I think that you raise such interesting questions, but I need time to think, but in the meantime, it is possible that others will come up with many ideas. I am fascinated by various responses and ideas, but just trying to hold out without my mind exploding completely. No one in philosophy has yet explored the idea of the exploding mind, but I do struggle with it at times.

Thanks for your reply, and I hope that you are not late to the party, and that it is not over, just yet. I see the main issue which you raise as being about social rules and convention. How do we see conformity and social rules. Generally, I am of the view that social rules and convention are a starting point and should not be overthrown without a clear reason.

However, l do wonder if many people are thrown into dilemmas which make them question beyond the conventional norms. The Buddhist perspective speaks of the middle way, but even that, could become too concrete. My own view is that we probably need to keep standing on our toes, thinking, reflecting and evaluating, rather than looking for any easy recipes or solutions to the large debate about wisdom.

Thanks for your detailed reply. I think that the important question is to what extent is wisdom connected to ethics? I think that part of this relates to inner experience of the issues of morality and how this is related to the wider ones relating to the social dimensions. Part of seems to come down to mastery of self, but this is also connected to the others. We are individuals, but also social beings, so I believe that this is a difficult but interesting area. We can ask about personal wisdom, but we are in relationships with others, so it may be that we need to think about wisdom beyond the personal, as being bound up with social and cultural aspects of human life.

Trying to look at this question from a philosophy perspective, I am aware of the idea of souls arising within the tradition going back to Plato and Plotinus. I am certainly not dismissing it. But, trying to see it as from the standpoint of the philosophies of our time, it is complex. We can ask what are souls, and, even, what are bodies? Where does one end and, where does the sense of personal identity lie within this spectrum?

I have just read the many entries on this thread, which seems to have resurfaced, and it feels like about 10 years ago since I started the thread. That is because I have done so much thinking since that time in many discussions of consciousness on this site.

I do see a big problem with the idea of the existence of any disembodied form of existence and I do see this as a big argument against life after death. I believe that this is why a lot of ideas about life after death have been about ways to enable physical bodies to survive, in the prospect of reincarnation or resurrection of the dead. Of course, I realise that some of these ideas may be based on wishful thinking. I thought that @TheMadFools question about whether consciousness could be transferred to artificial brains is interesting. This is because the idea of brain replacement is one idea within the transhumanist picture, but there is the underlying question about identity, and to what extent this would survive.

I was extremely interesting in the thread on the theory of blind brains and consciousness started yesterday, because it is one which is trying to understand the nature of consciousness in relation to the working of the brain. I think that the whole idea of consciousness and subliminal levels of perception is extremely relevant to the idea of thinking where consciousness ends. I believe that even ideas of panpsychism come into play.

I think that many people, from all angles, try to come up with clear answers. In some ways, this may involve a wish for an afterlife, and I am not sure if I even want one, and it would depend on what this form of existence may constitute. From reading on this thread, and other reading, I can see the logistics of the arguments of physical materialism, but do not see them as absolutes because in so many areas of thinking about consciousness, including physics, as well as philosophy, there still remains a certain amount of uncertainty, particularly in the understanding of the nature of consciousness.

Thanks for your reply. Bearing in mind that I added discussion of the foolish to the title, I wlcome you as the VIP of the thread, as I think that you probably put thought into your username.

What I think that your response draws attention to is the idea of balance and avoidance of excess. You also are pointing to health and wellbeing. I think that this is extremely important because if we are not well physically and mentally it is hard to function personally or for the greater good. It is not always that easy to keep healthy, especially if we have too much stress.

Even with physical health, some people follow the healthiest regimes and still get sick. I admit that I don't spend much time in food preparation, but try to look for items which don't have too many bad ingredients in them. But, ideas about what we need to eat and drink change, and I maintain that I need my 5 a day cups of coffee, but some people tell me that is too much.

Thanks for your reply. I think that the idea of listing qualities is a good one. However, I would be a bit wary of running it as checklist to apply to individuals, because that would seem a bit like a person specification in job applications. Also, it could end up being a bit judgemental because it may be that wisdom is within.

However, I do agree that listing qualities related to wisdom itself is worthwhile. One quality which I believe is a non judgemental attitude towards others people.

I don't think that it is necessary to abandon the idea of wisdom, but just about recognizing how hard it is to achieve, and what it is exactly is difficult to define. But, in many ways, it is a rather abstract, and more of a goal, a bit like the idea of perfection. It could even be that trying for such ideals is a recipe for failure. But, I do think it is hard to know what to aim for in standards, and this can be too low or too high. I think that it is probably about being aware of our own limitations.

