100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

Metal => Interzone => Topic started by: crow on April 24, 2013, 01:45:46 PM

Title: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: crow on April 24, 2013, 01:45:46 PM
Wisdom = observing what things actually are, and living in a way that is based upon those observations.
Philosophy = observing things in terms of how the philosopher imagines they should be, and writing vast volumes about it.

Student of wisdom = one who seeks to understand the currently incomprehensible.
Student of philosophy = one who seeks to impress others with how much he 'knows'.

Sage = one who has observed enough of life without superimposing his own judgments upon it, to know WTF is going on.
Philosopher = one who has succeeded in finding fault with almost everything except himself.

It is easy to see how short a step it is from philosophy to ideology. The religion of how things should be, and the enforcement of that view upon everybody else.
Thus it is also easy to see how wisdom can become vastly unpopular, in the latent threat it seems to pose to ideology.

Wisdom = the quiet assimilation, into one's own life, of timeless natural principles.
Philosophy = the strident harangue for everybody to act in the arbitrary fashion of the moment.
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: BillHopkins on April 24, 2013, 04:56:48 PM
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wisdom/  ;)
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: crow on April 24, 2013, 06:09:45 PM
I'm wondering why, exactly why, you posted that link, with no text, accompanied by a wink.
I'm wondering, too, if you even know.

Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: trystero on April 25, 2013, 12:39:27 AM
I don't think wisdom emerges from the intellect at all, nor is it purely rational. Wisdom is, to an extent, felt. A lot of our cognition is intuitive, unconscious and emotional (dulling emotional affect makes people crippled when it comes to simple decisions). There is a purely biological, non-rational element to it, though overall this is balanced with reason. Inbuilt (also traditional, hence "traditional wisdom") responses to problems are acausal solutions which may break down in the face of rational inquiry but gets you to the right place more often than not (especially when combined with rational inquiry). This is why, to me, a lot of philosophy becomes very airy-fairy and disconnected from real experience. It elevates rational thought to a pedestal it does not deserve to be on, though not all are guilty of this and there are philosophers with powerful insights on human nature.

The comparison between philosophy and wisdom is not completely warranted, as one does not preclude the other. You can be a wise philosopher. However, wisdom and rhetoric are I think in some opposition; wisdom being (partially) inbuilt truth and rhetoric being controlling others by appeals to the inbuilt. I don't believe there is any such thing as rhetoric which does not rely on pathos. The contrasts a powerful speaker uses in debate or discourse touch something primal in us I think. The enjoyment gained out of music is probably related, I can't imagine music being anything worth bothering with if approached by an intelligent robot; we feel the connections in it due to the release of reward hormones. It's kind of ironic that the first post is mostly rhetoric.
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: crow on April 25, 2013, 11:06:32 AM
Philosophy implies there is meaning to life, and attempts to define that meaning.
Or that there is none, and attempts to define why that is so.
It operates through intellect.

Wisdom clearly sees that there is life, and discovers how best to live it.

Intellect seeks meaning in things.
Wisdom seeks none. It accepts what is, and makes the most of it.

Life is for living, not analyzing.

Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: username on April 25, 2013, 01:10:56 PM
Some philosophers seem like charlatans. Sometimes it's difficult to judge at a glance. But I found that the poetic stuff of Nietzsche(Zarathustra and Dionysos Dithyramben) and the essays of Schopenhauer were extremely important texts.

The old fashioned religious wisdom litterature such as the upanishads, the Dhammapada, Lao Tze etc, is something one must absorb in an active way and think about to integrate it in ones being.

Though, reading a text always requires you to be active as a reader to get something out of it.... But that can also be saids about looking at a tree.
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: crow on April 25, 2013, 01:19:23 PM
I would say that observing or reading actively is exactly the opposite to being able to see what it is, or what it contains. Active suggests mental processing, and no wisdom ever came of that. Only knowledge. Whatever that is.

This is the difference - a profound one - between consideration and contemplation.
The first processes information. The second allows what is there to become apparent, without processing it.

