Cleverness knows nothing of the human condition. It just knows power. Wisdom doesn't know power; you don't know wisdom. — Noble Dust

So you took what I said and twisted it to make it fit some template you have acquired and now you feel safe? Your habit of thought trumps my clever (because it is original to your way or thinking) analysis?

As I've said, my view is not very original at all. It is in fact the wisest views on neurocognition and evolutionary lifecycles that I've encountered.

So you took what I said and twisted it to make it fit some template you have acquired and now you feel safe? — apokrisis

No; I have no template. I'm actually trying to figure out what wisdom is. Novel, I know. And I could say the same to you: "So you took what I said and twisted it to make it fit some template you have acquired and now you feel safe?" Let's actually debate. I realize I said you aren't wise, which probably struck a nerve; reasoned debate generally stops there, especially with the unwise. I'll take it back if you like: I don't know if you're wise or not. I haven't seen any wisdom so far, but I'm hopeful that I may see it as we debate. How's that?

Your habit of thought trumps my clever (because it is original to your way or thinking) analysis? — apokrisis

Using your own concept to fail at refuting my points; bad form brah. Explain ya points betta.

It is in fact the wisest views on neurocognition and evolutionary lifecycles that I've encountered. — apokrisis

:rofl: We've found wisdom! Thread closed.

But that's typical pragmatism, right? Whatever works - whatever is well-adapted. But at the end of the day, the only criterion for that judgement is adaption, survival, getting along. — Wayfarer

What other purposes did you have in mind for wisdom that aren't directly tied to living your life in a generally clever and well-adapted fashion?

I don't know if you're wise or not. I haven't seen any wisdom so far, but I'm hopeful that I may see it as we debate. How's that? — Noble Dust

Is that what you call taking things back? :razz:

But anyway, I set out my argument. I'll have to wait until you can identify some specific fault in it.

Why live cleverly and well-adaptedly, when you die after about 70 years? This is a question that pertains to the problem of wisdom.

Is that what you call taking things back? :razz: — apokrisis

Yup! Nerve officially struck. Maybe you'll learn wisdom from this thread; who knows? I'm certainly hoping I do.

But anyway, I set out my argument. I'll have to wait until you can identify some specific fault in it. — apokrisis

I did; read again.

What other purposes did you have in mind for wisdom that aren't directly tied to living your life in a generally clever and well-adapted fashion? — apokrisis

It's significant in this thread, few considered the question from the perspective of the actual subject of philosophy - philo-sophia, love~wisdom. I think, arguably, the key text at the origin of Western philosophy, was the Apology. And in that text Socrates was concerned with something other than 'living in a clever and well-adapted fashion', namely, how to maintain equanimity in the face of death. So it's quite at odds with 'evolutionary logic' - but then, humans, alone among animals, are able to contemplate such a predicament in the abstract, and wonder what it means. Which I would think is in keeping with the aphorism that 'wisdom begins in wonder'.

:clap:

As I said, it is a natural cycle. Organisms become well adapted to their worlds by accumulating habits. And that is great until the world changes too abruptly and whacks them for six. That is nature's way. It is how evolution works. Creative destruction. Stop and reset every so often.

Now you could make an argument for humans breaking out of this natural pattern. Wouldn't it be nice if we could forever keep learning, keep expanding, never slowing or senescing.

But even then, we would only wind up knowing everything, having the right answer to every question, and so run out of anything new to discover. That notion of wisdom might be considered a dull fate.

My own argument is in favour of a fruitful balance - one where we are getting wiser in a fashion that allows our cleverness to become ever more sharply focused.

So the template you are reaching for is a polarity. One thing must be made right so that the other can be held to be wrong. And you see that in the first responses of others in this thread.

If one says "wise", the other must say "clever". If one says "habit", the other must say "spontaneous". If one says "pragmatic", the other must say .... something or other.

And so the complementary approach I take - where wisdom and cleverness are the strengths correcting each other's weaknesses - gets completely overlooked in every reaction to what I write.

And in that text Socrates was concerned with something other than 'living in a clever and well-adapted fashion', namely, how to maintain equanimity in the face of death. — Wayfarer

So how to act dead before you are dead? Sounds legit.