I think that the hardest part is about not beating yourself up about stupid, foolish mistakes. I know that when I have done or said things which I come to regret I spend so much time feeling so irritated with myself. Or, the other alternative is to blame others. But, it is all about unlearning behaviour patterns and reflection upon experience. I am sure that cognitive behavioral therapy helps. But, I think that, in general, we live in a culture which does not encourage that much reflection.

I have a quote from William Blake:
'The fool who persists in his folly will become wise.'

That is a bit reassuring, giving the idea that we don't even have to even try and give up being foolish. I do often feel that I have learned more from stupid mistakes, and I make plenty of mistakes often...

I have been edited my title, having realised that it is so hard to talk about wisdom. So, I have expanded the topic to incorporate foolishness, because there may be more to say. Also, as the two ideas are a pair of opposites, the discussion of folly, may throw some light on the topic of wisdom. And I am probably a bit foolish in the way that I write threads and play around giving them new titles, and I am also a bit of a fool for inventing so many threads.

If Socrates was not wise, perhaps there is not much hope for anyone really. But, I am quite happy to live with my own folly. I also believe that is much easier to speak about because it can include repeated mistakes and failure to learn from mistakes, excesses, sloth and so many vices. In fact, we could talk in so many depth about our foolishness. I am a bit tempted to update my title to include foolishness.

Yes, it is a bit of a shame that wisdom is so hard to point to. When I was thinking about finding wisdom yesterday I was hoping that it would open up some interesting dialogue of ideas, like many other terms spoken of within philosophy. However, when I read through the various responses this morning I realised how vague the idea is and how difficult it is to really try to spell out the idea in any depth.

But, I would imagine that it would be possible to name people who stood out in history, like Socrates, or the Buddha, but that is because they are in the distant past, and we know that they are such respected teachers. I also think that it would probably be possible to point to specific books as containing wisdom, because that makes it possible to see the teachings rather than focusing on a particular person.

I know that you see this theory as being probably as an alternative to the psychoanalysts, especially Jung. But, I don't really see it as being opposed to it. The theory which you are speaking about is just looking at the mechanical way of explaining the nature of the subliminal levels of perception. I am not sure that Jung thought of the personal or collective unconscious as being unconnected completely from the brain. We could see the idea of the blind brain as showing how the spectrum from consciousness to unconscious is vast, rather like fields of a perceptual nature. Even interconnections between other minds, the past and present could be involved too, and, really, I think that this could be used to support some of the psychoanalytic theories of the subconscious, although this theory is not really demonstratable at this stage anyway.

I think that it is so hard to know because there are various forms of sleep consciousness, and we cannot be sure that the near death experiences don't point to something significant which may come after death. The NDEs aren't proof of life after death as such, because the person didn't really die. In the same way, this applies to the dreamless states within sleep, because the person is not dead, but simply paused from thought.

I am aware of one problem with what you are saying, 'When we are asleep, thinking ceases', because it clearly doesn't. When we are asleep, dreaming, thinking is present. The narrator consciousness and ego remain. In most instances, we remain aware of identity. In dreams we remain in the 'I' consciousness, rather than just immersed in a sea of images.

It is just so strange that this thread popped up out of the blue again, when I was in the middle of reading and writing on current threads. The threads themselves seem to have life after death.

I know that at times I may come across like as going in the direction of 'self-help guru', but I hope that is not only what I am about. I am interested in 'logo reflecting on mythos' as a ground but just come from strange angles. But, I don't want to be a 'philosophical suicide', and I guess 'a rock'n'roll suicide' may be better.

I think that I have probably been writing on the site a bit too much, and I think that it is because I used to have a job and, now, I don't really know how to channel my energies. I am looking for work daily, and get rather despondent. Perhaps, I would be better just listening to music, or dreaming...

You have dug up a thread which hasn't appeared in ages. I think that people on the site, and human beings are often likely to wonder about whether there is possible life, or consciousness after death. In the last couple of weeks, a thread has been created, and going strongly, on what proof would be convinced people that there was life after death. It is one of the questions which human beings are likely to wonder about frequently, but final answers will not be known until we die, and if there is nothing, we won't have the consciousness to even know this at all.

