Hello

I read your OP but having some problems understanding your question/s. Can you ask it differently?

Behold the sincere seeker looking for the treasure of nothing-ness in the desolate ruins. If he 'has to' seek then he seeks without the aid of reasoning, for intellect is incapable to see the beginnings and the endings of things; so, logically one gives up looking. There is the perception of the incapacity to perceive perception, therefore one knows that one doesn't know. Then the flowering of humility.

Note: An unrelated musing...

It requires wisdom to understand wisdom: the music is nothing if the audience is deaf. Walter Lippmann

I suspect that experience is often mistaken for wisdom. — Tom Storm

Right. Experience isn't wisdom.

Nice quote, and true. The same sentiment has been echoed by many,

How Do We Measure 'Wisdom'?

We? Is this the objectification you are embarking on? The wisdom of the crowd?
The average of all gurus? — unenlightened

:smile:

Unless your question was how to measure the wisdom of others... — skyblack

...it it was, the first post/suggestion will still hold true.

I think that your response is interesting because the question of feedback raises the question of how is wisdom constructed socially. I believe that is part of the issue, but so believe that wisdom is likely to go beyond social definitions. This may be part of the problem, being confronted with social and cultural definitions, while the experience may transcend these. It may be an issue of seeing beyond the ideas of convention, and trying to find a basis of knowledge, which is not simply about seeing experience in the ways we are accustomed to, and looking for deeper meaning. — Jack Cummins

Carry on.

only wish that it was as simple as that, because my own experience is of being told that I am wrong, independently of what I think. It often leads me to think that I am best to keep all my ideas to myself. However, while I am aware of the subjectivity of the quest, I do believe that so many other people are too. I think that the ideas of wisdom may be vague at times, so I am not sure of my thread question in some ways, but , at the same time, believe that many are in the pursuit of wisdom, so I am raising it, for anyone who believes that it is worth discussing. — Jack Cummins

Your question was how do we measure wisdom. It was said, one can measure by looking at the feedback within oneself. The feedback of one's thoughts-feelings, words, and actions. To measure by one's conduct. All of which are real time feedback based on our reality, therefore not theoretical. To see if one is walking the talk.

Unless your question was how to measure the wisdom of others...

How do we measure 'wisdom'?

I am asking this question because I am aware of so many conflicting philosophies and questions arising from them. I admit that I am feeling a bit irritated by so many debates in philosophy, arising from theories of so many different, but competing kinds. But, I do believe that some believe that they have the truth, and others are ignorant. I don't believe that it is that it is that simple at all, but please forgive my question if it appears to be completely ridiculous. However, I think that the whole basis of evaluation of knowledge and its application to life, is complex but far from straightforward. — Jack Cummins

Good question. Is it really that difficult? One's own life/living is the best measurement. One's thoughts-feelings, words, and actions are the most reliable feedback. So is conduct. All of these are real time indicators. All these measurements are strongly based on solid realty, not theories. The degree of translation into actual living is the measurement.

@ArguingWAristotleTiff

What is the joyful experience that comes to your mind first when I asked just now?
Interestingly when I ask myself that question I am taken back to a time when my family consisted of my brother, my Mom and I. It was really hard on the house emotionally and it began to rain just as I was leaving to go to the next door neighbor which crushed me because I thought for sure Mom would say no.
When she saw my sadness at the rain she put her shoes on to walk me over and I said but you are going to get wet. She said no I won't, I am going to dance between the raindrops.
Lovely memory :flower:
Thank you for joining The Philosophy Forum and enjoy your stay~ — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Thank you.

I shalt now endeavour to critique your opinion.

Thesis: sometime the distinction that you so aptly described, between critiquing and criticizing, disappears, and for a good reason.

1. Not everyone responds to critiquing.
2. Some who don't respond well simply ignore the counter arguments to their thesis.
3. This is very frustrating to the critics, when the counter arguments are carefully thought out and are apparently valid.
4. The critics will become abusive; they don't utter ad hominems, they simply vent their frustration and call the original offender horrible names.

00000000000000

For some reason the majority of the fallacies used in arguments come from the pens of those who defend their thesis. Most of insults come form the critics once they discover that their arguments won't stick, can't stick to the Original Poster. — god must be atheist

My previous post was an endeavor to offer a distinction, in light of which facts can reflect. The same facts which are usually concealed by deceptive thinking and words. either innocently as in an absence of deep reflection, or deliberately as in the case of trolls trying to justify their trolling. To that effect the post seems to have served it's purpose so there is no need to continue. Thank you.

