Is there a path to wisdom?

Is there a path to wisdom?

How can I know what I do not know? How can I trace that boundary between knowledge and ignorance?

In the dialogue “Apology” Plato writes about Socrates while in the dungeon just before drinking the hemlock that the citizens of Athens condemned him to be executed.

In the dungeon shortly before drinking from the hemlock cup Socrates spoke to his followers. He spoke about the accusations against him at the trial. He said that the sworn indictment against him was “Socrates is guilty of needless curiosity and meddling interference, inquiring into things beneath Earth and in the Sky…”

Socrates further adds that he is accused of teaching the people of Athens, to which Socrates vehemently denies that he is a teacher. He points out that in matters of wisdom he has only a small piece of that territory; the wisdom that he does have is the wisdom not to think he knows what he does not know. Socrates conjectures that he has the wisdom to recognize the boundary of his present knowledge and to search for that knowledge that he does not have. “So it seems at any rate I am wiser in this one small respect: I do not think I know what I do not.”

For Socrates a necessary component of wisdom is to comprehend what one is ignorant of.

Am I wise? Do I know what I am ignorant of? I certainly know that I am ignorant of astronomy and music. There are many things about which it is obvious to me that I am ignorant of. Are there things about which I am not even aware of my ignorance? Are there matters about which I think I am knowledgeable of but which I am, in fact, ignorant of?

When I ask myself these questions I become conscious of a great number of things about which I am ignorant. Does this mean I am like Socrates in this matter? I do not think so. Socrates is speaking about two types of ignorance about which most people are unconscious of.

I think that Socrates is speaking of our ‘burden of illusion’. People are unconscious of the superficiality of much that they think they know and they are unconscious of a vast domain of knowledge that is hidden from the non critical thinker.

The uncritical mind has no means for discovering these illusions. CT (Critical Thinking) is the keystone for discovering these illusions. The Catch-22 here is how can one develop a critical mind when they are deluded into thinking they have a critical mind?

When our educational system has not taught our citizens how to think critically how can our citizens ever pull themselves out of this deep hole of illusion?


“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble; it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so”—Mark Twain

coberstakaDutchuncle

You cannot know what you don't know you don't know, because you don't know it!

Why only a path to wisdom?

Can anyone seriously believe there is only one way?

Further, there are two separate problems in knowing -- one epistemological (how do I know something?), and the other metaphysical (what exactly is there to know?).

I don't think you even have the right question, so I have doubts of finding a good answer.

The one and only path to wisdom is to be natural, to take a natural course, to follow your instincts, to forestall all artificialities and forgo all that goes against nature.

To be oneself is the path to wisdom.

We are misled in this world, and our values, beliefs, desires, thoughts, imaginations are shaped and molded by others. Others induced values we live by in life.

The path to wisdom is through experience.One was a small minded person with prejudices.But when in dire need one was given alms of love by the prejudiced.One changed after that and knew love, universal love and acknowledged that all were but hues.Here experience taught one what knowledge and readings did not teach.

In the summer of 48 my older brother told me that if I wanted to play high school football I had to ‘get ready’. In his terms, ‘getting ready’ meant running to get in condition for the rigors of football practice.

In the spring of 09 I want to begin the quest for wisdom. How do I ‘get ready’ for becoming wise?

Starting with the definition of wisdom as “seeing life whole” seems to be as good a place to begin as I can think of. How do I get ready to see life whole?

It seems to me that to see life whole I must learn a great deal more than I already have learned but I must start with where I presently am. I am convinced that learning new stuff requires three aspects (a position facing a particular direction) of mind; mentally I must have curiosity, caring, and an orderly mind.

I claim that curiosity and caring are necessary conditions for understanding. Understanding is a far step beyond knowing. I will not examine a matter for the purpose of understanding it unless I am curious about it. I must care enough about the matter to do the intellectual work necessary to understand.