This difference is the thing most impossible to convey to anyone who knows nothing else but processing.
There is a whole alternate but complementary cosmos of input to be contemplated, rather than processed.
The final frontier, you could say.

Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: trystero on April 25, 2013, 02:45:33 PM
Perhaps there is too much of a semantic complaint, "actively" reading a religious text would imply for me reading it with an open heart and you are right, this means turning off some things in your head. Nitpicks are forgotten and the message is absorbed. You let it convince you totally, and not just as a logical process. But some things are meant to be processed, and its foolish to attempt to colour those with anything else; a treatise on mechanics perhaps. Processing is a much more valuable ability in our times from the point of view of both individuals and groups, so expect to see more of it! Parts of the coalescing neoreactionary space can perhaps be considered a response to extreme processors (internet autistic social justice types).

I've found "heart" a very convenient word to use for stuff that isn't cause-effect logic (but naturally is in the brain). There is something to traditional wisdom that considered a person's consciousness to emerge from the heart. For a nitpicker it is just biological inaccuracy,
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: username on April 25, 2013, 03:01:35 PM
Well, in the world of changes there will always be the object-subject duality, so observing/experiencing a thing is always defining the thing in relation to something else.

The thing in the world of changes is never defined by putting it in relation to the thing itself, and it exists only as a relation to other things.

The idea of the Atma/Brahma experience is on the other hand that absolute subject experience of the absolute subject itself. I wonder if that is something like what you are talking about and perhaps we are speaking past each other.
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: crow on April 25, 2013, 03:58:37 PM
Certainly we are 'speaking past each other'. This is a phenomenon that dogs me.
There is no effective way to explain what I always attempt to explain, and that I do attempt to explain for the very reason that it is such a priceless thing. It is, apparently, inexplicable. But it operates as I have said. No processing. If you're able to perform this feat, that actually is the total absence of any feat, then everything changes.

Why do I do this thing, anyway, if it is so impossible, and so thankless?
Imagine if a man discovered that it was, indeed, possible for a human to fly, unassisted. He would, in all likelihood, be ardently interested in sharing that with other people, no? Maybe he wouldn't, but I would.
And then imagine everyone getting really angry at him, and abusing him, because everybody 'knows' people can't fly.
He gets called an idiot, and a moron. Yet he is able to fly, when nobody else can.

That's about the size of it. I have knowledge of something that is far too big to not share.
But it is impossible to successfully share it.
What would you do?


Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: Phoenix on April 25, 2013, 09:23:37 PM
In the world of philosophy it's a well-known fact that philosophers vigorously disagree about what philosophy is and what it should be. I would argue that a true philosophy should eventually transcend itself for the philosopher, over a fair period of time and largely in a deconstructive manner, and lead to wisdom.
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: crow on April 25, 2013, 10:04:49 PM
Deconstruction deconstructs. Demolishes. Wrecks. How can it do anything else?
I don't wreck stuff. I build stuff. Every day.
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: Phoenix on April 25, 2013, 10:14:33 PM
You can't just tell a person to simply be.
That would seem absurd. They already "are".
ISness is the result, not the cause.
Behind every person who is present is a person
and people have many theories and ideas,
practically all of them wrong.
When the child asks "why", should the parent say "because"?
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: crow on April 25, 2013, 10:22:32 PM
Wrong again. It may seem absurd, but it is not what it seems. It is what it is.
How many people do you know who just are?
They are a seething mess of contradictions and angst.
Lose all that, and maybe then you can just be.
Just being, is living without the madness that people assume is living.
It is as different as chalk is from cheese.
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: Phoenix on April 25, 2013, 10:26:45 PM
The fruit does not have to wilt before it can fall? How does this miraculous change you speak of happen at the drop of a dime?
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: crow on April 25, 2013, 10:33:19 PM
It doesn't just happen, but it will never happen at all until it is begun.
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: username on April 26, 2013, 01:01:28 AM


What if I put a cheese, you looked at, turned around, and in the meantime I replaced it with a piece of rubber replica, and you looked at it again.

