...but it would be for the best if it were to precede and therefore preempt the consequences of the human stupidity chronicles, if it came as a before preemption and not as a forced and late acknowledgement.spike wrote:Which just goes to show you that being wiser is not always for the best.Dubious wrote: ..which is usually the result of self-inflicted miseries. The world will indeed be getting wiser at an expedited rate. It's catalyst will be the question "how could we have been so stupid and is it retroactive?"
Can The World Learn Wisdom?
Re: Can The World Learn Wisdom?
Re: Can The World Learn Wisdom?
“Since this issue in which the article is written is about Art the author should have breached the question about the wisdom of art.”
That was kind of my thought on it as well, spike. It was as if Maxwell was simply offering us another Platonic hierarchy when he should have been talking about the role art could play in it. I return again to the point he made at the end of the article:
“One important consequence flows from the point that the basic aim of inquiry would be to help us discover what is of value, namely that our feelings and desires would have a vital rational role to play within the intellectual domain of inquiry. If we are to discover for ourselves what is of value, then we must attend to our feelings and desires. But not everything that feels good is good, and not everything that we desire is desirable. Rationality requires that feelings and desires take fact, knowledge and logic into account, just as it requires that priorities for scientific research take feelings and desires into account. In insisting on this kind of interplay between feelings and desires on the one hand, and knowledge and understanding on the other, the conception of inquiry that we are considering resolves the conflict between Rationalism and Romanticism, and helps us to acquire what we need if we are to contribute to building civilization: mindful hearts and heartfelt minds.”
Then return to your point:
“Wisdom can't be dictated as this article suggests. Wisdom is learned by going through the motions, through trial and error. And the world always has new players who need to discover and test wisdom for themselves.”
I’m pretty much with you on this in that wisdom, to me, is a matter of being able to deal with things on a case by case basis. And it serves as a sharp contrast to Maxwell’s solution that involves establishing a hierarchy that can only be based on some rigid criteria for wisdom. Given the quote above, he may have served the purpose better by pushing the import of the creative aspect of philosophy: it laying in that no man’s land between science and fine art.
That all said, it would be wrong for me to pass any final judgment on the article since, after reading the whole thing 3 times and starting the 4th from the middle section, I’m still a little vague on his critique of the enlightenment movement. Most of the poststructuralist and postmodern criticism of it is that we simply ended up replacing the tyranny of religion and aristocracies with the tyranny of the scientific method and the Capitalism that supports it. In other words, all we managed to do was replace a religion (Christianity for our purposes (that propped up a given power structure: the aristocracy of the time (with another religion (the invisible hand of the market (that props up the aristocracy of our day: the corporate elite. As I like to joke, it use to be:
“Pray hard and follow these principles, and you too may enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Now it’s:
“Work hard and follow these principles, and you too may enter the kingdom of success.”
What seems conspicuously absent in this paradigmatic shift is wisdom. And I really don’t see how applying the scientific method to matters of social inquiry fixes this. At least by itself. And this may be the main offense posed by this article in that it seems to assume that it has the only real answer to a very complex situation. If we do fix it, it will likely be through chance and a lot of different people taking a lot of different approaches: including those of the arts that are less beholden to the scientific method.
That was kind of my thought on it as well, spike. It was as if Maxwell was simply offering us another Platonic hierarchy when he should have been talking about the role art could play in it. I return again to the point he made at the end of the article:
“One important consequence flows from the point that the basic aim of inquiry would be to help us discover what is of value, namely that our feelings and desires would have a vital rational role to play within the intellectual domain of inquiry. If we are to discover for ourselves what is of value, then we must attend to our feelings and desires. But not everything that feels good is good, and not everything that we desire is desirable. Rationality requires that feelings and desires take fact, knowledge and logic into account, just as it requires that priorities for scientific research take feelings and desires into account. In insisting on this kind of interplay between feelings and desires on the one hand, and knowledge and understanding on the other, the conception of inquiry that we are considering resolves the conflict between Rationalism and Romanticism, and helps us to acquire what we need if we are to contribute to building civilization: mindful hearts and heartfelt minds.”
Then return to your point:
“Wisdom can't be dictated as this article suggests. Wisdom is learned by going through the motions, through trial and error. And the world always has new players who need to discover and test wisdom for themselves.”
I’m pretty much with you on this in that wisdom, to me, is a matter of being able to deal with things on a case by case basis. And it serves as a sharp contrast to Maxwell’s solution that involves establishing a hierarchy that can only be based on some rigid criteria for wisdom. Given the quote above, he may have served the purpose better by pushing the import of the creative aspect of philosophy: it laying in that no man’s land between science and fine art.
