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
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
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. — Fooloso4
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
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
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
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.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
'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
Einstein's relativity is a good example of such a principle, derived from intuition, but not properly tested. — Metaphysician Undercover
: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: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
Sublime ephemerality (anicca, no?) — 180 Proof
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. — Metaphysician Undercover
For me 'red' is just a word we use to refer to a certain colour or range of colours that are commonly observed. — Janus
You've completely lost me again. — 180 Proof
Sublime ephemerality (anicca, no?) — 180 Proof
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
We must know how to determine better. — TheMadFool
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
I agree we are not isolated individuals; we always live and think within a received cultural matrix. — Janus
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
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
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?
Of course. But as points out repeatedely, acknowledgement of doubt and uncertainty can lead to a schizoaffective disorder.I think we must make our assessments in acknowledgement of uncertainty and the possibility of doubt as Socrates seems to be advocating.
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
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
now you wish I was a bot. — hope
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.