I am not sure to what extent consumer materialism will collapse completely, because people are still buying items, but I think that has changed. Perhaps, one change is people relying more on the internet and less on shops, with many big chains having collapsed. It is hard to know where everything is going to lead until, as you say, we are able to look back in hindsight. I am not sure that there can be actual stagnation in our culture, because there seems to be so much development all the time, but I don't see how Western civilisation can develop and thrive in the same way without radical changes in the way resources are used, but this may be very different from cultural collapse itself.

But, yes, where do ideas and philosophy lie in this and it may be that they are needed to help the individual and groups cope within any potential changes, especially in the potentially difficult times. Some people are probably experiencing a lot of suffering as it is, and this may need a lot of inner strength too, but of course, suffering has always been a central aspect of human life.

To anyone else who I haven't mentioned, I thank for your replies, and to quote anyone else would seem ridiculous. Looking through the various responses it does seem that wisdom is probably an ideal rather than something that can be easily described, or less still identified in a specific person. But, of course, if anyone else has anything worth adding, please do so...

Perhaps for 'us fools...it is a direction'
I am sure that it is not even important to ask 'who is wise'. I believe that we would be rather shocked if any person actually claimed to be wise'.

It is interesting that wisdom may not need 'knowledge/ experience.'


The question of potential silence and brevity is certainly worth thinking about. It also leads me to think that it may be that this thread will be extremely brief, because it may be that wisdom is extremely difficult to pinpoint, or even talk about.

I agree that while we use the word wisdom, it is extremely difficult to quantify. I am not even sure that knowledge, experience and expertise are that easy to quantify either really.

I am glad that there is some discussion in the thread. I have just got home from being out and about in Wimbledon (meaning that I am a bit of a Womble), but do plan to converse further on the topic. I began the thread on the basis of feeling misunderstood generally. However, I do see my question as being relevant to everyone, so I am happy for discussion to continue, and although I am about to go to bed, I plan to pick it up tomorrow. Part of my question is related to the way in which some people may try to look for exclusive views on wisdom. I would question this, but, really, I am trying to raise a general discussion on the searching for wisdom.

I am glad that I am still getting replies in this thread, but I have just got home so I will reply tomorrow.

I believe that wisdom is related to experiential knowledge, and goes beyond theory. I am not sure if my thread question will be considered worthy of philosophical debate, but my phone battery is likely to run out at any moment. But, if my thread question lasts at all, I will continue the discussion.

That is interesting, and I probably began this discussion because I was thinking that in the current climate of our times, some people regard themselves as being more advanced in 'expert' knowledge rather than others.I believe that being aware of limitations is so much better than arrogance of thinking how we know so much.

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.

Thanks, I definitely believe that we can learn from mistakes, even if we are not considered as elderly. My own view is that the experiences of making mistakes allows for humility, and ways of seeking better alternatives in many ways.

I 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, or as the Greeks named it, Sophia. I am raising it, for anyone who believes that it worth discussing.

I am probably interested in what has been neglected, and that is probably why I feel demoralised at times at the forum, even though do get a fair amount of responses. However, I have just started a new thread for better or worse, and I may be my own worst enemy. I sometimes throw myself into the deep end, and ask all sorts of almost impossible questions...

I feel that you are probably not aware of a whole tradition of thought which draws upon the past, including writings such as John of the Cross on the dark nights of the soul, and many divergent trends from various disciplines. I do see the whole area as being comprised of many perspective from the past and the present.

I have deep respect for psychology, but in the last five years, I am sure that I have met over a thousand people with psychology degrees. Some are much wiser than others. I engage with @180 Proof on a regular basis, and I do think that his ideas are extremely helpful, especially in enabling me to think critically about the 'woo woo' areas of philosophy.

I also think that you have made an extremely unusual but valid contribution to the consideration of ideas on this site. Indirectly, it was you who drew attention to Plato's 'Phaedro' which is probably ranked as the most important discussion on this site in recent times.

As for myself, I am interested in philosophies ranging from the ancient to the ones arising within the current times. I am interested in most traditions of current thought, but I may be the only person interested in the tradition of transpersonal philosophy. I may give up communicating on this forum at all, because sometimes it feels as though the agenda is just about the question of whether God exists or not. I believe that there is so much more to discuss, in terms of human experiences, and the possibilities of experience. I have an interest in philosophies ranging from the ancient Greeks to the ones of our times, and my main reason for continuing to engage on this site is the dialogue of all these ideas.

