Perhaps, but I'm an enthusiast for Aristotle's idea of phronesis—commonly translated as "practical wisdom". I think wisdom is, and can only be, tested by action. "By their fruits ye shall know them". I think this applies to oneself; by your fruits shall ye know yourself—"talk is cheap".

The problem I see with relying on external "points of reference" is that you would need to already know that those points of reference were manifestations of wisdom. How could you know that unless you could see the fruits of those external points of reference and have the practical wisdom to recognize them as fruits of wisdom?

I think we must make our assessments in acknowledgement of uncertainty and the possibility of doubt as Socrates seems to be advocating. But, you know, that's just me; that others may have different ideas they follow, I also acknowledge.

The possibility of doubt is always there until we have reached certainty.

And yes, phronesis is practical wisdom. And so is sophia. Ancient philosophy is, by definition, a practical endeavor. This tends to get overlooked in modern culture.

I'm an enthusiast for Aristotle's idea of phronesis—commonly translated as "practical wisdom". I think wisdom is, and can only be, tested by action. "By their fruits ye shall know them". I think this applies to oneself; by your fruits shall ye know yourself—"talk is cheap". — Janus

I am in agreement but what do you think the 'fruits' would actually look like? How do you demonstrate this?

If beliefs and actions appear to support thriving and happiness in oneself and others, then I would say they count as wise beliefs and actions. i don't claim this could ever be an exact science, but I think a sufficiently open-minded, observant and intelligent inquirer should be able to judge reasonably well as to what promotes peace and harmony and what promotes conflict and disharmony in both oneself and others.

Right, I agree with Pierre Hadot and you on that.

Perhaps, but I'm an enthusiast for Aristotle's idea of phronesis—commonly translated as "practical wisdom". I think wisdom is, and can only be, tested by action. "By their fruits ye shall know them". I think this applies to oneself; by your fruits shall ye know yourself—"talk is cheap". — Janus

What do you think of the role of intuition in Aristotle's "practical wisdom". I have great difficulty understanding what is meant by "intuition" in Aristotle because he describes it as the highest form of knowledge, and in his logic he implies that it cannot be wrong.

I've seen "intuition" explained as the means by which we establish connections, relations between things. So for example, if a primitive person noticed that when the sun comes up in the morning there is warmth from the sun, and water on the ground, dew, dries up, by intuition, the person would establish a connection between these three things, sun, heat, and drying up, and one could create a couple of principles, the sun creates heat, and the sun dries things up. From other information, such as heat from a fire drying things up, one might deductively conclude that heat dries things.

So I think that intuition is necessary, as prior to any form of logic, inductive or deductive, as the part of the intellectual process which determines meaningful relations (causal perhaps). But I think Aristotle gets the whole hierarchy of certainty backward, when he says that these first principles can't be wrong. Clearly delusional thinking and mental illness demonstrate that such intuitions are often wrong. And this backwardness reflects on Aristotle's complete epistemological structure. He states that logic proceeds from the more certain, toward conclusions which are less certain. But if the first principles are provided by intuition, and intuition is not reliable, then how is it possible that we start from a higher level of certainty in our logical proceedings?

Because then you have the problem of how purpose arises out of purposelessness. — Wayfarer

That there are living things that act purposively, that there are living things with desires, does not mean that the universe must act with purpose and have desires, any more than that there are living things that walk and talk and see means that the universe must walk and talk and see.

I am not familiar enough with Aristotle's treatment of intuition to comment on that.

Regarding your example, wouldn't you say that the observed connection between sunlight (and other sources of heat). warmth and evaporation is as certain as anything can be? The usual counterexample to this kind of intuitive understanding is Aristotle's belief that heavier things fall faster. Even Aristotle could have tested this theory, though with a heavy sheet and a small stone lighter than the sheet, if he had thought to; the raw materials for the experiment would have been readily available to him.

That there are living things that act purposively, that there are living things with desires, does not mean that the universe must act with purpose and have desires, any more than that there are living things that walk and talk and see means that the universe must walk and talk and see. — Fooloso4

Certainly, the universe considered as the object of science need not be regarded as purposeful or even as 'acting'. Putting aside these motivations is part of the basic methodology of science.