Understanding is a step beyond knowing and is seldom required or measured by schooling. Understanding is generally of disinterested knowledge, i.e. disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic (due to the nature of the self) value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ‘disinterested knowledge’ as similar to ‘pure research’, as compared to ‘applied research’. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

Understanding is often difficult and time consuming and the justification is not extrinsic (outside cause) but intrinsic.

Questions for consideration:
Is caring necessary for understanding? I think so.
What is ‘understanding’?
Is curiosity necessary for knowing? I think so.
Is curiosity necessary for understanding? I think so.
Is a knowledge of history required to ‘see life whole’? Absolutely!!
Is difficulty our duty? I think so.

To reach the path of wisdom, one need to know oneself before anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coberst

Questions for consideration:
Is caring necessary for understanding? I think so.
What is ‘understanding’?
Is curiosity necessary for knowing? I think so.
Is curiosity necessary for understanding? I think so.
Is a knowledge of history required to ‘see life whole’? Absolutely!!
Is difficulty our duty? I think so.

---

These questions make Wittgenstein's brain explode as he rolls over in his grave!

St. Augustine argues that it is faith that leads us to understanding

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beroq

To reach the path of wisdom, one need to know oneself before anything else.

---

I agree with this. It's absolutely essential. :thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coberst

Is there a path to wisdom?

---

Sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coberst

CT (Critical Thinking) is the keystone for discovering these illusions. The Catch-22 here is how can one develop a critical mind when they are deluded into thinking they have a critical mind?

---

Easy, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coberst

When our educational system has not taught our citizens how to think critically how can our citizens ever pull themselves out of this deep hole of illusion?

---

They can't, but I'm not sure it matters.

Every hive needs a good number of drones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coberst

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble; it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so”—Mark Twain

coberstakaDutchuncle

---

Cor, Dutch Uncle. Haven't seen one of those for a very long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

Why only a path to wisdom?

Can anyone seriously believe there is only one way?

---

Well, you could go by magic roundabout, but I am 100% behind Coberst here. Reality trumps everything, every single time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

Further, there are two separate problems in knowing -- one epistemological (how do I know something?), and the other metaphysical (what exactly is there to know?).

---

Why does this keep coming up?

Luckily, even my six-year old can tell the difference between reality and illusion.

"Reality might not exist, therefore I will become a solipsist" loses its appeal early.

It's a lovely agnostic intellectual position, but pretty fruitless.

I find it disappointing that some people never move beyond this, because it seriously limits critical thinking. How can you think critically and assess evidence if you aren't even sure what evidence is, or even worse, what "is" is? You become a politician!

It's also why I'm The Atheist, not The Agnostic.

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V.Jayalakshmi

The path to wisdom is through experience.One was a small minded person with prejudices.But when in dire need one was given alms of love by the prejudiced.One changed after that and knew love, universal love and acknowledged that all were but hues.Here experience taught one what knowledge and readings did not teach.

---

Just how Jesus would have put it.

Alas, it breaks down in reality, because people don't always get wiser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coberst

Questions for consideration:
Is caring necessary for understanding? I think so.
What is ‘understanding’?
Is curiosity necessary for knowing? I think so.
Is curiosity necessary for understanding? I think so.
Is a knowledge of history required to ‘see life whole’? Absolutely!!
Is difficulty our duty? I think so.

---

Are you suggesting it's our duty to take on difficulties? Or that we should take on this particular one?

I don't know whether I'd use "caring", but I think the principle's right.

Understanding is being able to empathise. Women usually do it better, but strangely, fewer of them want to use it in a wider sense. Philosophy's quite blokey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

St. Augustine argues that it is faith that leads us to understanding

---

David Icke argues faith in his belief in the lizard people will lead us to understanding.

You need to have a good filter.

One way to eliminate a problem is to simply decide it does not exist. This might be valid, but then it might not be.

The problem of the nature of reality can be "solved" if one works from an assumption that materialism (or for that matter, ideas as suggested by Plato and others) is the simple answer.

"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean, and wrong."
H.L. Mencken

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

The problem of the nature of reality can be "solved" if one works from an assumption that materialism (or for that matter, ideas as suggested by Plato and others) is the simple answer.