Welcome to the boards, SeaOfGems. Please be aware that we exercise here extreme criticalism. This is typical of philosophers these days. So please don't let it get to you if people make unkind comments to your post here.

I hope you will get used to the forum's spirit of fighting very soon, and have fun with philosophy here. — god must be atheist

As you perhaps know i don't post too often unless something inspires me to. The above comment is one of them. Critiquing is a wonderful thing. Not every T, D, H can critique properly, and not too long ago getting a 1st class critique was considered invaluable in one's academic pursuits. That is in colleges which have a long history/tradition.

But surely critiquing isn't the same as criticizing. The former is directed at the subject matter while the latter is directed at a person. Ad hominem's aren't usually a part of good critiquing and for good reasons are considered fallacious. They are considered the last bitter resort of a failed person. And by "fighting spirit" we surely don't mean the cowardice behind keyboard warfare, now do we? These are plain ole trolling. It's sad to hear all this is being considered "typical" these days. Something to emulate. Perhaps these so called philosophers have become nothing but second hand baboons.....IDK.

Just my cent, feel free to disregard it.

Reading the above, one is confronted with the question of listening. What's involved in listening and how does one listen? Does one listen if they are caught in the movements of acceptance and rejection? Is one listening if the new is being filtered through the old? Surely not.

Only a mind that isn't being pulled in different directions by contradictions, and is free from a listener that is heavy with the past, can truly listen. Such an innocent mind is free from compulsions and suppression, which distort listening.

A hallucination is that which has no stable reality outside of subjective manifestation. Consciousness, as the set of qualia we are attending to at any given moment, is completely private, and so has no reality outside of our subjective experience of it. It is hallucinatory. — hypericin

So is the entire world 'you' perceive. You can doubt everything but you cannot doubt the doubter. Which proves the primacy of a conscious presence (the doubter), and of consciousnesses as being THE fundamental reality. The rest may be doubted.

To continue a bit on what was said in OP:

One may ask a question, how does a lover of wisdom, concerned with his or her own life/living (not looking at the lives of others) address the problems laid out in the OP. Can they approach it from/through their knowledge? Obviously no, since knowledge has been proven to fall short, inadequate to meet these realities. If knowledge would have helped resolved the conundrum it would have.

To look at this conundrum one would like to draw upon some things from my previous thread which is this one . Drawing from that thread one gets a hint on how to approach existential issues like these. One will need an innocent mind. An innocent mind that isn't looking either from dead knowledge, or through the psychological scars of yester years. A mind which isn't conflicted as it sees facts, does not escape from what is, and is thus unbiased. Such a mind knows that it doesn’t know and can remain in the unknowing, therefore innocent. It's a questioning mind that isn't seeking an easy and quick answer. The innocent mind is now free (freedom) to look and to investigate.

But your response is not driven by an emotional reaction? Not like an innocent bear. You're keep going on and on about how everyone has a corrupted mind... it stands to reason you're not excluded.

Then you also project an assumption (not conditioned by corrupting knowledge) about what it is like to be a bear.

No need to reply. But your poetry is kind of interesting, though dour, uncharitable, melancholy and nihilistic. The corruption has moved into my bowels. I must seek a toilet. — Nils Loc

In interest of any reader,

regarding, "Then you also project an assumption (not conditioned by corrupting knowledge) about what it is like to be a bear: :

In OP's very first thread in the forum which can be seen here , a distinction had been drawn between two kinds of knowledge viz, the practical and the psychological. That is, between the non-corrupting and the corrupting knowledge. The distinction was again touched in this thread Perhaps a look at how that distinction has been drawn might help in understanding OP's usage of the word knowledge. You might then be able to understand where the knowledge of the bear fits in. Thank you for your charitable posts.

But are you included or excluded as one who has a corrupted mind? I would be surprised if you alone could make that designation. — Nils Loc

I see you edited your comment and added the above while i was typing the response.

In response to your question: This is something op had mentioned in one of his earliest posts after joining this forum. The first signs of a failure of intelligence and affection is to fixate on the author/poster rather than the topic/what they are saying. This shift from intelligent responses to emotional reactions, along with a fixation on the person rather than the issue, is a neurotic effect of a corrupt mind.