But the philosophical issues are deeper than that. Cast your mind back to the Phaedo, where Socrates says of Anaxagoras' naturalism:

One day after his initial setbacks Socrates happened to hear of Anaxagoras’ view that Mind directs and causes all things. He took this to mean that everything was arranged for the best. Therefore, if one wanted to know the explanation of something, one only had to know what was best for that thing. Suppose, for instance, that Socrates wanted to know why the heavenly bodies move the way they do. Anaxagoras would show him how this was the best possible way for each of them to be. And once he had taught Socrates what the best was for each thing individually, he then would explain the overall good that they all share in common. Yet upon studying Anaxagoras further, Socrates found these expectations disappointed. It turned out that Anaxagoras did not talk about Mind as cause at all, but rather about air and ether and other mechanistic explanations. For Socrates, however, this sort of explanation was simply unacceptable:

To call those things causes is too absurd. If someone said that without bones and sinews and all such things, I should not be able to do what I decided, he would be right, but surely to say that they are the cause of what I do, and not that I have chosen the best course, even though I act with my mind, is to speak very lazily and carelessly. Imagine not being able to distinguish the real cause from that without which the cause would not be able to act as a cause. (99a-b) — IEP Plato, Phaedo

Here, Socrates is criticizing that the mechanistic principles provided by Anaxagoras as being insufficient - mere 'bones and sinews', whereas the explanation that he wants has to account for 'Mind' (presumably 'nous') as the ultimate cause. So here, the principle of agency is introduced.

I think it anticipates later developments, particularly Aristotle's 'four causes', in which the cause of something is also part of the explanation as to why it exists, and also the various dialogues of Plato's which explicate his cosmology and the role of the Demiurge.

Because science is principally concerned with what Aristotelian philosophy would call material and efficient causes, it has lost the broader conception of reason that is suggested by that. It's all 'bones and sinews'! Post 'death of God' the Universe is believed to be devoid of reason, save that superimposed over it by the mind of h. sapiens. That's why there's a major thread in 20th Century philosophy and literature that life is a kind of cosmic accident, the 'million monkeys' theory (e.g Jacques Monod, Richard Dawkins, early Bertrand Russell. It's always struck me as somewhat absurd that 20th century science, which insists on finding causes, regards the absence of cause, in the case of the beginning of life, as being somehow an explanation.)

Now, I'm not appealing to ID arguments. But what I will say is that the consequence of this view is that the mind, as the result of the doings of the 'blind watchmaker', is presumed to be the product of this billion-year process which is essentially insentient and non-rational. And I think there's someting profoundly fallacious about that picture.

Putting it in as naturalistic terms as possible, what if the tendency towards the evolution of more intelligent species is a latent capacity within the Universe itself. Thomas Nagel wonders in Mind and Cosmos if 'each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself’. Which doesn't deny, or even conflict with, the scientific analysis of the process, so much as extend it, to re-encompass the dimension of 'intentionality' which has somehow become lost.

Regarding your example, wouldn't you say that the observed connection between sunlight (and other sources of heat). warmth and evaporation is as certain as anything can be? The usual counterexample to this kind of intuitive understanding is Aristotle's belief that heavier things fall faster. Even Aristotle could have tested this theory, though with a heavy sheet and a small stone lighter than the sheet, if he had thought to; the raw materials for the experiment would have been readily available to him. — Janus

The example of the sun and evaporation is just one example. I'm sure there are many examples of deluded minds, and mentally ill people making connections which are not sound. Your example of falling objects is a good one. Heavier things in general do fall faster, but in this case the intuition was wrong. Further testing proved that intuition to be wrong. This is the point, science proceeds from first principles derived from intuition. and since we trust science we tend to believe that these principles provide us with certainty, even though they haven't been properly tested. Einstein's relativity is a good example of such a principle, derived from intuition, but not properly tested.

That's why there's a major thread in 20th Century philosophy and literature that life is a kind of cosmic accident, the 'million monkeys' theory. — Wayfarer

This I believe, is the principle of plenitude. Given an infinite amount of time, every possibility will be actualized. But of course "infinite amount of time" is not a wise intuition.

That there are living things that act purposively, that there are living things with desires, does not mean that the universe must act with purpose and have desires, any more than that there are living things that walk and talk and see means that the universe must walk and talk and see. — Fooloso4

Strange, isn't it, how some people never outgrow the early naive stage of psychological development in which they anthropomorphize every thing, "seeing" intentional agents and hidden purposes every where, like toddlers in a nursery? The world is not a cradle, Freud points out; rather the world is an indifferent wilderness by turns beautiful and terrible, and yet many demand it be more secure and comforting – consoling – than it is, and via hasty generalizations and compositional fallacies they posit some "religious or idealist metaphysics" (re: ego-flattering "Providence") which, of course, collapses under rational scrutiny like blowing on a house of cards.

