Is knowledge without wisdom a dangerous thing?

[Mentat]

Wu Li, I've just realized that the incompatibility of our definitions of wisdom results from the fact that you seem to think there is such a thing as "evil". You seem to think that one form of action is definitely "wrong", and another form is "right". While I think so as well, that doesn't mean that it's true, and so this concept doesn't show up in my definition of wisdom. IMO, wisdom should exist even in societies that know nothing of "right" and "wrong".

 

[Iacchus32]

Right and wrong are only "relative" to the situation. This indeed is where "wisdom" applies. In which case you can take something in the literal sense (as many Christians take the Bible) or, you can inquire within, and observe its "inner-quality."

 

[wuliheron]

Wu Li, I've just realized that the incompatibility of our definitions of wisdom results from the fact that you seem to think there is such a thing as "evil". You seem to think that one form of action is definitely "wrong", and another form is "right". While I think so as well, that doesn't mean that it's true, and so this concept doesn't show up in my definition of wisdom. IMO, wisdom should exist even in societies that know nothing of "right" and "wrong".

Sorry, but you're wrong. I don't believe in anything like "evil". For me, evil refers to something absolute, innate or irredemable. I do believe there are serial killers and whatnot and to some extent they may even be predisposed to such behavior, but that doesn't make what they do "evil", just extremely bad. No doubt with the right environment and perhaps even medical attention such people could be helped.

Actually, I'm an amoral Philosophical Taoist. To a great extent concepts like good and bad are relativistic for me as Iaccus points out. However, I must point out they are relative to how we each see them as individuals, not in some abstract theoretical way. For the vast majority of humanity the idea of someone blowing up the entire world is bad, so sometimes I'll refer to such things in straightforward ways. Most people with moralities and ideas about normalcy don't understand such a viewpoint, so I don't go into the details much and just put it out that its merely my opinion.

This same relativism applies to everything for me. Free will vs determinism, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, and even the irrational and rational. That's just the way paradoxes are, they lend themselves to whatever interpretation we care to make.

Additionally, there really are no societies that don't know right from wrong. Many like the !Kung have no words for certain concepts like guilt, but they understand the concepts nonetheless. They just don't need the word and may even find its use counterproductive. Sometimes implicite rules are better than explicite ones for achieving goals.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Sorry, but you're wrong. I don't believe in anything like "evil". For me, evil refers to something absolute, innate or irredemable. I do believe there are serial killers and whatnot and to some extent they may even be predisposed to such behavior, but that doesn't make what they do "evil", just extremely bad. No doubt with the right environment and perhaps even medical attention such people could be helped.

Actually, I'm an amoral Philosophical Taoist. To a great extent concepts like good and bad are relativistic for me as Iaccus points out. However, I must point out they are relative to how we each see them as individuals, not in some abstract theoretical way. For the vast majority of humanity the idea of someone blowing up the entire world is bad, so sometimes I'll refer to such things in straightforward ways. Most people with moralities and ideas about normalcy don't understand such a viewpoint, so I don't go into the details much and just put it out that its merely my opinion.

This same relativism applies to everything for me. Free will vs determinism, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, and even the irrational and rational. That's just the way paradoxes are, they lend themselves to whatever interpretation we care to make.

Additionally, there really are no societies that don't know right from wrong. Many like the !Kung have no words for certain concepts like guilt, but they understand the concepts nonetheless. They just don't need the word and may even find its use counterproductive. Sometimes implicite rules are better than explicite ones for achieving goals.

While you may say that you don't believe in the distinction between good and evil, the opposite is evident in your perception of wisdom. You see, I was saying that wisdom is the application of knowledge and understanding. You disagreed, and said...

As it is, there are incredibly knowledgeable people out there who apply it towards destructive purposes, even in the case of Ted Kazinsky against applied knowledge.

... thus showing that you didn't think him to be wise, because he was destructive. Why can wisdom not be involved in things that are destructive, unless - of course - there is something *wrong* with being destructive.

 

[FZ+]

Interjection: Wuli is referring that he is against the absolutist idea of right or wrong. That something is always wrong, independent of who is judging. So while being destructive is wrong to him, he does not claim that it is simply inherently a wrong act. At least, that's how I read it.

Hmm... so maybe wisdom itself is relative to who is judging it? You may find someone unwise, but someone else may disagree?

 

[wuliheron]

Yeah, FZ, that's about what it breaks down to. Even absolute and relative can be conceived of as relative terms. The real question then may not be whether wisdom is relative or absolute, but whether it is accepting. Reality is whatever it is, whatever That may be, so wisdom may well depend upon how we accept the situation as it presents itself and act accordingly. When we insist reality is a certain way, we reject all other possibilities and limit ourselves.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by FZ+
Interjection: Wuli is referring that he is against the absolutist idea of right or wrong. That something is always wrong, independent of who is judging. So while being destructive is wrong to him, he does not claim that it is simply inherently a wrong act. At least, that's how I read it.

But, if he/she thinks that something is wrong, how can he/she not claim that it is "simply inherently a wrong act"?

Hmm... so maybe wisdom itself is relative to who is judging it? You may find someone unwise, but someone else may disagree?

Well, not according to my previous definition of wisdom (in which all applied knowledge/understanding is "wisdom", at least at some level). But yours is a good idea. Wisdom could be relative, in a slightly different conception of what it is - than mine.

 

[FZ+]

But, if he/she thinks that something is wrong, how can he/she not claim that it is "simply inherently a wrong act"?

No. He/she/it thinks that something is wrong to THEM. But the same something is not always wrong, and is not wrong for everyone. To the person doing it, it is undoubtly "right". That's why he did it.

 

[wuliheron]

Yeah, its called relative ethics and avoids a great deal of the problems with absolute ethics. For example, I would normally consider murder wrong, but if I had a chance to murder Adolf Hitler before he attempted genocide I wouldn't think it wrong. Relative ethics also can have some the strongest philosophical foundations possible while most absolute ethics trace their foundations to some sort of religious decree by a God.