Apparently not, since we now know that a bear isn't corrupted by conditioned knowledge. — Nils Loc

But in your previous comment you were using a bear and it's actions as an example of conditioned knowledge. OP corrected the error in his response, and added that note in parentheses. What you now know is the corrected version.

If a bear eating salmon in a river is an example of a kind of mind corruption (conditioned knowledge) all I can do is shrug my shoulders. I would much rather be like a bear salmon fishing, with no relationship to a past or future self that engages a ceaseless anxiety, supposing that is the case. There is just life in motion, pain and pleasure which comes and goes, no concept of death or something to die — Nils Loc

On the contrary, the bear (wrong example. not only the wrong end of the stick, but it's the wrong stick) is alive! It is true to what nature has given. It's brimming with integrity. The bear isn't corrupted by the conditioned knowledge of humans, and the pathetic reactionary responses to life, the stench of which can be detected from far away. I am afraid, as it stands, the dream of living like a bear is nothing but a pipe dream, coming out from a corrupt mind that isn't able to face it's own corruption....a mind that is common to all humanity.

Ha

The OP could jettison "corrupt" and "innocent" for different qualifying terms, like virtuous versus virtueless, skillful versus unskillful, logical versus non-logical, et cetera. Not much to be gained by giant black and white categories reminiscent of the church or court of law. — Nils Loc

The op is more interested in accurately representing what's being said, than in playing patty cake. These accurate representations may sting, but they bring out the truth in the obvious reactionary posts/games that a corrupt mind plays. Which are available for observation, if the inquirer wishes.

It may be interesting to discuss it if someone has another take on it. — original2

Right, so your initial post wasn't an invitation to discuss, Thanks for the clarification.

I suppose that goes both ways though. You can't really be the objective judge of your own mind. The esteem you grant yourself is otherworldly if so. — Nils Loc

That's where the heavy lifting is. Objectivity and clarity don't come easy. It will depend on how innocent the mind is.

The innocence, clarity, and objectivity will show in the expertise of one, when he or she is communicating, and helps "clear up" things for the listener. But in order to perceive and acknowledge this, one also needs an Innocent mind. Our inability to appreciate the gifts of other people is essentially a failure of our own intelligence, for the prerequisite for appreciation is comprehension. I think i am done for today. Thanks again.

Yes, you're much clearer but your value judgement using the strange words "corrupt" or "innocent" don't really mean anything because according to your language all minds are corrupt or innocent.
You haven't adequately fleshed out the difference between these two types of mind. — Nils Loc

The OP has always been clear. Any lack of clarity is/was in the recipient's corrupted mind. Perhaps a reactionary block towards comprehension.

Furthermore, t's not a value judgement, but an accurate designation/representation of facts, using the available linguistic limitations. The OP has done it's part. Any further investigation has to be undertaken by the listener, with due diligence, if they wish to go deeper into the matter, or not. Thank you.

Sorry, you strike me as overly critical and what you are attempting to describe is unclear and seemingly in part contradictory.

Implicit knowledge cannot help leave a mark on the mind as it develops. There are dysfunctional minds, unbalanced minds, depressed minds et cetera but a corrupt mind sounds like a self-interested immoral mind (like a sociopath) that exploits knowledge for power at the expense of the well being of others. Corruption is a judgement made from an a particular point of view, relative to a set of values. It would help to ground your generalities through real life particulars, or imagined characters.

Or maybe on par with your abstraction, a corrupt mind is related to the maladaptive constraint of ego boundary, as is with depressed minds, where one cannot move forward constructively due to the emotively charged content of the past. One cannot step out of the bounds of the known and is thus limited by a fear mediated projection of the world (seeing through shit tinted spectacles).

You can ignore me if you like, if it is good to avoid depressed (perhaps corrupt) minds. — Nils Loc

Maybe i will try one more time.

By corruption OP is pointing to our inability to meet the present with fresh and clear eyes. We meet it through the lens of the past. Knowledge in it's entirety is the past, and the past in it's entirety is nothing but knowledge..Knowledge is all of what we know, the known.