That all said, it would be wrong for me to pass any final judgment on the article since, after reading the whole thing 3 times and starting the 4th from the middle section, I’m still a little vague on his critique of the enlightenment movement. Most of the poststructuralist and postmodern criticism of it is that we simply ended up replacing the tyranny of religion and aristocracies with the tyranny of the scientific method and the Capitalism that supports it. In other words, all we managed to do was replace a religion (Christianity for our purposes (that propped up a given power structure: the aristocracy of the time (with another religion (the invisible hand of the market (that props up the aristocracy of our day: the corporate elite. As I like to joke, it use to be:
“Pray hard and follow these principles, and you too may enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Now it’s:
“Work hard and follow these principles, and you too may enter the kingdom of success.”
What seems conspicuously absent in this paradigmatic shift is wisdom. And I really don’t see how applying the scientific method to matters of social inquiry fixes this. At least by itself. And this may be the main offense posed by this article in that it seems to assume that it has the only real answer to a very complex situation. If we do fix it, it will likely be through chance and a lot of different people taking a lot of different approaches: including those of the arts that are less beholden to the scientific method.
Re: Can The World Learn Wisdom?
Good post d63.
Yes, the Platonic hierarchy that Maxwell's 'wisdom' would establish would be constraining and too much to bear.
W.V.Quine believed that the philosophy of science is philosophy enough. Nicholas Maxwell seems to think that the wisdom of science is wisdom enough.
Yes, the Platonic hierarchy that Maxwell's 'wisdom' would establish would be constraining and too much to bear.
W.V.Quine believed that the philosophy of science is philosophy enough. Nicholas Maxwell seems to think that the wisdom of science is wisdom enough.
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Can The World Learn Wisdom?
And you appear to not be able to explain it? Or even give an example of what you speak about.HexHammer wrote:... they are simply not bright enough to comprehend relevance.
Re: Can The World Learn Wisdom?
“W.V.Quine believed that the philosophy of science is philosophy enough. Nicholas Maxwell seems to think that the wisdom of science is wisdom enough.”
Yeah, spike, I think it analytic arrogance to assume that the only purpose philosophy can serve is that of playing lip service to science. I mean I have no problem with philosophers like Searle or Dennett (who, to me, reads more like a science writer than a philosopher. But such assumptions read like an inferiority complex on philosophy’s part in the face of science and the tyranny of the functional: this notion that a thing is only worth doing if it leads to the creation of an I-pod or something.
In fact, to me, it seems like one of the most important/wisest functions philosophy can serve (that is in the face of the tyranny of the functional (is to just be beautiful while being meaningful in ways that art cannot. But to understand this, you have to look at how I map the role of philosophy. As Bertrand Russell (someone who worked in the same spirit as Quine (pointed out:
“Philosophy lies in that no-man’s land between science and theology.”
I, given the more secular nature of our present age, would revise that to:
“Philosophy lies in that no-man’s land between science and literature.”
It’s as if Maxwell gets timid at the thought of philosophy leaning towards the literary side of that spectrum.
*
Anyway, my German peer on FaceBook made an interesting point on this post that I want to respond to. I hope I am not wandering too far off topic:
“It is worth mentioning that the "worth" and values are anchored to the association of words. So the real problem is that the expression of the "Beliefs" is a matter of the language we express them with carrying those associations with them. So it is really very difficult (almost impossible (to abstain from those "beliefs” while using the language that expresses them.”
Now first of all, Harald, this particular translation was based on the assumption that you were primarily responding to:
“Most of the poststructuralist and postmodern criticism of it is that we simply ended up replacing the tyranny of religion and aristocracies with the tyranny of the scientific method and the Capitalism that supports it. In other words, all we managed to do was replace a religion (Christianity for our purposes (that propped up a given power structure: the aristocracy of the time (with another religion (the invisible hand of the market (that props up the aristocracy of our day: the corporate elite. As I like to joke, it use to be:
“Pray hard and follow these principles, and you too may enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Now it’s:
“Work hard and follow these principles, and you too may enter the kingdom of success.”
What seems conspicuously absent in this paradigmatic shift is wisdom. “
If I’m wrong here, sorry for talking past you and… well: never mind.
But if I’m where I should be: as I go into the portable Hannah Arendt, one of the main reasons I go into it is to further explore the nature of the authoritarian mindset. And what better authority could one turn to than an intelligent German or intelligent Jew? And to establish that while I am being somewhat facetious here, I am being perfectly sincere in that both have lessons that America really needs to look at. I just hope I haven’t offended you and am only pointing out the authority you might have on the matter.
