What is wisdom?

Amanda Jackson5 said: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.

As for what I consider truth outside of human experience, I covered that in post 138. That gets us close to your "absolute truth." In that realm, relationships still exist, but you lose the subject-object distinction, leaving you with nothing but relations between identical things.

ruggedraven36 said:So you're distinguishing between wise people and "sages"? You think sages aren't actually wise?

The truth is, you aren't even talking about wisdom or wise people. Being smart, being crafty, being street-smart—even having a massive amount of knowledge—doesn't equal wisdom. Not individually, and certainly not combined. Whether it was fifty years ago or right now, you can't call someone wise if they have technical intellect but zero moral backbone. Kindness and humanity aren't optional extras when it comes to wisdom—unless we're just making up our own definitions to suit ourselves.

Sages are purely hypothetical creatures.

@Ethan Gomez82

I find your particular interpretation of truth to be quite coherent, certainly, yet I remain steadfast in my belief that wisdom is fundamentally inseparable from ethics.

If they were truly distinct, we would be forced to acknowledge the existence of works that are simultaneously wise and vile, or perhaps wise and treacherous... though that strikes me as an outright oxymoron, wouldn't you agree?

Unlike that nonsensical pairing of "wise and vile," one can easily envision something being both sly and despicable (even if, granted, a certain level of slyness might occasionally serve a virtuous end).

If wisdom could actually be decoupled from morality, then a human action could exist that is both profoundly wise and utterly base. Could you possibly provide even a single instance of such a thing? (I fully expect you will struggle to produce such an example, which would, in itself, prove my point that wisdom and ethics are one and the same.)

One could easily imagine a book titled Sly Wise Crime describing a criminal who was simply clever enough to evade capture and punishment.

However, I cannot fathom a book entitled Wise Crime. Can you? (Unless, of course, one were attempting to craft an intentionally absurd, oxymoronic title, of course.)

Amanda Jackson5 said: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.

So the progression goes: first the immediate (sensory—the body?), then the mediated (thought, feeling—the mind?), and finally the transcendent (which transcends both, much like space and time)?

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:I just figured matter was made of atoms and that there were no people involved.

Look, people can argue about this all they want. But from what I've seen? Kant was right.

If humanity vanished, that truth wouldn't have anyone left to be true for. It's easy to imagine a scenario where, instead of us, there are aliens from a galaxy where physical bodies aren't just "dust and ashes," possessing entirely different ways of observing and reasoning. The real question is whether matter, emptiness, and atoms would still be registered as the exact same things.

Sandra Murphy33 said:If humanity vanished, that truth wouldn't have anyone left to be true for. It's easy to imagine a scenario where, instead of us, there are aliens from a galaxy where physical bodies aren't just "dust and ashes," possessing entirely different ways of observing and reasoning. The real question is whether matter, emptiness, and atoms would still be registered as the exact same things.

Yeah, that's the catch.

Our tools aren't perfect either. I mean, back in the day, American scientists actually thought light traveled through something called ether.

feralranger said:@Ethan Gomez82

I find your particular interpretation of truth to be quite coherent, certainly, yet I remain steadfast in my belief that wisdom is fundamentally inseparable from ethics.

If they were truly distinct, we would be forced to acknowledge the existence of works that are simultaneously wise and vile, or perhaps wise and treacherous... though that strikes me as an outright oxymoron, wouldn't you agree?

Unlike that nonsensical pairing of "wise and vile," one can easily envision something being both sly and despicable (even if, granted, a certain level of slyness might occasionally serve a virtuous end).

If wisdom could actually be decoupled from morality, then a human action could exist that is both profoundly wise and utterly base. Could you possibly provide even a single instance of such a thing? (I fully expect you will struggle to produce such an example, which would, in itself, prove my point that wisdom and ethics are one and the same.)

One could easily imagine a book titled Sly Wise Crime describing a criminal who was simply clever enough to evade capture and punishment.

However, I cannot fathom a book entitled Wise Crime. Can you? (Unless, of course, one were attempting to craft an intentionally absurd, oxymoronic title, of course.)

A lot of things don't immediately come to mind, but there's plenty I can think of where it's clear how far wisdom sits from ethics. To nail the perfect moment to dump some stocks, you need immense wisdom. You have to master economics, sociology, psychology, politics, and more—and most importantly, you have to connect all those dots at exactly the right time. Most smart people fail at this, but a few actually pull it off. That requires massive amounts of wisdom, yet zero ethics.
I'm curious about something else that isn't quite clear to me. People talk about "sages" as if they've defined the very meaning of wisdom through them. It seems odd because I doubt anyone has ever actually met a sage in real life. You find them in literature, stories, or myths, but not in reality. So, does our definition of wisdom just stem from those fictional archetypes?

Amanda Jackson5 said: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.

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.

Quincy:

Ethan Gomez82 As Ethan Gomez82 points out: There is quite a vast amount of information that simply fails to occur to me upon my first attempt at reasoning, yet simultaneously, there is an abundance of insight that strikes me instantly—instances where one can clearly observe just how far a certain brand of wise crime sits from any semblance of actual ethics.