Ah yes, I kept one of your immortal snippets from the old forum about just this question:

'life' is a specific emergent level of molecular-structured thermodynamic complexity that "happened" insofar as -- "because" -- there weren't conditions which prevented it. Same reason snowflakes "happen". In other words, the universe consists in entropy-driven transformations wherein complex phenomena like (terrestrial) "life" arises & goes extinct along a segment of the slope down from minimal entropy (order) to maximal entropy (disorder); the universe is always-already "dead" but becomes a little less-so ever-so-momentarily at different stages of its (cosmic) decomposition. — 180 Proof

You want that, it's all yours. I'm not even going to complain.

Einstein's relativity is a good example of such a principle, derived from intuition, but not properly tested. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is a difference between observational and theoretical claims in science. There are no simple observable confirmations that can be made with theoretical claims in the way there can be with claims about what is directly observed.

So, relativity has been tested insofar as its predictions concerning what we would expect to observe if it were correct have all panned out so far I believe.

Ah yes, I kept one of your immortal snippets from the old forum about just this question:

'life' is a specific emergent level of molecular-structured thermodynamic complexity that "happened" insofar as -- "because" -- there weren't conditions which prevented it. Same reason snowflakes "happen". In other words, the universe consists in entropy-driven transformations wherein complex phenomena like (terrestrial) "life" arises & goes extinct along a segment of the slope down from minimal entropy (order) to maximal entropy (disorder); the universe is always-already "dead" but becomes a little less-so ever-so-momentarily at different stages of its (cosmic) decomposition.
— 180 Proof

You want that, it's all yours. I'm not even going to complain — Wayfarer

:fire: Well I'm flattered and much obliged, my friend! The ideas expressed in that quote reflect what is more true than not no matter what we "want" to believe which, I think, is the beauty and power of a naturalistic (realist) worldview. Sublime ephemerality (anicca, no?) A universe is a drop in the ocean of oblivion – we make of ourselves, and maybe of the universe itself, what we can with the time given us (says Camus or "Gandalf the Grey"?) :death: :flower:

Sublime ephemerality (anicca, no?) — 180 Proof

Nope. (Explains the dire consequences of objectifying non-objectification.)

//the point being, Buddhism, and the Buddha, are not nihilistic. Nihilism is the view that at death, the body returns to the elements, there are no consequences of actions, to put it minimally. Of course that has been elaborated in mythology but the point remains. (The Buddha also rejected ‘eternallism’, which in my interpretation is the belief that one can be re-born in perpetuity through successive lives, and that there is a separate, self-caused essence. Nihilism and eternalism are the ‘two extreme views’ which the ‘middle way’ avoids.)

I wonder if you’ve ever read Tom Wolfe’s famous 1996 essay, Sorry but your Soul Just Died? It’s still online. I think it is relevant to this conversation.

You've completely lost me again.

There is a difference between observational and theoretical claims in science. There are no simple observable confirmations that can be made with theoretical claims in the way there can be with claims about what is directly observed. — Janus

We do not agree here. Every observation is theory laden, starting with the words we use to describe something. Call it "red", and there is theory behind the meaning of that word. There is no real separation between observational claims and theoretical claims in science today, because all claims have elements of both. This reality underscores the need to determine which of the principles within an observation, are based in intuition, therefore unproven theory.

If for example you are describing something you saw as having been "red", then unless there are strict criteria as to what constitutes red, this part of your description is based in intuition, unproven theory. That's why in a litmus test there is a colour chart for the purpose of comparison, it removes the unproven intuition of "red" with a definition, a chart, derived from proven theory. Either way, the intuitive judgement or the colour chart judgement, when you say "it's red" the judgement is based on theory, one is just better proven than the other..

We do not agree here. Every observation is theory laden, starting with the words we use to describe something. Call it "red", and there is theory behind the meaning of that word. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't agree. For me 'red' is just a word we use to refer to a certain colour or range of colours that are commonly observed. Indeed there may be and have been various theories associated with our use of that word or its cognates (not specifially our use of 'red', our use of colour words in general) but is there any essential theory underpinning its/ their use?

For me 'red' is just a word we use to refer to a certain colour or range of colours that are commonly observed. — Janus

The incompatibility between "a certain colour", and a "range of colours" is the important point to recognize here, which makes your observation, when you use the word "red", theory dependent.

You've completely lost me again. — 180 Proof

Sublime ephemerality (anicca, no?) — 180 Proof

I took that to be a reference to Buddhist philosophy - anicca being 'impermanence'. But I'm saying that it's not true to characterise Buddhism as naturalism (or nihilism) which is why I linked to that particular verse.

