I would agree that "we" don't have a drive for wisdom. Or if we do, it is not equal in all people. Perhaps some are more naturally disposed toward wisdom than others.

Children lose their temporary innocence-advantage pretty quickly. — BC

We don't have a "drive for wisdom" as much as it takes time for individuals to develop it. — BC

Or do we shut it down? The socialization process is often heavily focused upon shutting people up. Though we do try to find kinder ways to shut them up, the goal remains the same.

The key idea is culturally a safe-zone was created where we differentiated wise and innocents, who are innocent of ‘evil’ because they don’t know it. The main thing isn’t what this process appears to be, and how it is used by consciousness, but it’s overall purpose as an objective thing in our civil world.

What do we need to do other than convince the innocent they are not capable or prepared to accept the whole truth of something. In a sense the intention is to prepare the subject for that ‘wisdom.’ And being conditioned by that preparation trains us in the discipline of philosophy and teaches us of its necessity. To understand, we use isolation and/or deconstruction, or decay.

What do we need to do other than convince the innocent they are not capable or prepared to accept the whole truth of something. — kudos

Great stuff. I do not disagree with it. But we often do the opposite by fostering the innocents mistaken belief (and perhaps our own) that we know the "whole truth". And rather than end the innocents continually asking why by admitting we do not know the "whole truth", we find ever more sophisticated ways to say "because I said so."

Let's move on. I just don't like the word "wisdom". I have no problem with the content of "experience, knowledge, and good judgment". You like the word--wisdom--fine. Keep seeking it.

Our collective problem isn't the term, it's how to get the content.

On the other hand, psychologist George Kelly makes some good points about the dangers of a realistic attitude being taken too far: — Joshs

Yes, everything can be taken too far. I don't consider myself a realist.

You allude to the corruption problem in general. To that I reply that reason must not just be found, but earned. And not just kept, but preserved.

Thank you.

Because the cute little innocent child has discovered something that undermines innocence: He has become aware of himself and his measly bit of power. He doesn't have much power at all, but he can wield it; he can now say, "NO" to adults. NO! I won't eat that food. NO! I won't sit on the potty. NO! I won't go to sleep. Just that awareness of self, so essential to development, undermines innocence. And that's just one thing, Learning to talk undermines innocence. Learning to walk and run undermines innocence. — BC

So not being a cute obedient robot is what diminishes a person's innocence?

Anyway, where is this opposition between innocence and experience coming from? — kudos

Wishful thinking, possibly born out of incompetence.

So, I'm interested, what type of experience qualifies as anti-innocent and what does not?

It looks as if for many people, loss of innocence has to do with opposing one's elders or with the onset of sexuality of any kind.

What's wrong about living a simple life without worry or anxieties, supposing those questions bring with them those feelings? — kudos

What is "wrong" with such a life is that one cannot choose it; it's not the result of deliberate action, at least not always.

We should distinguish the ability see 'see outside' a set of potential experiences as per @BC (NO! I will not eat that food, etc.) and 'seeing inside' (food eating is not questioned). 'Seeing outside' requires negating things in their existence. It coincides with 'having the answer' rather than 'asking the question.' Because the innocent, by definition in the manner earlier described, doesn't already have the answers to formal questions of life and behaviour. Thus, the manner of acquiring knowledge from convention and traditional wisdom can be supplanted by mere needs and desires. This parallels philosophical corruption by wealth, comforts, and sensual pleasures.

So not being a cute obedient robot is what diminishes a person's innocence? — baker

No. Becoming a person in one's own right diminishes innocence.

Becoming a person in one's own right diminishes innocence.

I would normally distinguish between thinking of yourself as a person in their own right and being or becoming a person in its own right. You seem to call them the same thing. During earlier times women, for instance, were innocent. Would you consider women like Emily Brontë, diminished 'in her own right' in lieu of never having climbed tall mountains or gone on bestial sexual escapades?

I would not.

Did Miss Brontë greatly desire bestial sexual escapades on the mountain top?

No, but why is satisfying your desires such a worthy business? More importantly, how does one know when their desires have been satiated in order to confirm agency?

I would normally distinguish between thinking of yourself as a person in their own right and being or becoming a person in its own right. — kudos

This seems to me like a distinction that isn't a difference. Can you explain this further?

During earlier times women, for instance, were innocent. — kudos

During earlier times women and children were thought to be innocent. What applied to men and adults didn't apply to them. They were exempt. Human beings--men, women, and children--whatever they might think about their personhood and being, from childhood to senescence, are not innocent. I do not mean they are evil, disfigured by some sort of Calvinistic stain, original sin, or any of that crap. I mean we are afflicted and conflicted from birth by desires, wishes, urges, fears, and WILL which prevents us from ever approaching innocence. This is not a bad thing -- it's all necessary for us to become effective agents in our own lives.

Innocence is the perfect dismissal: "Oh, you are too good, too pure, too 'innocent' for the real world." Bullshit!

Sorry, getting carried away here.

...is satisfying your desires such a worthy business? — kudos

It depends on the nature of the desire and the cost of achieving it. Most of us have desires which we do well to leave unsatisfied. .

During earlier times women and children were <thought> to be innocent.

I mean we are afflicted and conflicted from birth by desires, wishes, urges, fears, and WILL which prevents us from ever approaching innocence.

On one hand you’re calling innocence a trait of a person in isolation from their outer world, and on the other you claim it is beyond them because of factors (desires, urges, fears) that are largely conditioned upon them from outside. This is perhaps the difference showing itself a bit.

No.

No one is isolated from the or their outer world under generally normal circumstances. We aren't just conditioned rats. We are our impulses, desires, urges, fears, etc. etc. etc. It is our striving, conflicting, conflicted nature. That why life is difficult.

See, I don't believe that 'innocence' exists. It's a myth. We aren't born blank slates, white paper without a mark, the product of an immaculate conception. Neither are any other creatures on earth. We can't lose something we never had to begin with. And that's perfectly OK.

No. Becoming a person in one's own right diminishes innocence. — BC

How Christian ...

I would normally distinguish between thinking of yourself as a person in their own right and being or becoming a person in its own right.
— kudos

This seems to me like a distinction that isn't a difference. Can you explain this further? — BC

thinking that you're x
vs.
being x

thinking that you can climb a tree
vs.
successfully climbing a tree

thinking that you're productive
vs.
being productive

thinking that you're a person in your own right
vs.
being a person in your own right


Being x requires some type of evidence, often objectively, interpersonally measurable.

See, I don't believe that 'innocence' exists. It's a myth. We aren't born blank slates, white paper without a mark, the product of an immaculate conception.

But it’s an idea, so its non-existence is purely consequential of the fact that you don’t believe in it; it’s not like the belief just survives in society on its own by feeding on cattle at night, it must be earned. That’s like saying friendship or love don’t exist because there are no transcendent or complex relationships anymore, only superficiality.