By knowledge Op is pointing to all the information we have either accumulated or has been dumped on us. It includes but is not limited to how we were brought up, what we have read, all that we have experienced consciously and unconsciously, our conditionings, our beliefs, our affiliations etc.,

Therefore OP is saying, a mind that is living and meeting life through the background/lens of this corruption, which is knowledge, isn't an innocent mind. It's a scarred mind. It carries all the scars of yester years.

There are countless example that can used to clarify this. The best example is you. (whoever the inquirer is) You can observe yourself and your life, and your reactions, to arrive into the above insights. I could write essays on these examples but won',t since the necessity of doing so hasn't been established. Nevertheless, let's look at couple. If a person hurts you and you meet the person again, then you will see him or her through your past hurt. How do you relate to people? Through the images you create of them, don't you? Don't you profile people like "you strike me as overly critical"? Though you cannot really rationally substantiate what you say, yet you look at them through the images you have created of them. What is stereotyping? Isn't it looking at something or someone through your beliefs, prejudices, generalizations, or information you have accumulated about them? The person or the thing you are looking at may or may not fall in the box you have mentally created, yet does that stop you from stereotyping? So on and so forth.....

So if a mind is afflicted by all this then it's an unhealthy,corrupt and damaged mind. Such a mind is violent, competitive, confused, a conflicted mind that won't be able to attribute true values......like the other poster on this this thread who came here to play games. Hope all this clarifies.

Agreed hoy is more of a sensation in that it has a certain immediacy that ca be directly attributed to a singular act - eating chocolate, meeting a friend, a sexual encounter, while joy — Benj96

Actually it's other way around. What you are describing is pleasure. A pleasure, that is immediately derived from all the actions you have enumerated.

But again it’s confusing because we use the term joy as a synonym for pleasure. When I saw my friend for the first time after several years I was filled with a sudden sense of joy. In this case it seems more immediate and reactionary. — Benj96

See previous para.

@Benj96

There is an error in in my initial/first post. In the 2nd sentence. Please read "happiness" as 'pleasure'.

The quest for pleasure (sensation), which is what we really pursue, is mistakenly called the pursuit of happiness.

So we have 3 distinctions going on here, pleasure, happiness, and joy.

BTW i also enjoyed your other question/thread here but did not participate in it for certain reasons. Maybe i will share my 2 cents here.

You said : "If someone literally knew everything you could ever ask would people feel defeated and worthless in their presence and resent the fact". Yes.Most will resent.

You then said: "that there’s no longer a need to explore discuss or discover anything or would we cherish them as the source of all answers". No. The resentment has other deeper psychological reasons.

Only few will "cherish" them as you say. Because to be able to cherish will first require a recognition. Which implies the person recognizing already has some similar qualities. Our inability to appreciate the gifts of other people is essentially a failure of our own intelligence, for the prerequisite for appreciation is comprehension.

If history is a factual indicator, as it is is (if it hasn't been distorted), then one finds a pattern in how humanity reacts to the kind of people you mention. First, they will be ridiculed and made fun of. If that doesn't work, and these people stand ground, then they are seen as teachers and people start approaching them to glean and live off them. If these teachers still don't fall for this game, then people will try to bring them to their level, as in "after all he is human and like us". If that doesn't work then they are ultimately killed.

@Benj96

Good post. And you have also talked about contentment. That said:

Happiness is a sensation (with biological implications). It's sought by humanity as a sensation.

The underlying situation isn't if happiness is a reasonable or a legitimate goal, but rather the quest for happiness seems to instinctual and therefore the demand for it is universal.

Here i will like to distinguish between happiness and joy, where the latter isn't a sensation and cannot be a result that is sought. We may loosely say joy is the "long term" variant of happiness.

Innocent mind sounds like an oxymoron to me. The more mind forms the more moral responsibility applies to it. What's more innocent than a fire or a plague? — original2

Not sure if your post is an invitation to discuss or simply something you felt like posting.

Ah, but only a corrupt mind is stingy with their energy and time. — praxis

Nope. Only a corrupt mind can't understand the difference between right and wrong use of resources

This is the last response you will ever get from OP. Good luck..

An innocent mind doesn’t fear unhealthy dialogue. — praxis

It seems only a mind that isn't Innocent, or doesn't understand what it is, will make a statement like the one quoted above.

To clarify, an innocent mind isn't a foolish mind, contrary to popular belief (example quoted above). But a mind that understands the correct use of energy and time.