However, I am extremely interested in how dreams come into play in all of this, ranging from the personal, to the wider panorama of the human condition. But, I am not sure that the whole discussion can be based on philosophy of the ancients, and dismissing the ideas which have occurred in the last century. Saying that, I am sure that many on this site, probably see dreaming as being of so little significance for philosophy at all.

I have not lost interest in this topic of the deadend and the wastelands, and where culture is going.

Today, I have just read a chapter in a book, 'Paths Beyond Ego' (ed. Walsh and Vaughan) by Duane Elgin, 'The Tao of Personal and Social Transformation', in which the author is describing the way in which ideas arise within the socioeconomic context, and I how ideas arise within the context of consumer materialism. I think that this is so important for seeing philosophy, including ideas such as nihilism, and many other ideologies.

My own additional thought is that consumer materialism may be collapsing, so what will come next, philosophically, politically and culturally? Where can philosophy take us and, play a leading role or pathway?

I know that your thread is not about narcissism, and that is only the example you are using. What I feel is that some people who seem to see your discussion as being part of psychology rather than philosophy, is the way in which the two overlap. I believe that the idea of narcissism is on this edge.

The reason why I think this is because a couple of weeks ago I was discussing Nietzsche's and nihilism on another thread. During that discussion, the idea that reading and talking about Nietzsche could be seen as posturing arose. This lead me to reflect on narcissism, even though I did not mention this in the reply which I wrote. But, what I was thinking about at that time was the relationship between philosophy and narcissism, especially in the context of Nietzsche's ideas. It was in that context that I began wondering about how in the feeling of loss of a sense of a relationship with a personal sense of God that an inflated, narcissistic emphasis on the image of self in relation to other people may arise.

I am aware that you are only using the idea of narcissism as an example, but I think that it is so interesting that you used this as an example. I believe that it is such an interesting area, for philosophy, not just psychology.

I sent a reply to Proof, but I am also glad to see that you are still engaged in discussion on the thread too. I do believe that there is more to discuss about dreams. At the moment, I am reading on the transpersonal school of philosophy, and I wonder if you have read much in this direction?

That's an interesting story of a nun. Funnily enough, when I was a teenager I knew a couple of girls who really wished to become nuns. I think it was almost a romance, and they ended up having extramarital affairs and getting pregnant. I often wonder where they are now, as I wonder about the boy I knew, who introduced me to Jung and Freud, but declaring that he wished to die within 5 years when he was 16.

Anyway, I am out reading a book on transpersonal psychology and philosophy, including a few chapters on lucid dreaming. I just logged onto my phone and was glad to see that my thread has not died yet. Anyway, I hope that you and others continue, in any form of discussion which is helpful, because when I write threads I see them as having potential for all kinds of thought and speculation, way beyond my initial ideas.

I think that it is true that Catholics often feel relieved of guilt by going to confession. But, having been brought up as a Catholic I am aware of the way many Catholics experience guilt so easily, which is why I thought of that in response to your thread. Also, the problem with confession, is that it is easy to think one has committed some 'major violation, but when trying to say it, with a screen between oneself and the priest, is not easy. The major sin often just ends up sounding rather silly. But, I really don't know what legal obligations a priest would be under if someone confessed some major crime.

I think that one of the results we might experience if we violate our deepest moral principles is that if anything goes wrong we may begin to see it as a form of 'punishment'. This is connected to any underlying gnawing sense of guilt, and an angry nagging conscience. There is also the possibility that we may subconsciously act in such a way to bring negative events towards ourselves as a form of retribution.

It may be that the violation of the principles may be pushed out of consciousness, more or less completely. During that the basis of personal principles may have been reconsidered. If the violation is great and pushed aside totally, the question is whether it would be cast aside from the mind permanently, or whether the guilt would burst through at some point in the future, possibly in some unexpected way.

After thinking about the idea of 'soul signals', I am thinking that the purpose of dreams is probably so much of an individual pursuit or interest. Dreaming, like any aspect of life, such as physical fitness, diet or art, is something which can be paid attention to or ignored. It exists in the background for most people, and it can even be cultivated into the practice of lucid dreaming, although this practice is not an easy endeavour.

As it involves the mind, dreaming has been paid attention to by the psychologists and psychoanalysts. It has also Been a source for artistic creation and imagination. Some have developed it in conjunction with spiritual philosophies. And, I also wonder whether the neuroscientists will find ways to enhance people's dream lives in the future.