That argument simply doesn't hold water. If we were following that logic, one might claim the existence of a wise crime or perhaps some sort of base wisdom—but that is an absurdity, isn't it? By its very definition, wisdom is inextricably linked to ethics, making such a concept fundamentally impossible. Wait, are you seriously suggesting that a wise crime or a base wisdom could actually exist?

Quincy:

Ethan Gomez82 As Ethan Gomez82 points out: Pinpointing that exact, golden moment to offload a stock position requires an immense amount of wise crime. One would need to possess a deep, almost obsessive mastery of economics, sociology, psychology, and politics, among many other disciplines—and more importantly, one must have the uncanny ability to weave those disparate threads together at precisely the right instant. Even most highly intelligent individuals fail miserably at this, yet a select few seem to possess this particular knack. It is a feat steeped in profound wisdom, though I assure you, it is entirely devoid of any ethical substance whatsoever.

It is nothing more than data collection and mathematics: statistics, probability, analytics... all that, along with its practical application, much like meteorology. It has absolutely nothing to do with wisdom. Even when a meteorologist makes a perfectly accurate prediction, we don't exactly go around calling them wise.

feralranger said:Quincy:

Ethan Gomez82 As Ethan Gomez82 points out: There is quite a vast amount of information that simply fails to occur to me upon my first attempt at reasoning, yet simultaneously, there is an abundance of insight that strikes me instantly—instances where one can clearly observe just how far a certain brand of wise crime sits from any semblance of actual ethics.

That argument simply doesn't hold water. If we were following that logic, one might claim the existence of a wise crime or perhaps some sort of base wisdom—but that is an absurdity, isn't it? By its very definition, wisdom is inextricably linked to ethics, making such a concept fundamentally impossible. Wait, are you seriously suggesting that a wise crime or a base wisdom could actually exist?

Quincy:

Ethan Gomez82 As Ethan Gomez82 points out: Pinpointing that exact, golden moment to offload a stock position requires an immense amount of wise crime. One would need to possess a deep, almost obsessive mastery of economics, sociology, psychology, and politics, among many other disciplines—and more importantly, one must have the uncanny ability to weave those disparate threads together at precisely the right instant. Even most highly intelligent individuals fail miserably at this, yet a select few seem to possess this particular knack. It is a feat steeped in profound wisdom, though I assure you, it is entirely devoid of any ethical substance whatsoever.

It is nothing more than data collection and mathematics: statistics, probability, analytics... all that, along with its practical application, much like meteorology. It has absolutely nothing to do with wisdom. Even when a meteorologist makes a perfectly accurate prediction, we don't exactly go around calling them wise.

Personally, I find linking those two ideas completely nonsensical, making phrases like "wise crime" or "wise charity" equally absurd. But let's save that for the new thread. Anything involving high intelligence is often conflated with wisdom. That’s how I first encountered the concept growing up—not through fairy tales or fantasy novels, but through reality.

When you hit 50 and suddenly realize you actually have the answers to most things...

"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.

Amanda Jackson5 said:"Quote"

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.

I get that—when I called it "unusual," I didn't mean it was rare or out of the norm; I just meant it felt stupid.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Personally, I find linking those two ideas completely nonsensical, making phrases like "wise crime" or "wise charity" equally absurd. But let's save that for the new thread. Anything involving high intelligence is often conflated with wisdom. That’s how I first encountered the concept growing up—not through fairy tales or fantasy novels, but through reality.

Teddy, are you pulling my leg? Honestly, up until this point, you haven't sounded like someone who failed their basic logic course.

You claim things are generally one way, yet you refer to those two things (when, in reality, those two things are quite specific).

Why is it perfectly acceptable to "pair" the terms cunning and criminality, yet—per your logic—it becomes an issue to pair wisdom and criminality? What, pray tell, is the distinct difference here?

(It lies precisely in the empathy and ethics that you seem to be overlooking; that is why cunning can be associated with crime, because unlike wisdom, cunning lacks any inherent foundation in empathy or ethical considerations.)

feralranger said:Quincy:

Ethan Gomez82 As Ethan Gomez82 points out: There is quite a vast amount of information that simply fails to occur to me upon my first attempt at reasoning, yet simultaneously, there is an abundance of insight that strikes me instantly—instances where one can clearly observe just how far a certain brand of wise crime sits from any semblance of actual ethics.

That argument simply doesn't hold water. If we were following that logic, one might claim the existence of a wise crime or perhaps some sort of base wisdom—but that is an absurdity, isn't it? By its very definition, wisdom is inextricably linked to ethics, making such a concept fundamentally impossible. Wait, are you seriously suggesting that a wise crime or a base wisdom could actually exist?

Quincy:

Ethan Gomez82 As Ethan Gomez82 points out: Pinpointing that exact, golden moment to offload a stock position requires an immense amount of wise crime. One would need to possess a deep, almost obsessive mastery of economics, sociology, psychology, and politics, among many other disciplines—and more importantly, one must have the uncanny ability to weave those disparate threads together at precisely the right instant. Even most highly intelligent individuals fail miserably at this, yet a select few seem to possess this particular knack. It is a feat steeped in profound wisdom, though I assure you, it is entirely devoid of any ethical substance whatsoever.

