Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Now you're talking of, "games of chance!"

I hear you, Spheres.

What I meant is this:

Lottery is a game of losing money. People must rationalize why they play it still, and one form of rationalizing it is that they believe that the numbers they choose will be winning numbers.

This is a bad, unfounded prediction, but a prediction nevertheless.

That's what I meant.

Jaded Sage wrote:I like that definition of wisdom: the use of intelligence and knowledge.

I have heard another: Knowledge takes things apart. Wisdom puts things together.

Now perfect but still indicating in the right direction.

I still think there is much more too it. A great thinker one said, one cannot be wise without also being confident regarding what he is wise about.

True. Unless one does not know for sure what he knows, and also has the intent to put his knowledge at good use, he cannot be called a wise.

I don't mean that to be a complete definition (wisdom is confidence), but only one aspect. Also, I wonder if there is another sense. One where you are not wise about anything in particular but just wise in general. That is an interesting thing!

That is basically intent with some knowledge (common sense).

"Hackers are generally more intelligent and knowledgeable that original programmers, but they are not wise because they fault intent-wise and misuse their qualities."

Now here is the problem of problems. Are we prepared to say that anyone who misuses what they know or causes harm or does something unjust and to the detriment of himself or another, cannot be truly wise, by definition?

Yes, that is precisely the only difference between an intelligent person and a wise one.

Part of being wise is recognizing the value of being a benefit and a non-detriment as what is called a super-mundane understanding: one that results in corresponding behavior.

If it not resulting in corresponding behavior, it is merely intelligence or knowledge, not wisdom.

"I believe it is good to be good, but I am not good."

That is mere knowledge.

vs "I understand it is good to be good, therefore I am good."

That is also mere knowledge, not wisdom yet. It has to be -

I understand it is good to be good, therefore i do good too.

Assume our friend here is correct. A 'necessary condition' of wisdom is the correct and just use of intelligence or knowledge, etc. How can we prove that it is wise to do as many good things as we can and as few bad things as we can?

By looking at the action and also intent of the doer.

If one do not have the right knowledge and act wrongly under that influence too, he is not wise. Because he does not have enough knowledge to put it in good use. He may be a noble person but not wise. Wisdom demands some intelligence, some knowledge but an absolute perfect and enough intent to always implement it. Merely knowing is not enough unless you do not do what you know and can do. That is wisdom.

with love,
sanjay

I remember that. Wanna know something cool? I had the idea that wisdom is confidence, then later read Plato and he also said wisdom is confidence.

Jaded Sage wrote:I remember that. Wanna know something cool? I had the idea that wisdom is confidence, then later read Plato and he also said wisdom is confidence.

Confidence is merely one part of wisdom. It does not cover the whole spectrum.

Let me share an old folklore to explain my point.

In old times, two students were returning their homes after completing their education. In the way, a common boy from their own village accompanied them.

During the journey, they saw a the spreaded bones of a lion. One of those students was master in recreating dead bodies, so he decided to display his skill, and recreated a dead lion. The other student was master in making dead alive, so he also decided to show his skill.

The third common boy requested him not to do so, as he had requested to the earlier one also not to complete dead lion's body, but the later student also did not listen to him.

Realizing the danger, the uneducated boy climbed the tree. Both of learned students made a lion alive, but before they could celebrate their success, the lion killed them both and walked away. Then, that common boy came down from the tree and proceeded to his village.

See, what I meant. The whole knowledge, skill and confidence of both of those students did not give any positive results, but caused harm instead. On the other hand, the simple common sense of the uneducated boy saved his life, because he used his little knowledge at right time and in right way two.

Thus, he was the only wise one between the three.

With love,
Sanjay

You really should read the other posts. We're not talking about intelligence or education.

Jaded Sage wrote:You really should read the other posts. We're not talking about intelligence or education.

I will try to read the other posts whenever I get the time.

But, wisdom cannot be understood without taking intelligence and knowledge into account, besides intent/courage to implement.

With love,
Sanjay

hajrafradi wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Now you're talking of, "games of chance!"

I hear you, Spheres.

What I meant is this:

Lottery is a game of losing money. People must rationalize why they play it still, and one form of rationalizing it is that they believe that the numbers they choose will be winning numbers.

This is a bad, unfounded prediction, but a prediction nevertheless.

That's what I meant.

You are ignoring the millions of losers. They may not be excluded from the equation. By doing so you are misunderstanding the lottery as an event.
It's not unfounded, its not bad, its just not a prediction in any sense.

To have a rationale for playing is not the same as rationalizing why you play. The first looks to the future. The second looks to the past. The future is hope, the past is justification via rationalizing. The rationale for playing is that eventually a predetermined finite set of non-repeating whole numbers from a limited sequence will change energetic form from thought to action (action by the hand of God or chance, take your pick), resulting in generational wealth for a wager of perfect timing that otherwise could have purchased no more than a candy bar. It’s a cheap trip to Wonderland for eventually a predicted sequence does appear in an unpredictable place, and hard work has nothing to do with it. In fact a lottery wager thumbs its nose at nose-to-the-grindstone, cause for deepening of Puritan frown lines.

Personally I haven't played or given it a thought since my disappointing loss of close to a $1 billion last year, when a lottery peaked out.

Walker wrote:To have a rationale for playing is not the same as rationalizing why you play. The first looks to the future. The second looks to the past. The future is hope, the past is justification via rationalizing. The rationale for playing is that eventually a predetermined finite set of non-repeating whole numbers from a limited sequence will change energetic form from thought to action (action by the hand of God or chance, take your pick), resulting in generational wealth for a wager of perfect timing that otherwise could have purchased no more than a candy bar. It’s a cheap trip to Wonderland for eventually a predicted sequence does appear in an unpredictable place, and hard work has nothing to do with it. In fact a lottery wager thumbs its nose at nose-to-the-grindstone, cause for deepening of Puritan frown lines.

Personally I haven't played or given it a thought since my disappointing loss of close to a $1 billion last year, when a lottery peaked out.

How uncharacteristically eloquent of you.

According to Aristotle, wisdom is a science. Thoughts?

"The Absolute Good would be this—the End of the goods practicable for man. And this is the good that comes under the supreme of all the practical sciences, which is Politics and Economics and Wisdom;"
- Eudemian Ethics

"Science" is a translation of some old Greek word.

Gnosis perhaps ?
which means: knowing something

What does it mean to know ?

You are wise if you know something, you are more wise than other people if you know more than other people, espacially more secrets.

We all go round and round and suppose
while the secret sits in the middle and knows.

or: while the knower of secrets sits in the middle and knows.

You are missing the fact that it has been classed together with two other things that make it very strange indeed?

Jaded Sage wrote:According to Aristotle, wisdom is a science. Thoughts?

"The Absolute Good would be this—the End of the goods practicable for man. And this is the good that comes under the supreme of all the practical sciences, which is Politics and Economics and Wisdom;"
- Eudemian Ethics

Problem: his concept of "science" is not science. Scientia is "to know" and that has a far more broad field that the way we use the word today.

See the post before yours.

Jaded Sage wrote:Are you secretly ignoring the fact that it has been classed together with two other things that make it very strange indeed?

That problem would be yours. The Greek word he is fumbling for is paradoxically a Latin one, the one I posted above. scientia