---

Well, on the day something non-material is found to exist, we'll reassess it all, but since we haven't yet in 10,000 years of trying and millions of galaxies investigated by sight, I see no reason not to accept materialism instead of vacillating about gnosticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean, and wrong."
H.L. Mencken

---

Yes, and misplaced quotes are high on the list.

Mencken was a materialist.

Tautologies hardly count as proofs. When one defines what exists as those things that are shown to exist materially and then concludes that only material things exist all one has accomplished is a demonstration of a lack of understanding of logic and a mind that is closed to everything except what it wants to see.

Mencken also wrote for the Baltimore Sun. Which is about as relevant to my use of his quote as his materialism was. Namely not at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

Tautologies hardly count as proofs. When one defines what exists as those things that are shown to exist materially and then concludes that only material things exist all one has accomplished is a demonstration of a lack of understanding of logic and a mind that is closed to everything except what it wants to see.

---

I'd switch "observable through measurement" for "what I can see", but if that's how you class someone as closed-minded, I'll gladly wear the tag.

As I said, I prefer to take a position rather than be a solipsist agnostic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

Mencken also wrote for the Baltimore Sun. Which is about as relevant to my use of his quote as his materialism was. Namely not at all.

---

Which, by a staggering coincidence, is exactly how much relevance it had to my comment.

:D

Is there a path to wisdom?

Circumspection.
And having a good memory.

great point about memory, backline.

It is important to distinguish between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge is the ability to use information and/or materials to achieve an intended result. Wisdom is the ability to choose what to achieve well.

Science and technology can and do provide us with the former. We know how to beat swords into plowshares and recycle plowshares into swords. What science and technology can not do is choose what we should do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

It is important to distinguish between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge is the ability to use information and/or materials to achieve an intended result. Wisdom is the ability to choose what to achieve well.

---

Nope.

One cannot have wisdom without knowledge. And it's a total exclusivity deal, wisdom is only* acquired through knowledge.

I really can't believe you'd try this street, because it's a dead end.

*Unless, of course, you want to claim an entity outside of the material universe which can grant wisdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

Science and technology can and do provide us with the former. We know how to beat swords into plowshares and recycle plowshares into swords. What science and technology can not do is choose what we should do.

---

Nice swerve.

There are two parts to this:

1 - nothing can tell us what we "should" do. Again, except for that entity outside of the material universe.

2 - if anything might give us a clue into human behaviour, morality, and the really big question of life, the universe and everything, it will almost assuredly come from observation and study.

Quite often, that's called science.

Nothing can tell us what we should do except our logic and intuition. If we accept something which goes against that, some speaker or philosopher or something, then we are doing an injustice. Everything must be measured against our conscience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

It is important to distinguish between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge is the ability to use information and/or materials to achieve an intended result. Wisdom is the ability to choose what to achieve well.

Science and technology can and do provide us with the former. We know how to beat swords into plowshares and recycle plowshares into swords. What science and technology can not do is choose what we should do.

---

Wisdom and knowledge are not unrelated to each other, but they are certainly not identical. The proof of this is that there are instances where one exists and the other does not. To take some simple examples, a child can be taught to service, maintain and use various forms of weaponry, but does not have the wisdom to understand that he is being manipulated by a warlord. A person may lack the knowledge of how an internal combustion engine works but the moral (as opposed to legal) inappropriateness of driving under the influence. One can multiply examples endlessly.

To argue that wisdom and knowledge are not identical does not preclude the possibility of one requiring at least some element of the other. To say that wisdom requires knowledge is certainly not the equivalent of saying that wisdom and knowledge are interchangeable. To insist that the two must be the same since one has the other as a necessary condition is untenable logically.

A moral question, for the sake of the argument here, is one in which a principle rather than a condition of fact is involved. Thus, here, an example of a moral question is, "Is it wrong to kill an X?" An example of something that would not be a moral question is, "Does doing Y kill an X?" The second question does not involve a principle and is purely technical.

