nature or human history by staring at isolated data sets or dusty archives; those are just the raw materials. Real learning happens through synthesis, interpretation, and broad conclusions. That’s the only part that actually matters to a human life. Reducing science to mere statistics, or history to a collection of snapshots, is a fool's errand. But hey, fools love that kind of stuff, so let them have it.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:The average person shouldn't be digging through scientific papers anyway. Take me, for example—I studied math, yet I still find most math papers totally incomprehensible and way too dense. They're written for hyper-specialized experts within a tiny niche of mathematics.

Pseudoscience is what pretends to be science but is actually garbage. Popular science literature isn't "science" per se, but it's useful for general knowledge. Nobody cares about the probability integral of two particles colliding, but knowing the concept of mathematical probability? That's actually good to know.

Agreed.

bluemason3 said:The average person isn't going to dig through the technical methodology, but anyone can wrap their head around an abstract and a conclusion.

The real issue is that for most people, telling the difference between pseudoscience and pop science is an uphill battle. Sometimes it’s hard to even distinguish legitimate research from pure pseudoscience when it's tucked away in those predatory journals. And honestly, if someone actually possesses the tools to tell them apart, they probably don't even need the pop science version to begin with.
Chapter 22 just feels like one more battlefield for indoctrination before you finally get to any actual science.

We need to start teaching scientific literacy in high school, specifically through a solid curriculum on research methodology. I'm talking about both the hands-on fieldwork side and the statistical data processing. This would cover the fundamentals needed to actually make sense of about 90% of published scientific papers. Now, obviously, this isn't going to teach anyone formal mathematics, theoretical physics, or comparative literature. But it would provide the groundwork for almost any quantitative experimental study. It’s about understanding how research actually works at its core. And let's be realistic—nobody expects a teenager to be performing at a post-doc level.

We can build public awareness through popular science books, which makes sense given that nobody has the time to become an expert in every single field. Most people just need a clear, simplified summary of how a specific area works. That said, you can't really distinguish actual science from pseudoscience if your entire understanding is based solely on pop literature.

I'm with you that teaching kids the fundamentals of scientific methodology and statistics in high school is a good move, but if we really want to get somewhere, we should be focusing on what science actually represents: a way of thinking that stands in direct opposition to blind belief. Statistics and methodology are vital tools, sure, but they’re primarily for the people who are going to spend their lives in labs or writing academic papers—which, let's face it, isn't most people. The true heart of science is critical thinking. And that skill is becoming more essential by the second, especially now that everyone has a megaphone and a social media platform to broadcast whatever opinions they happen to hold.

Philosophy of books vs. books about philosophy in Philosophy · Jan 16, 2021

Sam Martinez9 said:Posted from Slack
- Volver

Good morning, everyone.

What’s on your reading list this morning? I’ve been spending some time with Capra lately. As is the case with most readers, I find myself starting from the end. Here is a brief excerpt from the final pages:

* ........ moving from linear systems of resource depletion and the accumulation of products and waste toward cyclical flows of matter and energy; shifting from an obsession with objects and natural wealth toward a focus on services and human resources; transitioning from seeking happiness in material possessions to finding it in human connections. To borrow the words of David Suzuki:

Family, friends, community—these are the primary sources of profound satisfaction and love. We visit family members, maintain ties with our mentors, and share meaningful moments with friends. We undertake difficult challenges to help others, to save the frogs, and to protect the wilderness, and we find purpose in those efforts. Nature and service provide us with spiritual fulfillment. None of these joys deplete the Earth's resources, yet they leave us deeply replenished. They are complex and far closer to true happiness than simple pleasures like a Coca-Cola or a new minivan.*

Elisabeth Moon: Speed of Darkness

Nikolai Berdyaev and Inequality Philosophy in Philosophy · Jan 3, 2021

True radical political and economic democracy is basically the universal antidote to any kind of hierarchy. It works because, if you look at what Amanda Jackson5 was getting at—even if they didn't go quite as far as they could have with the wording—every single hierarchy is just a byproduct of class struggle, which is really just a fancy way of saying a tiny minority uses its power to exploit the rest of us.

Who's going to do the dirty work in Utopia? in Philosophy · Dec 15, 2020

gentlerider7 said:I mean, honestly, this whole "Golden Age" myth pops up in pretty much every culture on the planet, right? And let's be real, there’s probably a damn good reason why everyone keeps telling the same story.

