Consult Wittgenstein. That will reveal an insightful method for answering your own question, which I take as a question which can be generalised to a question about linguistic meaning. — S

I didn't intend to ask about linguistic meaning. Nor do I especially want to know what Wittgenstein thought wisdom was. My interest is more focused than that. I just asked:

What do you think wisdom is? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

wisdom is like knowledge, but beneficent knowledge, things which improve experience, pe sey. — kill jepetto

And that comes from science? I think perhaps science alone is insufficient for this task. :chin: Where does the ethical aspect of wisdom come from? Or the beneficence you refer to? Not science, that's for sure. :chin:

science generates wisdom — kill jepetto

Even more than my last post: what do you think wisdom is? :chin: :gasp: :scream:

Religion tries to be a multi-function tool. Science knows its limits. — S

Religion, like philosophy, is a multi-function tool. Science, in contrast, is a highly-focused and highly-developed single-use tool. If Religion and philosophy are Swiss Army knives, science is a stilletto. There's nothing wrong with this; it's just how things are. Without the focus and development, even though it leaves many other issues behind in doing so, science would (could) not be the valuable tool it is. It is fashioned to be the ultimate tool in a heavily-restricted subject area. And the restrictions directly bring about its ultimate accolade.

In Taoism, wisdom is construed as adherence to the Three Treasures: charity, simplicity, and humility.

- Wikipedia article

If it's not a derail, I'd be interested to know what you think wisdom is, and how it might be discovered or attained? — Pattern-chaser

We know what wisdom is, in a sense, or at least the gist of it, because we know what the word means, or we can look it up. — S

I would normally agree that we all know what wisdom is, but your words confuse me. You seem to claim wisdom is easy, something we all know and understand. And yet, your description of wisdom is .. missing from your words.

What do you think wisdom is? :chin:

I'd wonder what Purple Pond would have in mind with meaning that doesn't involve reference in any manner. — Terrapin Station

Me too. :smile:

In a scenario where you were trying sell me religion based on the features and benefits, I'd be like: that's not a unique selling point, why shouldn't I just buy a different product? And likewise with the search for wisdom. — S

[My highlighting.]

If it's not a derail, I'd be interested to know what you think wisdom is, and how it might be discovered or attained?

Why must something have a reference for it to be understandable? All that requires for something to be understandable is for it to have meaning. — Purple Pond

But meaning exists only in context, and it seems to be this context that's giving you problems?

I've really thought about what would be the reason of this, and the only answer that I come to is that people serving in the British government and British politicians simply don't believe in their country. — ssu

In today's world, existence is a communal, global, thing. Our country, in isolation, is less than half the story. Perhaps the politicians know this? :chin:

Re laws in general, I'm basically a minarchist. I'm a minarchist because I don't believe that anarchy is possible. Under anarchy, someone/some group is going to take control via organized force, and then it's no longer anarchy. — Terrapin Station

When I was younger - and, it seems to me, more naive and less wise - I yearned for anarchy, seeking to avoid controls as though they were prison bars. Now, I think that no (hu)man is an island, and that humans live their lives co-operatively, not in isolation. So now I think that anarchy is not desirable, because it seems to deny the ineluctable social nature of human existence. Words such as "rules" and "laws" seem to describe undesirable shackles on our freedom, but really all we have is our mutual dependence, which I see as not being a Bad Thing. :chin:

I was born and raised Roman Catholic. As soon as I was old enough to decide such things for myself, I left. After many years of apathetic spirituality, I eventually came to my current position, which I label Gaian Daoism. I'm happy now. :smile:

Quality of life is their spouse cheating on them. The assessment does not equal the quality of life. Quality of life is someone living in poverty not how they feel about it. — Andrew4Handel

As I said before, psychologists have invented a checklist - a more or less objective (lower-case "o") checklist - and named it with a confusing label that positively telegraphs feelings and subjectivity: "quality of life". Which is it you want to talk about? There is the pointless, meaningless and useless observation of your example, of how the feelings of the subject are objectively mistaken by them, because of facts they don't know. And then there are the actual feelings of that subject, which are as they are, and valid without further justification. [Even if they are objectively mistaken.] Which is it to be, because discussing both at the same time can only lead to confusion, I think. :chin:

I am not convinced quality of life is based on how someone feels. — Andrew4Handel

I think this might be the core of the issue. Quality of life is an objective measure, defined by psychologists, and their like. We only have to DuckDuckGo it to find this out.