If we limit the idea of science for the sake of the argument here as the study of matter and its interactions then it will be clear that science can not provide answers to moral questions. The very power of science requires that it be unconcerned about a hypothetical world.

The commonsensical answer to the question, "Why is what I'm looking for always in the last place I look?" is quite simply that one stops looking.

In a similar vein, those who know what THE truth is stop looking. Whether one's flavor of Truth is that everything is material, or maya, or the workings of the mind of the Great Gildersleeve doesn't really make any difference. As has been seen often enough there are atheists every bit as dogmatic and doctrinaire as any religious fanatic. As soon as a person has decided "this is it, I have found it!" that person has barred him or herself from greater knowledge. It is the smugness of believing that one has the Truth that ultimately blinds.

The very title of one of the episodes of Bronowski's Ascent of Man series expresses this nicely, "Knowledge or Certainty."

Richard Feynmann once discussed what he felt was a basic division in humanity: those who are comfortable with ambiguity and those who require definite hard knowledge of the universe. He argued that the true scientist belonged to the first camp, since scientific knowledge is by its nature provisional. As we come to know more we revise and on occasion even discard what we previously "knew." This is not a weakness of science, but the source of its strength.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

The commonsensical answer to the question, "Why is what I'm looking for always in the last place I look?" is quite simply that one stops looking.

In a similar vein, those who know what THE truth is stop looking. Whether one's flavor of Truth is that everything is material, or maya, or the workings of the mind of the Great Gildersleeve doesn't really make any difference. As has been seen often enough there are atheists every bit as dogmatic and doctrinaire as any religious fanatic. As soon as a person has decided "this is it, I have found it!" that person has barred him or herself from greater knowledge. It is the smugness of believing that one has the Truth that ultimately blinds.

The very title of one of the episodes of Bronowski's Ascent of Man series expresses this nicely, "Knowledge or Certainty."

Richard Feynmann once discussed what he felt was a basic division in humanity: those who are comfortable with ambiguity and those who require definite hard knowledge of the universe. He argued that the true scientist belonged to the first camp, since scientific knowledge is by its nature provisional. As we come to know more we revise and on occasion even discard what we previously "knew." This is not a weakness of science, but the source of its strength.

---

Since you have said this to me before, and since you are using the word maya which I used, and, since your last post was reasonably intelligent, I will go ahead and reply to you.

First, what if the smugness you perceive is only what you perceive?

Second, simply to defend myself a little, I am not dogmatic, nor smug. Not in the least. I am not talking about any doctrine either. And what I said was this, that life is infinite. Life is infinite growth. Truth is infinite. Let me make clear that this is my stance. I do not know all of infinite truth. But I have become aware that there is an infinite truth. I am aware that I can only know as much as I am able to know. But do you say that my asserting that there is an infinite God, and that life is infinite growth - means that I am, by necessity, now close-minded and stopped seeking truth? Or you could do what Grotto does and basically call me a liar - say that I repeat what others have said, meaning that I am speaking of things which I have not felt, realized, or seen. Or you can simply call me mad. But neither of those indicates a great, um, sincerity on your part.

My position is that life is infinte growth; and that God is infinite peace, bliss, power, knowledge... God is the source and root of reality. To have a glimpse of the infinite bliss, peace, power, and knowledge of God puts the lie to the rest of this. That that infinite is waiting us shows that in relation, the temporary is false. You may disagree but simply repeating over and over that what I've said means I don't search for truth is just malarky. I am quite aware of the need for further growth. In fact it is my position that life is infinite growth.

So... what is your reason? What is your reason for saying that someone who speaks of revelation, of glimpsing truth, can therefore be only false? What is your reason for saying that someone who speaks of truth, peace, and bliss beyond words or any worded description, is therefore, by necessity, speaking falsehood?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

Wisdom and knowledge are not unrelated to each other, but they are certainly not identical.