Next stop on this chain of "wisdom", nihilism, existentialism, pessimism and other varieties of life-denying miserabilism.

As I said, it is a natural cycle. Organisms become well adapted to their worlds by accumulating habits. And that is great until the world changes too abruptly and whacks them for six. That is nature's way. It is how evolution works. Creative destruction. Stop and reset every so often. — apokrisis

You're worshipping evolution as a god. I've seen this attitude in the fundamentalist church; what exposes it is that the form supersedes the function; yes, evolution, the form of physical change, is real. Agreed. So what's it's function? Nothing you've said says anything about it's function, and yet, you assume that the form of evolution precludes it's function; the form is the function. Again, essentially a fundamentalist religion.

So the template you are reaching for is a polarity. One thing must be made right so that the other can be held to be wrong. And you see that in the first responses of others in this thread. — apokrisis

So I'm positing a right and wrong, but you'e not, right? Wait no, that can't be right, because that's obviously not the case.

read again. — Noble Dust

Read what? You talked about things encased in resin or folk being oppressed. It didn't add up to a counter-argument, just some angry spluttering noises.

Read again.

Well, it is a philosophy forum although a lot of the time you'd be hard-pressed to tell.

Although I thought this was a pretty cool answer, leaving aside the fact that it's a bit snide.

I think the word wisdom is merely an old word that attempts to describe emotional intelligence but has since become victim to a quality narcissists like to add to their repertoire to give an air of legitimacy in their judgements of others. It is to have common sense - which as Voltaire perfectly said is not so common - and an ability to regulate the inner self along with an outer life (professional, interpersonal) and to transcend societal constructs to be capable of studying the world objectively. — TimeLine

You're worshipping evolution as a god. I've seen this attitude in the fundamentalist church; — Noble Dust

Of course. Have another go. Wheel out the habit, the template image of the zealot, the religious crank. Pretend you have assimilated my remarks to that.

You're hilarious. You are doing exactly what I say gets done.

Come back with counter-arguments, and I'll take you seriously.

Counter-argument to what exactly? Don't keep wasting my time.

To my arguments. Don't keep wasting my time. :rofl:

So cognitive bias must ultimately lead to something true, right? If it's such an intense issue, then it surely avails itself of something which is real, as opposed to the unreality of the cognitive bias that lead to the thing that was untrue.

@Πετροκότσυφας What about you, what do you think wisdom is?

Hell, while I'm at it, @Baden... I see you there. What do you think wisdom is?

I guess you're human. As one poster remarked I think wisdom has a religious slant to it.

I see philosophy as a quest for wisdom. Wisdom is bipartite - knowledge and morals. While both are difficult to attain I feel the latter is a harder objective because of, well, human nature.

By nature we aren't completely freed of our basic animal drives and while some of it may be essential others are impediments to achieving moral enlightenment.

One odd thing I notice here is that we seek wisdom in order to know how to live our lives and this from homo sapiens - the ''wise'' animal.

Animals know how to live.

Animals know how to live. — TheMadFool

They’re not burdened by the requirement to make choices. See this.

So cognitive bias must ultimately lead to something true, right? — Noble Dust

Well... not quite.

Cognitive bias leads to something (leads to a comclusion) that one prefers to be true (correct). Whether the conclusion is indeed true or false plays no role in what is being highlighted in my post. What's clear is that the preference for a conclusion taints the process of investigation/argument of support.

The only thing I can see that is ultimatey clear by the application of a cognitive bias is that poor arguments have been put forth, also the likelihood of begging questions or circular reasoning is present.

What a cognitive bias leads to is completely a different issue. The conclusion can be true or false, but not as the result of the application of a cognitive bias in an argument... in short the argument does not support the conclusion no matter if it is a true or a false conclusion.

If it's such an intense issue, then it surely avails itself of something which is real, as opposed to the unreality of the cognitive bias that lead to the thing that was untrue. — Noble Dust

I feel the problem here is that somehow there is the assumption that a cognitive bias leads one to something that is false. The conclusion is not really the problem here, but rather the process applied to reach a conclusion. It is very possible to utilize a cognitive bias (perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation) and still reach a conclusion that is true.