But individuals - laymen and women - understand it quite differently, as a subjective measure of (roughly) how happy their lives make them, or some similarly vague concept. To the average person, quality of life is wholly about feelings, their feelings as to how good their lives are.

Hence the misunderstandings? :chin: :wink: :up: :smile:

...you incredibly seem to be assuming that we're all going to agree if we just, well, whatever aside from simply stipulating that we must agree... — Terrapin Station

I think I'm assuming that if we must reach agreement, for whatever purposes, it's a matter of accepting that we must agree, and then doing so. It's not the "stipulating" that's forcing our agreement, it's our need or desire for one, and the practical and pragmatic realisation that agreement is the only way of achieving it. In your text above, I suggest you replace "stipulating" with "accepting".

Or we could agree not to agree.... :chin:

Now what do you do? — Terrapin Station

Roll a dice? Seriously, what can you do if there is no justified logical conclusion, but you need (for whatever reasons) one? Or maybe you/we can change our aims so that we don't need this decision...? The options seem limited.

Naturally if City would lose it status as an European financial hub, that would have dramatic consequences. I assume it won't, the British aren't so crazy, and simply the EU isn't as determined to really challenge London's position. — ssu

I have a friend in fintech, in a pretty senior position, and she disagrees with you. Many major players have already purchased new offices in Europe, and departed.

Who gets to make those decisions and why do they get to make them? — Terrapin Station

If the arguments lead to a justified conclusion, that's how we decide. If not, then no decision, except a random one, seems possible. :chin:

Less than 8% of UK GDP depends on selling goods to EU. — Inis

What about services, though? Particularly financial services. Many of them have already departed for Europe, I believe.

If we moved just a little bit away from formally-verifiable statements and deniability, we all know the difference between hate speech and a robust argument. Especially as a robust argument can always be expressed with courtesy.

All IMO, of course. :up:

But if one is debating the objective existence of a thing, he must be doing so from the domain of a scientific space-time Universe; there isn’t anyplace else to find an objective existence, as far as we’re concerned. — Mww

Exactly. :up: [And this from a Believer, not an atheist.]

A. is false, and B. & C. together is not logically possible. — S

Are you (plural) really using logic to determine the existence of God?
Are you really debating the objective existence of God in the scientific space-time universe?

Now might be worthwhile to consider how much you know about God? :chin:

Yes, yes, yes, your literal interpretations are accurate, and indisputable. But it is surely obvious that I refer to the world of human society and culture, where literal can be quite rare. In that world it is clear and obvious that fictional characters can have, in many ways, the same influence on us as real people can. For that reason, it is appropriate to acknowledge their similarities to real people.

:up: There is also a sense in which they are more real than simply being the written thoughts of Rowling and Conan-Doyle, though. Harry's and Sherlock's words and actions - though they may be fictional - have influenced many people just as real humans - like Obama or Trump - might do. This influence they share with real people, even though they are not real. For some purposes - not rigid or demanding ones like philosophy or science :wink: - they can be considered the same as real people.... :smile:

Yes, the different sorts/styles of writing are different, and they comprise different combinations of things, as you say. But I spent 30 years writing firmware, so I know it to be highly creative. I also know that most people do not see the creativity in designing firmware. The same disbelief extends to technical writing. These people are mistaken. All creative projects are different, but creativity is all over the place, often where we least expect it. I think we should value it more, and recognise it for what it is, wherever it occurs.

Even science hides a kernel of artistic creativity at its core. :smile: [Where else could Quantum Theory have come from? It can't be deduced from the science that preceded it. It was created by a bunch of clever (and creative) scientists.]