That said: if I have translated you right, you are spot on in that I, dealing with the rightwing elements I do in America, can’t help but feel that their relationship to language has a lot to do with it. It’s like they’re intoxicated with it to the extent of too often confusing it for reality. For example: note their dependency on such catchphrases as “soaking the rich”, “job creators”, referring to liberals as “whiners”, “tax and spend”, and, of course, their favorite: “SOCIALISM”, REEK!!!! REEK!!! REEK!!!! And I'm certain it goes deeper into socially programmed responses to socially programmed cues.
As you point out, the language intertwined in an ideology can actually develop into a kind of operationalism (as described by Marcuse (and shut out all opposing arguments.
And I can’t help but feel that there is a way we can tweak this point (that is without gerrymandering (back to Maxwell’s article.
Yeah, spike, I think it analytic arrogance to assume that the only purpose philosophy can serve is that of playing lip service to science. I mean I have no problem with philosophers like Searle or Dennett (who, to me, reads more like a science writer than a philosopher. But such assumptions read like an inferiority complex on philosophy’s part in the face of science and the tyranny of the functional: this notion that a thing is only worth doing if it leads to the creation of an I-pod or something.
In fact, to me, it seems like one of the most important/wisest functions philosophy can serve (that is in the face of the tyranny of the functional (is to just be beautiful while being meaningful in ways that art cannot. But to understand this, you have to look at how I map the role of philosophy. As Bertrand Russell (someone who worked in the same spirit as Quine (pointed out:
“Philosophy lies in that no-man’s land between science and theology.”
I, given the more secular nature of our present age, would revise that to:
“Philosophy lies in that no-man’s land between science and literature.”
It’s as if Maxwell gets timid at the thought of philosophy leaning towards the literary side of that spectrum.
*
Anyway, my German peer on FaceBook made an interesting point on this post that I want to respond to. I hope I am not wandering too far off topic:
“It is worth mentioning that the "worth" and values are anchored to the association of words. So the real problem is that the expression of the "Beliefs" is a matter of the language we express them with carrying those associations with them. So it is really very difficult (almost impossible (to abstain from those "beliefs” while using the language that expresses them.”
Now first of all, Harald, this particular translation was based on the assumption that you were primarily responding to:
“Most of the poststructuralist and postmodern criticism of it is that we simply ended up replacing the tyranny of religion and aristocracies with the tyranny of the scientific method and the Capitalism that supports it. In other words, all we managed to do was replace a religion (Christianity for our purposes (that propped up a given power structure: the aristocracy of the time (with another religion (the invisible hand of the market (that props up the aristocracy of our day: the corporate elite. As I like to joke, it use to be:
“Pray hard and follow these principles, and you too may enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Now it’s:
“Work hard and follow these principles, and you too may enter the kingdom of success.”
What seems conspicuously absent in this paradigmatic shift is wisdom. “
If I’m wrong here, sorry for talking past you and… well: never mind.
But if I’m where I should be: as I go into the portable Hannah Arendt, one of the main reasons I go into it is to further explore the nature of the authoritarian mindset. And what better authority could one turn to than an intelligent German or intelligent Jew? And to establish that while I am being somewhat facetious here, I am being perfectly sincere in that both have lessons that America really needs to look at. I just hope I haven’t offended you and am only pointing out the authority you might have on the matter.
That said: if I have translated you right, you are spot on in that I, dealing with the rightwing elements I do in America, can’t help but feel that their relationship to language has a lot to do with it. It’s like they’re intoxicated with it to the extent of too often confusing it for reality. For example: note their dependency on such catchphrases as “soaking the rich”, “job creators”, referring to liberals as “whiners”, “tax and spend”, and, of course, their favorite: “SOCIALISM”, REEK!!!! REEK!!! REEK!!!! And I'm certain it goes deeper into socially programmed responses to socially programmed cues.
As you point out, the language intertwined in an ideology can actually develop into a kind of operationalism (as described by Marcuse (and shut out all opposing arguments.
And I can’t help but feel that there is a way we can tweak this point (that is without gerrymandering (back to Maxwell’s article.
Re: Can The World Learn Wisdom?
"The search for human wisdom is intimately bound to life in the street"
Re: Can The World Learn Wisdom?
As well as the Promethean heroics of taking fire to the people.spike wrote:"The search for human wisdom is intimately bound to life in the street"
Re: Can The World Learn Wisdom?
I think the economic/financial crisis in Greece is a great example of the fact that collective wisdom cannot precede experience as our author believes can and should.