---

I haven't seen anyone suggest they are, but it's good that you acknowledge the relationship now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

If we limit the idea of science for the sake of the argument here as the study of matter and its interactions then it will be clear that science can not provide answers to moral questions.

---

And I repeat the question - what does answer moral questions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

The very power of science requires that it be unconcerned about a hypothetical world.

---

You say that, which I think is clearly incorrect, but the next post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

He argued that the true scientist belonged to the first camp, since scientific knowledge is by its nature provisional. As we come to know more we revise and on occasion even discard what we previously "knew." This is not a weakness of science, but the source of its strength.

---

You accede that science is both imaginative and hypothetical.

You seem to now be having a dollar each way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

It is important to distinguish between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge is the ability to use information and/or materials to achieve an intended result. Wisdom is the ability to choose what to achieve well.

Science and technology can and do provide us with the former. We know how to beat swords into plowshares and recycle plowshares into swords. What science and technology can not do is choose what we should do.

---

I agree that knowledge and wisdom are different things. And, although you didn't specifically suggest that they are separate things, I think the Atheist did sniff out that something was a little wrong in your distinction. I think that it is a little overly-expansive to say that wisdom is "to choose what to do well". I think wisdom is more simply "the ability to make the best choice." Now, what is 'best' is something that might ultimately be explainable by science, but I think that anyone who is certain that science will conclusively explain the source(s) of our aesthetic sense is open to charges of dogmatism. There's no proof that science will conclusively corral that one, and there won't be until it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I'd switch "observable through measurement" for "what I can see", but if that's how you class someone as closed-minded, I'll gladly wear the tag.

As I said, I prefer to take a position rather than be a solipsist agnostic.

:D

---

I'm sorry, but I thought it was just beautiful how "what it wants to see" seems to have been read as "what I can see". Of course it was late, and the posts here are of a pretty high-caliber and tend to lead the mind on digressions and fire the emotions a bit, and so on. It didn't really stray from the larger argument, and the positivist stance is duly-noted (and a tough nut for Hresko to crack, it seems!). Plus, too many agnostics spoil the stew. :thumbs_up

But, on the whole, I think the Feynman quote is pretty good. I think more theoretical scientists might have an instinct for open-mindedness, and an aversion to dogmatism.

Regarding wisdom and morality and all that, I don't think that anyone in science should be too sure that they've got that figured out yet, not even that they're on the correct path to figuring it out. Those new guys with their cognitive science analysis can propose an interesting new framework, one that materialists might be able to really sink their teeth into--but there's still "the body" and "the environment" and change through time, and all sorts of multiplying "relations" and "processes", the arbitrariness of which might never be determined to a properly sceptical science's own satisfaction, much less an objective viewpoint from which to decide what meanings reside where.

On the off chance that the Atheist and RichardHresko are basically talking past each other, and are, to some extent in agreement, I'm curious to ask:
RichardHresko, do you think that some things will forever be out of science's reach, and that it's the wrong approach (i.e. do you think 'beauty', good/evil, Why are we here?, etc. are out-of-reach?); or are you asserting that thinking outside of science's (current) confines is an important part of science, or something like that?

Whoa, the Atheist posted while I was typing mine up! Well, I hadn't realized that RichardHresko had already taken a firm stance against science's chances at morality. Hmm.

Well, I like everybody taking a dollar each way a bit, and being skeptical of the money they don't want. Great debate!

Is gravity material? Are subatomic particles material? How did scientists feel when they discovered that light had a wave/particle duality? Does the surprising importance of 'the observer' in quantum mechanics cause concern to strict-materialists? Does it bring science back into the ballgame for some who might have previously counted it out, regarding questions about "consciousness" and "spiritualism"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

Well, I like everybody taking a dollar each way a bit, and being skeptical of the money they don't want.

---

Great analogy, and even Pascal gave it a crack with his well-know fallacy, sometimes called Pascal's Wager.

Above all, I'm a pragmatist, and when you have a two-horse race, as you do with materialism and non-materialism, if one of the nags has a picket-fence form line and has never been beaten in a 1000-year career and the other's never shown the ability to even gallop, it's not necessarily wise to have a dollar on the billion-to-one shot.