If there was an Objective meaning of life,

What would it be? — Andrew4Handel

It doesn't matter, because we wouldn't know what it was. At the least, we would/could not know it was Objective. So, if there is such a thing, we can't know what it is. The most obvious response to this is to ignore Objectivity entirely, as we don't have Objective access to the Objective Reality, and carry on with the approximations and understandings that we do have, and that we can work with. Objectivity is nothing more than an intellectual curiosity to us humans, as we can't verify or refute it.

It's not about Computers getting too smart — ssu

No, it isn't. It's about us giving them too much free rein to direct themselves, then wondering why they did something we didn't expect or want....

The real is that which is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. The actual (or existent) is that which reacts with other like things in the environment. Hence reality and actuality are not coextensive--besides real actualities (e.g., individual events), there are also real possibilities (e.g., qualities) and real conditional necessities (e.g., laws of nature) that cannot be reduced to collections of their actual instantiations. — aletheist

I have long argued that Harry Potter and Sherlock Holmes are as real as Donald Trump and Barack Obama, but not in the same sense/way, of course. I think you're saying the same here? :chin:

I'd see creative writing and academic writing as being different genres — Baden

Yes, so would I, but I would observe that both are creative. Too many people think creativity comes only with art, so Harry Potter requires creativity to write, but a technical manual on a piece of firmware does not. I disagree. :smile:

this reflects conflation of the real with the actual — aletheist

...and the difference between "real" and "actual" is...? :chin:

I am not sure why you chose the quote by Baden ?
'Formulating a rough thesis'. Do you see that as a technical or creative aspect in the writing process ?
Doesn't the provision of a structure aid in creativity ?
Can you explain further what you mean. This interests me. — Amity

I thought that Baden's post offered technical guidance. This doesn't make it wrong, of course, or unhelpful either. Your OP targeted writing, but also specifically referenced creative writing. All the technical help in the world won't make us creative. But, I suspect, creativity can't be learned. We can sharpen up many aspects of our writing with technical stuff, even the most creative of us (?), but they won't enhance our creativity. I think this is why there are so many good writers, but also why so few of them are truly creative. Creative writing is a rare skill. I can think of few who are truly capable. Alan Watts is the best example I can think of, although (perhaps) his greatest skill is in the spoken word. He can explain stuff that others can't seem to, in a spellbinding way. The creative bit is not the explanations, which are exemplary, IMO, but in the spellbinding bit. His words are entrancing, and his use (and choice) of words as good as any poet I have ever read.

↪Pattern-chaser


I agree. I've written four books of fiction. None of which followed those rules because art is a different deal. — Baden

<like>

Here's one path you could make use of in writing a philosophical article:

1) Formulate a rough thesis... — Baden

I would be interested to hear about how we progress from critical reading, thinking to creatively writing. — Amity

The technical aspects of writing are important, just like brush techniques are important for an artist. We need to learn these techniques before we can create writing or art, but they aren't sufficient. Creativity is infinitely more than mere technique.

I don't understand why people would believe in things that there was no evidence for. — Andrew4Handel

I don't understand why people would ignore that humans have always done this, as far as we know. It's all very well to say "why do we do this?", and perhaps this is a worthwhile question, but the starting point is: we humans have always done this. :chin:

This never seemed like a real argument to me and none of those solutions seemed quite right to me. The obvious answer always seemed to me to be that the whole premise is faulty. If God is defined as omnipotent, and omnipotence is understood as the ability to do anything, we should recognize that there's an implicit assumption there: This only regards things that can be done. Why would Christians define God as a being who can do things that can't be done in principle? In this case, that impossible thing is having a being that can succeed at any possible thing failing to create a scenario where he fails to do something. That screams contradiction to me.

There might be an interesting discussion with regards to God failing to do things we are capable of but at the very least the rock thing always feels a bit silly to me. It'd be like saying "If God can't checkmate from both sides of the board in the same game he's not omnipotent." — MindForged

Is there anything to add to this? If there is, I can't see it. Well said! :up:

"Therefore the Master
can act without doing anything
and teach without saying a word."

