Philosophy Now Forum

I think I agree, but how are we supposed to know if somebody meets the criteria unless we are? And how do we give others the correct criteria if they are not?

@ Jaded Sage Do you need equivalent wisdom to perceive it in others? I can recognise when others are being more calm, centred, smart, patient and understanding (ergo wise) than I am.

With the Dunning-Kruger Effect people can be unintelligent enough to not realise their limitations. So, while a very stupid person may arrogantly challenge a genius, someone of average intelligence may be bright enough to appreciate the genius (this is a simplification - there is an interaction between smarts and ego where, the bigger the ego the brighter the person needs to be to comprehend their limitations).

The situation with wisdom is probably similar - at a certain point you can appreciate the greater wisdom of others even if some of the nuance is lost on you.

Jaded Sage wrote:I think I agree, but how are we supposed to know if somebody meets the criteria unless we are? And how do we give others the correct criteria if they are not?

I believe you responded to my addition to the topic (on bottom of page 8 of this thread).

Your response is excellent. It shines light upon the slippery nature of my describing the status quo.

Jaded Sage, I think it would be wiser of you to refer in your posts whose post you're responding to. Or which or what post. This way everyone can only guess whose statements you refer to. This is -- pardon me -- sloppy, and you leave too much up for assumptions.

Please be precise, and put yourself in others' position: we can't possibly guess whose post or what post you are replying to at a given time, unless you create an unmistakably precise pointer to it.

Greta wrote:... while a very stupid person may arrogantly challenge a genius, ...

This has been happening with me quite often.

Of course. A common problem in philosophy forums. The fools! Why can't they understand!!?

When I wrote it I was thinking of Richard Dawkins reading his hate main from a gaggle of fundamentalist Christians :)

hajrafradi wrote:I am afraid that to define wisdom, one first must meet the criteria of wisdom. (Careful. This is a very slippery argument.)

This is why JS is wrong.

Haj, do you have answers to my questions?

Oops, "hate mail", not "hate main".

Here's the Dawkins letters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhYT4vE1gvM

If you know the cat is gonna shit on the sofa, keeping the cat offa the sofa is wise.

If you know your kid will become a frenzied juggernaut when he has too much sugar, limiting his sugar intake is wise.

If you know a particular parking lot is lousy with nails, keeping your car out of that parking lot is wise.

experience + accurately assessing experience + self-reference + amending conclusions or strategies = wisdom

Meh, wisdom is a certain way of thinking, maybe a certain set of opinions.

"wisdom is a certain way of thinking, maybe a certain set of opinions"

Sure, if this thinking is clear and leads to accurate conclusions/opinions.

But if Joe, based on muddled thinking, insists fire is cold, then Joe is not wise.

I see the point, Henry.

So can people spending their lives in ivory towers be wise ?
Their personal experience being very limited.

Or can we also use the experience of other people and use it as premises for our own conclusions ?
It would save time like hell.

I guess one can learn from the experience of another, if the other does a good job of conveying it, but mostly I think you gotta get burned yourself to get that touching fire is dumb.

'Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it.' LF Celine

henry quirk wrote:"wisdom is a certain way of thinking, maybe a certain set of opinions"

Sure, if this thinking is clear and leads to accurate conclusions/opinions.

But if Joe, based on muddled thinking, insists fire is cold, then Joe is not wise.

It's more than just accuracy. That's more like educated.

Jaded Sage wrote:Meh, wisdom is a certain way of thinking, maybe a certain set of opinions.

Like what?