I don't think that's right. What I call 'red' at the two extremes of the range some may call 'orange' or 'mauve'. That would just be personal perception and choice; I can't see what it has to do with theory.

Good thing I didn't characterize Buddhism as anything.

I don't want to put words into Wayfarer's mouth but isn't one of his opinions that the post enlightenment worldview, especially that of the current, post-Darwinian era holds a limited physicalist metaphysics and has rejected much wisdom that was ours for millennia? I imagine that these old books contain some of this repudiated knowledge and many other ideas besides worth cultivating. — Tom Storm

Let's just keep in mind that for many of these ancient authors, a half of the human population was by default considered lesser beings. They thought women are defective, incomplete men.

We must know how to determine better. — TheMadFool

Better = That which gives more pleasure overall, taking into account space and time.

Are you a bot, Hope? Everything you enter seems like it's generated by a bot.

Are you a bot, Hope? — Wayfarer

No. I'm just a sociopath. So i appear robotic.

See, now you wish I was a bot.

What if wisdom consists in ataraxia, though? What if it consists in simply following your inclinations and conscience, of being yourself fearlessly, and being skeptical of external so-called authorities and traditional methods as paths to wisdom and of any claims that we need to rely on such things to gain wisdom? — Janus

That would require one to be an epistemic autonomist, and to in fact be epistemically autonomous. Epistemic autonomy is not possible. Because, as you later say:

I agree we are not isolated individuals; we always live and think within a received cultural matrix. — Janus

However, the garden variety of what you describe in the first quote above is epistemic narcissim, which is fairly common.

I think wisdom is, and can only be, tested by action. "By their fruits ye shall know them". I think this applies to oneself; by your fruits shall ye know yourself—"talk is cheap". — Janus

No, that's not enough, because one still needs some standards by which to assess those fruits.

If beliefs and actions appear to support thriving and happiness in oneself and others, then I would say they count as wise beliefs and actions. i don't claim this could ever be an exact science, but I think a sufficiently open-minded, observant and intelligent inquirer should be able to judge reasonably well as to what promotes peace and harmony and what promotes conflict and disharmony in both oneself and others. — Janus

Except that humans have developed such vastly different ideas of what counts as "thriving", "happiness", "peace", "harmony" that the above criteria are too general. People can thrive, be happy, live in peace and harmony while living under tyranny. People can also thrive, be happy, live in peace and harmony if they are politically correct androids.

The problem I see with relying on external "points of reference" is that you would need to already know that those points of reference were manifestations of wisdom. How could you know that unless you could see the fruits of those external points of reference and have the practical wisdom to recognize them as fruits of wisdom?

And what is more, spiritually advanced people tend to resent to be put to the test and their actions judged.

I think we must make our assessments in acknowledgement of uncertainty and the possibility of doubt as Socrates seems to be advocating.

Of course. But as points out repeatedely, acknowledgement of doubt and uncertainty can lead to a schizoaffective disorder.

If the Sun & Moon should doubt they'd immediately go out .

Strange, isn't it, how some people never outgrow the early naive stage of psychological development in which they anthropomorphize every thing, "seeing" intentional agents and hidden purposes every where, like toddlers in a nursery? The world is not a cradle, Freud points out; rather the world is an indifferent wilderness by turns beautiful and terrible, and yet many demand it be more secure and comforting – consoling – than it is, and via hasty generalizations and compositional fallacies they posit some "religious or idealist metaphysics" (re: ego-flattering "Providence") which, of course, collapses under rational scrutiny like blowing on a house of cards. — 180 Proof

And yet precsiely those same people who demand the Universe to be a welcoming place for them, who demand it to be secure and comforting for them get to thrive in it. Because such people, believing they are entitled to security and comfort in this world, tame rivers, kill the infidels, and pursue science, in order to make the world a safe place for themselves. And they get it done.

Because such people, believing they are entitled to security and comfort in this world, tame rivers, kill the infidels, and pursue science, in order to make the world a safe place for themselves. And they get it done. — baker

:up: That is a great angle. Never had thought of that.

now you wish I was a bot. — hope

:yikes:

Not only that, but even in terms of finding our own way toward the attainment of wisdom, we cannot do it in complete isolation but need at least from time to time to turn to external points of reference in order to verify that what we have found or are in the process of finding is indeed wisdom and not something else. — Apollodorus

The problem is that those external points of reference are often hostile to us, and we have to find a way to rely on and trust people who, at the very least, don't care if we live or die.