What does it mean to act without doing anything? And how does he teach without saying a word? — Form

IME, the best way for a Westerner to understand wu wei is to refer to any of Alan Watts' lectures on the subject. He explains it better than anyone I have come across. HTH.

and most of what one can say about the ancient world is going to rest on slender supports. — Bitter Crank

:up:

[The rest of your post is good stuff too. :wink: ]

Before we believed in Gods - if there was such a time? - we would not have thought of Gods, so we would have the "absence of thinking of" Gods that you surmise. But, as far as we know, religion and supernatural belief has been with us since we started to think, which is quite a while now. :wink: It seems to me you're stretching things a bit, to go back to before we believed in God(s), so as to observe that we were then atheists.

I'm sorry, but your conclusion looks to me like you're clutching at straws. If we were going to develop a new way of thinking next week - let's call this new way "gurt" - would we currently be "agurtic"? No, we wouldn't, we'd just be being silly, trying so hard to find new evidence to show how marvellous and true our own current beliefs actually are. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :yikes:

Not only is Atheism older than theism, it is far more ubiquitous in the animal kingdom. — Josh Alfred

I can't quite see how we could have developed atheism before theism. How could we not-believe in God(s), when we had yet to recognise Gods in the first place? And I think you'll find that the majority of animals do not have religious or atheistic feelings. Unless you have some sort of justification to offer for this odd pair of assertions? :chin:

To just simply admit, "I don't know" was not enough for the myth makers in our civilization. — Josh Alfred

Nor for you, it seems! :smile: :smile: :smile:

Why didn't humans stop at atheism? What went wrong? — VoidDetector

Nothing "went wrong". We have had religion for a very long time. Atheism cannot have developed until there were Gods being worshipped, so that atheists could not-believe in them. The article is full of assertions, presented entirely without evidence:

The belief that there were no gods was common in the ancient world, research by Prof. Tim Whitmarsh, professor of Greek culture at Cambridge, concludes.

But “ancient atheism” was effectively written out of history when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire after the reign of Constantine in the early fourth century, heralding a new era of state-imposed belief, says Whitmarsh in a new book, Battling the Gods, which collates evidence of atheism in the Greek city states.

The study breaks the widely assumed link between atheism and progress or modernity but also rejects the idea that faith is a natural, instinctive impulse.

I assume the book contains some evidence or justification? :chin: For now, this is nothing more than the usual emotional and irrational attack that atheists make on religion. <yawn>

Once an AI has the freedom to evolve and improve itself, there is no predicting what it might do. — Pattern-chaser


We already have self updating programs now and the world hasn't ended. — MindForged

No, it hasn't. [History: I spent 40 years in electronics and software design.] But these days, internet access, even for the smallest pieces of equipment, is normal. And humans have a history of just doing it, regardless of the fact that we aren't even aware of the potential problems we might cause. Think of the first atomic weapons we exploded. Because we had no idea if what remained was problematic in any way, we sent infantry soldiers into ground zero, and had them roll around in the irradiated and radioactive (as we now know, but we didn't know then) sand to see if any harm came to them. Later, they all died of cancer....

The story is the same for every discovery we ever made. We just go ahead - uncaring of, and oblivious to - any problems. Back to the subject in hand: programs that can make minor and constrained changes to their own stored data (not program code) are common. Programs that can change their own program code are very rare. This isn't because they're difficult to build. The changes such programs make to themselves are not predictable, so the product can't be tested, nor can its future performance be guaranteed. That's the problem. And the more sinister aspect is dependent on (as you say) access to the internet, or the like. But we have already seen, with recent Russian (and maybe Chinese too?) interference in several countries, what hackers can achieve. An unconstrained AI could (in theory) do anything a hacker might do, and maybe more too. Who can predict what an AI, able to modify itself without constraint or safeguard, might get up to?

In theory, at least, there is a real and significant threat from unconstrained AIs, and from Skynet too, under the right (wrong?) circumstances. As people place their homes and lives under over-the-internet control, all kinds of unpleasantness become possible, if not likely.