I wanted to be a bookie when I grew up.

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

I agree that knowledge and wisdom are different things. And, although you didn't specifically suggest that they are separate things, I think the Atheist did sniff out that something was a little wrong in your distinction. I think that it is a little overly-expansive to say that wisdom is "to choose what to do well". I think wisdom is more simply "the ability to make the best choice." Now, what is 'best' is something that might ultimately be explainable by science, but I think that anyone who is certain that science will conclusively explain the source(s) of our aesthetic sense is open to charges of dogmatism. There's no proof that science will conclusively corral that one, and there won't be until it does.


On the off chance that the Atheist and RichardHresko are basically talking past each other, and are, to some extent in agreement, I'm curious to ask:
RichardHresko, do you think that some things will forever be out of science's reach, and that it's the wrong approach (i.e. do you think 'beauty', good/evil, Why are we here?, etc. are out-of-reach?); or are you asserting that thinking outside of science's (current) confines is an important part of science, or something like that?

---

There are two good points to be addressed here. The first is on what wisdom provides that is not provided by science. The confusion, as far as I can tell, is some ambiguity over the ideas of "making the best choice" and "to choose what to do well". There are two germane meanings to these phrases:

1) To choose in such a way as to optimize an outcome. This is certainly within the purview of science and technology, since it deals with how to manipulate resources and can, at least in theory, be quantified and is subject to observation. This, as I pointed out in my previous post, does not involve the invocation of a moral principle. For the dark side of this look at the transcript of Eichmann's trial from Eichmann's point of view: he was a bureaucrat, he did his job efficiently, and that was the end of the matter. This is precisely why Arendt was struck by the "banality of evil." (The issue of Eichmann's evil, I think, is his very refusal to consider the moral as opposed to the purely technical dimensions of his actions. But that is a different discussion, and I will drop that tangent here.)

2) To choose in such a way as to work for a "good." This is a fundamentally different question than deciding the best way to do something. It involves the decision that a particular goal is worthy of pursuit. Before deciding how best to eliminate or at least minimize world hunger or animal suffering at the hands of humans one must first make a decision that it matters and is a good thing that people do not starve or that animals not be made to suffer needlessly. How easily one comes to a conclusion about these things, or how "obvious" the "correct" position is, is not the issue.

My position is simply that one can not come to a moral principle by means of observations alone. The mere observation that throwing hand grenades at children causes the children harm does not, in itself, lead us to a conclusion that we should not do this. It merely tells us what the result of the action will be.

The second point to address is the appropriate use of science. Anyone who has used tools understands that the task is what suggests the best tool to use in that circumstance. A hammer is not inferior to a screwdriver because it does a poorer job in inserting or removing a screw any more than a screwdriver is inferior to a hammer because it is not as effective in driving in nails. This is why one owns both, and perhaps a few other tools as well. Such a simple idea can be traced in the literature at least back to Aristotle, and some studies have suggested that some species on this planet besides ourselves have some notion of this as well.

That being said, one has to ask whether or not a discipline that is devoted to the puzzling out of how things work, and constructing models of why things occur the way they do is an appropriate tool for answering questions about what purposes a human being should devote his or her life to? Questions about the meaning or purpose of life within the context of science are as inappropriate for that discipline as asking what color the number "5" is.

As to the final question in the post I am responding to, my answer is that thinking outside of science's confines (current or otherwise) is an important part of being human.

It is a basic error to work from the assumption that a single system (be it radical materialism, religious code, or philosophical system) will be able to answer every possible question (this is actually a weaker version of Goedel's Theorem). The price one pays for the certainty is the surrendering of the possibility of learning more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

2) To choose in such a way as to work for a "good."

---

That should work out well once you define what is "good" and what is "bad".

Good luck with that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

My position is simply that one can not come to a moral principle by means of observations alone. The mere observation that throwing hand grenades at children causes the children harm does not, in itself, lead us to a conclusion that we should not do this. It merely tells us what the result of the action will be.