I’ve always seen the whole "golden age" myth as a sort of reverse utopia—basically, we take that idealized version of the past and try to project it onto the future as if it's something we can actually reach.

Philosophy of books vs. books about philosophy in Philosophy · Oct 8, 2020

Steven Clark2 said:Who is the author of this book?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000000000

Philosophy of books vs. books about philosophy in Philosophy · Oct 3, 2020

James Lee77 said:Honestly, even the Interlibrary won't help you here—there aren't going to be any sales. See, this publisher has this really specific way of doing business. Basically, the Department of Culture decides which books are actually worth buying for the public libraries, and Demetar's books usually make that list (which, if you ask me, they totally deserve). The kicker is that Demetar doesn't really count on making money any other way. So, he sets the prices pretty high so that when the government buys them up, it covers all his costs. He knows—well, I know it's just one guy, but let's call him the company—that nobody else is going to buy them, so those books basically don't exist in the retail market. (Though, I suppose you can always order directly from him.) The guy actually gets pretty upset if he sees one of his books sitting in a used bookstore, because to him, that means someone sold a book he originally gave away for free. 😁

So that's the catch. When I was hunting for a translation of the Hegelian Logic Science back in the day, I stumbled upon their stuff but decided against it—three books for about sixty bucks. A bit steep for my budget at the time. Still, they do show up in bookstores occasionally (I actually spotted some at a Barnes & Noble once).

Philosophy of books vs. books about philosophy in Philosophy · Oct 3, 2020

Sandra Murphy33 said:Those titles you mentioned sound interesting—maybe I'll dive into them and let you know if they're worth the effort.😉

Sure. 👍

Philosophy of books vs. books about philosophy in Philosophy · Sep 30, 2020

I found myself getting pretty intrigued by these over the summer, so I ended up downloading them (though I haven't actually cracked them open yet):

-Adam Rutherford: Humanimal - How Homo sapiens Became Nature

-Andrew Krepinevich: 7 Deadly Scenarios - a Military futurist Explores War in The 21 st Century

-Sean Carroll : fra eternity to here - The quest for The Ultimate theory of time

-David Abulafia : The Boundless Sea - a human history of The Oceans

-George M. Young : The Russian Cosmists - The Esoteric Futurism of Nikolai Fedorov and his Followers

-Gernot Wagner, Martin L. Weitzman: Climate Shock - The Economic Consequences of Hotter planet

-James Hamilton : Volcano - Nature and Culture

-Kate C. Langdon, Vladimir Tismaneanu: Putin ’ Totalitarian Democracy - Ideology, Myth, and Violence in The Twenty-First Century - Leonard Susskind : The Black Hole War - my Battle with Stephen Hawking to make The World Safa for Quantum Mechanics

-Leonard Susskind : The Black Hole War - my Battle with Stephen Hawking to make The World Safa for Quantum Mechanics

-Nick Bostrom: superintelligenca - Paths, Dangers, Strategies

-Philip Ball: Universe of Ston - a Biography of Chartres Cathedral

-Richard Holmes: The aga of Wonder - The Romantic Generation and The Discovery of The beauty and Terror of science

-Roy Porter : Madness - a brief history

-Thomas Piketty : capital and Ideology

Philosophy of books vs. books about philosophy in Philosophy · Sep 30, 2020

For anyone out there looking to dip their toes into philosophy without drowning in academic jargon, I thought I’d toss this your way:

The sweet indifference of the world in Philosophy · Aug 26, 2020

Melissa Stewart6 said:Actually, I think your take is the one that's anti-philosophical.

Fair point, but taking an anti-philosophical stance is itself a philosophical move. It's a bit of a Catch-22; no matter how you spin it, you're stuck with the same result. Ethan Gomez82 would only be truly consistent if he just stopped thinking about these topics altogether and, by extension, stopped commenting on them. Because if you aren't thinking, you aren't talking. If you are thinking, yet you insist that thinking is a waste of time, you've already tripped over your own feet.

Lešek Kolakovski puts this much more elegantly:

We can't go around declaring a set of questions perpetually groundless unless we are implicitly relying on some constant standards of rationality.

"The Horror of Metaphysics," p. 8.

Besides, even a resigned admission that philosophy is essentially useless can serve as a way to (only) keep the discipline alive:

For over a century, a huge chunk of academic philosophy has been dedicated to explaining why philosophy is either impossible or useless—or both. In doing so, philosophy proves it can safely and successfully survive its own demise simply by busying itself with proving that it really is dead.

Ibid, p. 9.