- #1
Loren Booda
- 3,125
- 4
Who is the wiser: they who realize what they know, or they who realize what they don't know?
That implies a dichotomy where I don't think one exists, however...Loren Booda said:Who is the wiser: they who realize what they know, or they who realize what they don't know?
Who is the wiser: they who realize what they know, or they who realize what they don't know?
If there is a volume of the amount knowledge, then the associated ignorance should be defined as the surface of its border. That's how learning extends the amount of our ignorance.math_04 said:I think realizing what you know should gradually lead to realizing what you do not know. There seems to always be a boundary to push or a fact that may be misunderstood with respect to a particular subject.
and“I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing.”
As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.
Logical fallacy: appeal to authority.Willowz said:It seems to me that you are asking a simple question. Socrates who said to be once the most wise/intelligent/smart/cunning/knowledgeable(Surly you can't have one of those traits without the other) man said: and
Oracle of Delphi story: Chaerophon visits the Oracle of Delphi and asks if anyone in Athens is wiser than Socrates. The Oracle answered that no one is wiser than Socrates. Socrates made it his mission in life to test and understand the Oracle's pronouncement. He seeks out people who have a reputation for wisdom in various regards and tests their claims to knowledge through questioning. He discovers a good deal of vain ignorance and false clams to knowledge, but no one with genuine wisdom. Ultimately, Socrates concludes that he is wisest; but not because he possesses special knowledge not had by others. Rather he finds that he is wisest because he recognizes his own lack of knowledge while others think they know, but do not. This is not a skeptical conclusion, however. Socrates does not deny that knowledge is to be had. While he does not claim to have knowledge himself, he shows us how to obtain knowledge by demonstrating a method of testing claims to knowledge.
Yeah, it's just that it seems kind of circular. Loren is asking the very question that the story is about; it seems her question is directly inspired by it, or at least the adage "The only thing I truly know is that I know nothing." It seems answernig the question with the answer that inpsired the question would not likely satisfy her. I'm presuming she is looking for an argument by logical reasoning.Huckleberry said:Logical fallacy or not I think the story of The Oracle of Delphi is applicable here. I believe that is what Willowz is referring to? It was bound to be referenced anyway.
Huckleberry said:I'm still trying to figure out what false clams are.
...and die like poor Socrates? No thank's. "Authority" has a misconception that it knows all and should not be reasoned with.DaveC426913 said:Logical fallacy: appeal to authority.
DaveC426913 said:Yeah, it's just that it seems kind of circular. Loren is asking the very question that the story is about; it seems her question is directly inspired by it, or at least the adage "The only thing I truly know is that I know nothing." It seems answernig the question with the answer that inpsired the question would not likely satisfy her. I'm presuming she is looking for an argument by logical reasoning.
I know. So bad, right?
Loren Booda said:Who is the wiser: they who realize what they know, or they who realize what they don't know?
Oh puh-leeze.:uhh: The old you-can't-trust-anytihng-you-see-or-hear-because-it-could-be-an-illusion argument.junglebeast said:The first is a contradiction that cannot exist because it is impossible to realize that one knows something, because the brain is fallible. There is no way to verify that one's thoughts are logical because your entire perception of the world is presented to you by your thoughts. Technically speaking, your vision, your psychiatrist, your entire life could be a hallucination. You might think that 1+1=2, but you do not truly know this even though it is a purely mathematical statement, because your brain could be incorrectly recalling the rules of mathematics.
For the sake of the story. The Oracle of Delphi was regarded as an omniscience being. Out of the boundaries of the word "authority".Oracle of Delphi story: Chaerophon visits the Oracle of Delphi and asks if anyone in Athens is wiser than Socrates. The Oracle answered that no one is wiser than Socrates. Socrates made it his mission in life to test and understand the Oracle's pronouncement. He seeks out people who have a reputation for wisdom in various regards and tests their claims to knowledge through questioning. He discovers a good deal of vain ignorance and false clams to knowledge, but no one with genuine wisdom. Ultimately, Socrates concludes that he is wisest; but not because he possesses special knowledge not had by others. Rather he finds that he is wisest because he recognizes his own lack of knowledge while others think they know, but do not. This is not a skeptical conclusion, however. Socrates does not deny that knowledge is to be had. While he does not claim to have knowledge himself, he shows us how to obtain knowledge by demonstrating a method of testing claims to knowledge.
Willowz said:For the sake of the story. The Oracle of Delphi was regarded as an omniscience being. Out of the boundaries of the word "authority".
Yes, but you can't say everything that other people say is untrue and all that I say is true. If people like Plato, Aristotle, etc. based some of there philosophical beliefs on what Socrates said then it sounds logical to say that Socrates was a smart person.DaveC426913 said:How do you figure? The logical fallacy 'Appeal to authority' simply means 'this entity said X is true, therefore you should think so too'. The only requirement of the entity is that they are perceived to know more than you do about the subject i.e they are an authority on the subject.
Willowz said:Yes, but you can't say everything that other people say is untrue and all that I say is true. If people like Plato, Aristotle, etc. based some of there philosophical beliefs on what Socrates said then it sounds logical to say that Socrates was a smart person.
Ok, then I should not believe in anything? I know my boundaries. As long as I have that in my mind I leave some room for carful belief. Not this illogical kind of belief:"Daddy had a gun that was shiny and loud."..."In that case I should have one also!" False beliefs arise out of logical fallacies. Logical fallacies arise from a limited amount of knowledge. Therefore if somebody knows that he has boundaries, he has more knowledge and is less likely to make such logical fallacies. By knowing that someone doesn't really know everything he has the opportunity to know more about the truth of things. Through my limited amount of knowledge I must reason through logic, in order to know what is right and what is wrong, at the same time believing in what I do.DaveC426913 said:There is no doubting he was a smart person.
But 'this guy was smart therefore you should believe what he believes' is a logical fallacy; it is not a valid way to make a case in a discussion.
It is tantamount to: "We should all carry guns because Charleton Heston carries a gun, and we like Charleton Heston."
Sorry. I overstated my case. Your reference to Socrates is not wrong.Willowz said:Ok, then I should not believe in anything?
DaveC426913 said:Oh puh-leeze.:uhh: The old you-can't-trust-anytihng-you-see-or-hear-because-it-could-be-an-illusion argument.
Being "wise" means having knowledge, experience, and good judgement. It encompasses understanding and being able to make sound decisions.
This is a subjective question and can vary from person to person. Some may argue that knowing what you know is better as it allows you to make informed decisions. Others may argue that knowing what you don't know is better as it promotes a growth mindset and continuous learning.
Wisdom and intelligence are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same. Intelligence is the ability to acquire knowledge and skills, while wisdom is the ability to apply that knowledge and skill in a meaningful way.
This is a debated topic among scientists. Some believe that wisdom is a combination of innate traits and learned behaviors, while others believe it can be taught and developed through experiences and reflection.
Becoming wiser involves a combination of factors such as learning from experiences, seeking new knowledge, introspection, and applying that knowledge in a meaningful way. It also involves being open-minded, humble, and willing to admit when you don't know something.