---

And no logic, philosophy or anything else will tell you what that morality actually is. You're still telling us what can't authorise morality without giving an alternative as to what can assist working out whether moral questions are valid or answerable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

Such a simple idea can be traced in the literature at least back to Aristotle, and some studies have suggested that some species on this planet besides ourselves have some notion of this as well.

---

That's a fallacy.

Other species may use objects as tools, but no primate or otherwise uses tools in the sense of "I'll keep this sharp stick to use when I need it". Other animalian use of tools is entirely reactive and a different process from human usage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

Questions about the meaning or purpose of life within the context of science are as inappropriate for that discipline as asking what color the number "5" is.

---

Yet, if there is no "meaning of life", science won't have wasted hundreds of years worrying about it. When some sensible evidence exists that life does, or is meant to have a meaning, no doubt science will find a way to explore it.

I think your sentence makes much better sense like this:

Questions about the meaning or purpose of life are as inappropriate for that discipline as asking what color the number "5" is.

What you seem to be doing is giving a free pass for disciplines to focus on answering the unanswerable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

to the final question in the post I am responding to, my answer is that thinking outside of science's confines (current or otherwise) is an important part of being human.

---

I wonder whether you're just confusing what science is, because there are no areas outside of it. You could try the aesthetic route of art & music, but given that birds sing, I've never managed to see aesthetic appreciation as outside of materialist origin.

What do you consider "outside of science"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

It is a basic error to work from the assumption that a single system (be it radical materialism, religious code, or philosophical system) will be able to answer every possible question (this is actually a weaker version of Goedel's Theorem). The price one pays for the certainty is the surrendering of the possibility of learning more.

---

Again, this is simply a category error - in fact two of them:

You may think it's wrong, but it definitely isn't a basic error. It's a perfectly valid stance to accept that all questions will ultimately be answered by scientific enquiry.

The other mistake is assuming that all questions are worth answering, even though you've highlighted one - what colour is five?

Asking what the meaning of life is is not like asking what colour is the number five. Absolutely, science can help find the meaning of life. Why could it not? Perhaps we don't have the tools as is to discover what it is, but then we are always advancing our tools. It requires intuition as well as logic to understand the meaning of life; but then most scientific discoveries are based in part on the imagination. Most leaps in science are based on intuition, though it comes after extensive methodical searching and learning. Perhaps the meaning of life can be understood through intuition to begin with, and can only be explained methodically after we have gotten some new tools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Asking what the meaning of life is is not like asking what colour is the number five.

---

I find it is, because as Douglas Adams alluded to, we don't really know what the question actually is. What "meaning"? How do we know there is one? Why should there be a "meaning" to life? Does a tree's life have some "meaning" as well? Rocks?

The whole concept is an abstract construct.

Adding some references to my previous post:

My allusion to Aristotle was to Book I Chapter 3 of the Nicomachean Ethics (1094b) where Aristotle points out that progress is made when we accept that the degree of precision allowed is a function of the subject matter.

There are numerous studies of tool selection and use among non-human primates. One book that references several of these studies is: Joanna Blake, Routes to child language: evolutionary and developmental precursors (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I find it is, because as Douglas Adams alluded to, we don't really know what the question actually is. What "meaning"? How do we know there is one? Why should there be a "meaning" to life? Does a tree's life have some "meaning" as well? Rocks?

The whole concept is an abstract construct.

---

I can't answer a tree's life or a rock's.

About a human's... you know it may seem like that. Like asking the colour of the number five. It may seem like that because it may seem like life is meaningless. And so meaning is as foreign to life (which is meaningless) as colour is to a number.

My own use of meaning is similar to other types of the highest understanding of one's self. I mean in terms of self-realization. It is not the same, but it is simlar in that it is beyond ordinary experience.