It is nothing more than data collection and mathematics: statistics, probability, analytics... all that, along with its practical application, much like meteorology. It has absolutely nothing to do with wisdom. Even when a meteorologist makes a perfectly accurate prediction, we don't exactly go around calling them wise.

There's also the idea of "outsmarting" someone. What does that have to do with ethics?

I can think of four related ideas: wisdom, a wise person, being wiser, and outsmarting. It feels like what you're getting at is more about how people use the label "wise person"...

"Quote"

feralranger said:Teddy, are you pulling my leg? Honestly, up until this point, you haven't sounded like someone who failed their basic logic course.

You claim things are generally one way, yet you refer to those two things (when, in reality, those two things are quite specific).

Why is it perfectly acceptable to "pair" the terms cunning and criminality, yet—per your logic—it becomes an issue to pair wisdom and criminality? What, pray tell, is the distinct difference here?

(It lies precisely in the empathy and ethics that you seem to be overlooking; that is why cunning can be associated with crime, because unlike wisdom, cunning lacks any inherent foundation in empathy or ethical considerations.)

Cunning feels more like a competition, kind of like trying to outsmart someone... whereas wisdom is what you lean on when there's no rivalry involved. When you go to a wise person for answers, it isn't some sort of contest...

I don't really see how you're linking wisdom to ethics... It just feels kind of off to me...

I honestly think how we link wisdom and ethics all comes down to our take on universal values. If you believe there are certain core truths out there—stuff that exists regardless of what society says is "normal"—then you have to ask yourself how wise it actually is to ignore those ethical principles. It’s even more obvious if you're looking at it from a standpoint of moral absolutism. From a purely logical angle, it just makes sense. Ignoring basic ethics leads you down a bad path, and walking down a bad path isn't exactly smart.

Now, if you don't believe in universal values and think everything is just relative or based on shifting social trends, then you're starting from a totally different perspective.

Plus, people are complicated. Some folks are just naturally wiser than others. Take a guy like Vito Corleone, for example. I bet a lot of people would call him wise, or at least say he has the traits of a wise man. Is that enough to label him as such? Maybe not. He’s missing that whole ethical component. He definitely had some great qualities, but if he had channeled them into better moral choices, he probably would have lived a much better life with way fewer tragedies. That would be true wisdom. Or, look at it this way: maybe he wouldn't have even survived long enough to get old in his line of work. Instead, someone more impulsive and violent might have taken over the family business, which would have caused even more chaos for everyone else.

I don't know, there are so many layers to this. But to me, the big sticking point is whether the idea of universal, unchanging values actually holds water.

Maybe the logic goes like this. To actually be called a wise person, you have to meet two conditions: you have to be wise, and you have to genuinely want to share that wisdom without any ego... A wise person is someone people actually turn to for advice. If someone is smart but malicious, sneaky, or just plain corrupt, they won't give you honest guidance. They’ll just lie to trip you up. You wouldn't go to them for help, so they wouldn't hold that status...

If you try to define wisdom based on that specific view of a sage, you end up with what Sisyphus is talking about.

Gerald Jackson48 said:I honestly think how we link wisdom and ethics all comes down to our take on universal values. If you believe there are certain core truths out there—stuff that exists regardless of what society says is "normal"—then you have to ask yourself how wise it actually is to ignore those ethical principles. It’s even more obvious if you're looking at it from a standpoint of moral absolutism. From a purely logical angle, it just makes sense. Ignoring basic ethics leads you down a bad path, and walking down a bad path isn't exactly smart.

Now, if you don't believe in universal values and think everything is just relative or based on shifting social trends, then you're starting from a totally different perspective.

Plus, people are complicated. Some folks are just naturally wiser than others. Take a guy like Vito Corleone, for example. I bet a lot of people would call him wise, or at least say he has the traits of a wise man. Is that enough to label him as such? Maybe not. He’s missing that whole ethical component. He definitely had some great qualities, but if he had channeled them into better moral choices, he probably would have lived a much better life with way fewer tragedies. That would be true wisdom. Or, look at it this way: maybe he wouldn't have even survived long enough to get old in his line of work. Instead, someone more impulsive and violent might have taken over the family business, which would have caused even more chaos for everyone else.

I don't know, there are so many layers to this. But to me, the big sticking point is whether the idea of universal, unchanging values actually holds water.

Following basic moral rules and social norms—regardless of where they actually come from—doesn't require any special intelligence. Honestly, even an idiot can follow the rules, so why give "wise men" all the credit? A truly wise person avoids unnecessary trouble altogether, and if they end up in a mess, they clearly weren't that wise to begin with.😁

Ethan Gomez82 said:Following basic moral rules and social norms—regardless of where they actually come from—doesn't require any special intelligence. Honestly, even an idiot can follow the rules, so why give "wise men" all the credit? A truly wise person avoids unnecessary trouble altogether, and if they end up in a mess, they clearly weren't that wise to begin with.😁

Spot on. You don't need a genius IQ to follow the rules just because society says so. But actually grasping the actual point behind those moral rules? That's a whole different level of thinking.