A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment. These systematic patterns use premises (both true and false) and reach conclusions (both correct and incorrect), but are themselves forms of argumentation (neither true or false).

It seems the use of the terms true or false are not really the issue, but rather the terms valid or invalid would be better choices.

Another point to make here is just because something is real does not make it true. Truth is a matter of context in respect to a specific question.

I seriously basic example:

Both a bridge and a tomato are real.

If the question is what do you use to cross a river while driving a car and you answer a bridge... that's true, but if one answers a tomato... that's false.

Meow!

G

btw... Here's a few examples of cognitive bias for the road:

Cheerleader effect: The tendency for people to appear more attractive in a group than in isolation.

Dunning-Kruger effect: The tendency for unskilled individuals to overestimate their own ability and the tendency for experts to underestimate their own ability.

IKEA effect: The tendency for people to place a disproportionately high value on objects that they partially assembled themselves, such as furniture from IKEA, regardless of the quality of the end result.

Semmelweis reflex: The tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts a paradigm.

"Women are wonderful" effect: A tendency to associate more positive attributes with women than with men.

The list is very very long.

I don't know. When you talk about it, it kind of runs away.

Although that line could be an excuse because I'd rather be editing the pictures I took today. There's some ethical element to it that isn't there with cleverness, intelligence etc. A sense of humility. Some kind of extra weight. That's enough for me.

I don't think "wisdom" is just a pile of good advice. Take the book of Proverbs:

1 The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel:
2 for gaining wisdom and instruction;
for understanding words of insight;
3 for receiving instruction in prudent behavior,
doing what is right and just and fair;
4 for giving prudence to those who are simple,[a]
knowledge and discretion to the young—
5 let the wise listen and add to their learning,
and let the discerning get guidance—
6 for understanding proverbs and parables,
the sayings and riddles of the wise.

Then follows many, many lines of "good advice", much of which seems fairly obvious, like... if a gang of crooks invite you to join a racket, don't.

There are collections of more contemporary proverbs, like "Don't plan on winning the Publishers Clearinghouse Sweepstakes." Just plain good advice or actual wisdom?

Ecclesiastes comes much closer to what I would call wisdom. The worldview of Ecclesiastes is wider than Proverbs, less pious, and not so 'cut and dried' -- admitting uncertainty. The book opens famously with the acknowledgment that there is a time for both building up and a time for tearing down, gathering in, and scattering apart, etc. -- a time for every purpose under heaven. But the crux of Ecclesiastes, at least for me, is the summation:

I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happens to them all.

I seem to remember reading somewhere in a secondary work on Heidegger that his concept of authenticity could be equated with Aristotle's conception of phronesis (practical wisdom) in that phronesis consists precisely in knowing what to do in particular situations.

The idea is that each situation is uniquely singular, and that wisdom consists in not falling into the habit of treating a situation as a generality: "one of those situations" where "this is what one does". On this reading wisdom involves more creativity than habit.

So, it seems I am offering a different characterization of wisdom than yours.

That doesn't seem very wise. I don't know what bullshit is; you'd have to elaborate. Self-hatred is corrosive, but it doesn't mean wisdom can't be gleaned from the corrosive experience; there's wisdom to be learned from hating yourself that can't be learned any other way.

Why can't I ask you what those are, if I want to be wise? Some kind of "silence" thing? Screw that, what the hell are those things you mentioned? — Noble Dust

See, you've done the unwise thing and asked another what bullshit and self-hatred are. But all is not lost; that is not necessarily unwise; it depends on what you do with what you hear. Wisdom consists precisely in listening to others, but in the final analysis, living by your own lights. There are things others can tell you, determinate things you may not be aware of about the world, science things, history things, economic and political things and so on, but when it comes to fundamentals like bullshit and self-hatred (and wisdom). no one can tell you what they are.

There may be wisdom for you in hating yourself, I can only tell you about my experience. I have found no wisdom in hating myself, although obviously I needed to know what self-hatred is, since I have blindly hated myself, in order to know what to abstain from.

So, it has nothing much to do with "silence" but rather more to do with learning how to talk to yourself kindly and authentically (with your own voice, that is).