One example, well, I would give a specific situation of walking down the hall, let's us say in a hotel, as it will give a point of reference, on a carpet. Now, in my opinion, based on my experiences, this has meaning. I know that saying this doesn't imbue meaning. But even if every time I do this act again in my life I do not experience "meaning," still, by my past experiences, I have become convinced that meaning still is there.

I know that saying that an experience such as walking down a hall on carpet has meaning does not convey that meaning. And saying that that meaning can't really be understood simply by normal experience doesn't convey it either. And I would try to continue to discuss it, even if it seems elusive. Meaning is elusive.

What I would say about an experience - could be any experience, doesn't have to be one or the other - is that the experience has meaning, beyond perhaps what we would understand just by experiencing it, if it is an ordinary experience, and further, that meaning has meaning. So there is infinite meaning. I was discussing this with Uberzensch and he said that we were saying the same thing, as he was saying that there was no meaning. And at this I had to agree. No meaning is the same as infinite meaning, but not if you think that no meaning means there is nothing to realize.

How can I know there is nothing to realize? How can I know there is nothing beyond what I know now? Actually it's the worst fallacy to imagine that there's nothing beyond what I have experienced, and realized, nothing true beyond what I have, by chance and circumstances, experienced in this life.

I hope this wasn't too long, but - anyway, I submit that there is meaning, that it is rare, and valuable, which is something similar to, but not the same as, self-realization. The meaning of life is something along the lines of other universal, self-truths, which exist. I guess the main universal is that non-injuring living beings is good.

What I meant was, that life has meaning, and that meaning has meaning, and that meaning has... and so on. It may seem circular to you, but to me it is infinite meaning, infinite growth. I may have a revelation, sudden or gradual, and then another. There is no end other than the journey, no end other than the present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

...

One example, well, I would give a specific situation of walking down the hall, let's us say in a hotel, as it will give a point of reference, on a carpet. Now, in my opinion, based on my experiences, this has meaning. I know that saying this doesn't imbue meaning. But even if every time I do this act again in my life I do not experience "meaning," still, by my past experiences, I have become convinced that meaning still is there.

I know that saying that an experience such as walking down a hall on carpet has meaning does not convey that meaning. And saying that that meaning can't really be understood simply by normal experience doesn't convey it either. And I would try to continue to discuss it, even if it seems elusive. Meaning is elusive.

What I would say about an experience - could be any experience, doesn't have to be one or the other - is that the experience has meaning, beyond perhaps what we would understand just by experiencing it, if it is an ordinary experience, and further, that meaning has meaning. So there is infinite meaning. I was discussing this with Uberzensch and he said that we were saying the same thing, as he was saying that there was no meaning. And at this I had to agree. No meaning is the same as infinite meaning, but not if you think that no meaning means there is nothing to realize.

How can I know there is nothing to realize? How can I know there is nothing beyond what I know now? Actually it's the worst fallacy to imagine that there's nothing beyond what I have experienced, and realized, nothing true beyond what I have, by chance and circumstances, experienced in this life.

I hope this wasn't too long, but - anyway, I submit that there is meaning, that it is rare, and valuable, which is something similar to, but not the same as, self-realization. The meaning of life is something along the lines of other universal, self-truths, which exist. I guess the main universal is that non-injuring living beings is good.

---

Bravo.
Good example.
Well expressed (at least I think I get it).
Good job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backline

Bravo.
Good example.
Well expressed (at least I think I get it).
Good job.

---

Thank you! :) I am sure you have got what I meant.
This was one way of addressing the issue, of meaning, that I thought of at least a while ago, and this is the first time I've ever successfully communicated it. So thanks. :p

I like a guy with original thought.
Kudos (at least until the backlash)!

What's that siren sound?
Incoming!!!!!
Run!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backline

I like a guy with original thought.
Kudos (at least until the backlash)!

What's that siren sound?
Incoming!!!!!
Run!

---

No backlash has occurred, at least on this thread.

I have sorted my thoughts on it out a little. We can only understand meaning after some reflection on our life, and when we can understand our life more deeply. I think it is relative. What one finds superficial, another finds extremely important.