NO. It is a definitional assertion that Philosophy cannot function under bias. — Andrew4Handel

Ideally yes. So be careful of posting biased statements without evidence, was the point of my initial post.
If you didn't get it then it's ok, there is no point in creating a strawman, is there? I will let you carry on with others. Thanks.

"

The living space of some depressed and anxious minds are less than modest.

Whether hung upside down naked on a steeple, or cleaving, white-knuckled, ropeless, to a shear cliff, or lost, neck high, down a well. It is no time or the right time to cur(s)e oneself. It would be so easy to leap if one weren't bound, less easy to grow too cold.

We might venture that no animal is as cur(s)ed quite like us. The censorious mind, deranged driver of ego and the executive mind, augur of all pasts and futures, arbiter of motion, has given us the task of digging a grave or a foundation for what is to come.

Go easy, censor. Live and let live. — Nils Loc

I think i can understand that many have an anxious desire to post things born out of a kind of reactionary anger and depression, and if your post is one of them then you can ignore this message.

But if your post was an invitation for a healthy dialogue, though it doesn't seem like it was (or maybe i am at fault for not seeing it), then please make it clear in any future posts, so one doesn't have to waste their energy and time responding to silly reactions. Thank you.

Edit: Also, please keep it contextual to OP.

If philosophers were unable to critique discourse what would be the point of them?

The whole point is not to accept any claim but dissect it. (Which apparently doesn't happen here?)

Say for example someone says "Women are inferior to men". Anyone anywhere can disagree to this with or without evidence. But the point of philosophy is to analyse the nature of the claim being made. Not to virtue signal or win an argument.

I would not be interested in Philosophy if I took ANY claim for granted. — Andrew4Handel

A critique should come with a reasoning. Like my previous critique showed what was lacking in your quoted post.

I haven't been here long enough to know what happens here, other than what i have personally witnessed. I hadn't said a word about this previously but now i will mention it as an example. My posts were moved to the lounge and one of them deleted in what clearly seemed like a retaliatory action or perhaps a controlling attempt. I contacted one of the mods and received a rather lame and silly answer, that he or she cannot back up by any evidence. Rather, the evidence of the posts in TPF provides contrary evidence to the explanation that was given to me. I did not say a word to anyone and since then i have not posted a single topic in the main page and have continued posting in the lounge.

Your latest response to me lists what should and could happen, but my previous post was based on what actually happens. That is, you posted a biased assertion unsubstantiated by evidence.

I feel that philosophy has often been ruined by bias, personal prejudice, censorship among other things Philosophers are the people in the best position to criticise public discourses and not to become enmeshed in them. — Andrew4Handel

The above is a bias.not substantiated by evidence.

I believe that philosophy is originally defined as the love of knowledge. — Andrew4Handel

No. philosophy was originally defined as the love of wisdom, not love of knowledge. Wisdom and knowledge aren't the same.

Language policing is the mask that seems to hide unresolved personal issues.

people running aroud making threads about each other — Baden

A disgusting and despicable thing to do.

Calling people "racist" doesn't make things better for anyone. — T Clark

Then don't call anyone racist Your thread was initially tilled "is racist language acceptable". Listen to your own advice

The contemptuous language in the post won't help solve any problems. — T Clark

The accusation of contemptuous language is moot, unless established by reasoning and evidence.

It just makes the poster feel better but makes everything else worse. — T Clark

No one is responsible for anyone else's biased reactions. If you feel a sting then you will have to find out the causes and fix it yourself.

Just my cent. Carry on.

You have no right to inject your own racist inferences into other posters' posts. — Baden

+1

You are retroactively presuming it does fit a particular race and then asking if that's racist. If there's a racist in that scenario, it's you. — Baden

+1

You're again falsely accusing another poster of being racist with no evidence whatsoever when you've been informed on several occasions there is no evidence. Having no leg to stand on, you again present this in a misleading way and try a trial by poll. There's nothing civil or "low key" about that at all. — Baden

+1

Enlighten me! I'm all ears. — TheMadFool

Simple, the desire to end desire is a continuity of desire.

Why? — TheMadFool

All my OP's have gone into this..f you are serious and sincere to find out then you will need to read and ponder them multiple times, if you wish, or not.

What are the "dangers" involved and how do you propose we tackle/avoid them? — TheMadFool

Same response as above.