Both observations would say it is the same cheese, but that obviously is wrong. The rubber does not smell or taste like a cheese.

I suppose, that what you mean by "is" withour processing is simply the experience of the visual impression of the yellow square cheeselike object. When you go to smell the object it is a different experience, and again with taste it "is" a new experience.

Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: trystero on April 26, 2013, 06:07:44 AM
Maybe the message can be stated as: Dont see things as a combination of superficialities, see the thing in itself.

crow even the ancient masters did not bring wisdom to the masses, rather those among them who awakened to it would seek them. These are not things you can transmit with words, perhaps you know this better than me. First an awakening must happen. If you look at the neoreactionary space (of which Amerika would probably be a part), you see a lot of people who have awakened to the truth of their world, but many still process it in the same way that they used to when they were still happy liberals. Similar... patterns of behaviour, inability to see the big picture, inability even to acknowledge the existence of a big picture. At the same time, some do change so maybe I am wrong!

But I am sure you could count the number of people who you have awakened to wisdom with words alone on one fist.
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: crow on April 26, 2013, 10:26:57 AM
Absolutely.
I seek nobody's awakening, though, because this can not be.
I do seek to lay down accounts of another consciousness, not to deliver it to anyone, but to inspire/encourage them to discover it for themselves.
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: username on April 26, 2013, 01:26:26 PM
The metaphysical truths can be explained in an approximate way, but no explanation is the metaphysical truths.

The "masses" are uniform in that they will not listen, as they already have made up their mind or don't care.

Anybody else are worth communicating with.
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: crow on April 26, 2013, 01:29:43 PM
Yes. You have to endure a very large number of boors before a live one shows up.
There's no better way to learn that most important skill of patience.

Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: trystero on April 26, 2013, 06:07:18 PM
Absolutely.
I seek nobody's awakening, though, because this can not be.
I do seek to lay down accounts of another consciousness, not to deliver it to anyone, but to inspire/encourage them to discover it for themselves.

Philosophy can be similar, giving you a window into the wise even if the content seems to be too deliberate in its reasoning. Personally, I prefer the aphorism, much more powerful and poetic. Example: Don Colachos Aphorisms (http://don-colacho.blogspot.co.uk/)
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: crow on April 26, 2013, 06:16:05 PM
Aphorism is my favourite medium. Albeit in the style of Lao Tzu.
However, when enough people get annoyed at me for 'trying to sound wise', or out and out not 'getting it', I find myself experimenting with other, less attractive mediums.
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: trystero on April 26, 2013, 06:31:04 PM
It is strong medicine, and not always appropriate. It can get annoying.
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: lost_wanderer on April 26, 2013, 09:33:19 PM
I always wondered why some philosophers tend to write so much to say so little? It's  like the more they are trapped in the supperficial world (like the marxist phylosophers) the more they tend to write big, incomprehensible words.
It's a chance that I was rebutted by their writing style, their thoughts never have a chance to have a grasp on me.  :)

I gained more knowledge about life reading  comic books than reading philosophy books.
Is there some philosophy books that is worth reading instead of reading books like the Tao te king or the Upanishads? The only phylosophy book that I have read in its entirely  is ''Thus Spoke Zarathustra'' if that counts or ''Beyond Good and Evil'' a long time ago.
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: crow on April 26, 2013, 09:38:33 PM
Try reading Genesis again, but as a comic-book that uses simplistic descriptions for eternal truths.
It's amazing what it actually says, once you dispense with the Christian perspective.
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: lost_wanderer on April 26, 2013, 09:46:33 PM
Thanks for the advice.  I haven't read it in a really long time.

There's some good stuff in the bible if you search enough.
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: trystero on April 27, 2013, 01:05:22 AM
Or dont dispense with anything and just read it as-is, without expectations. I have always found the Bible to be a profound text. Very un-PC to boot. If all Christians took all of the Bible 100% seriously, Christianity would be reborn in strength.
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: crow on April 27, 2013, 10:07:07 AM
Fair enough. I've become somewhat jaded with Christianity and Christians, lately.
There's a definite siege mentality that characterizes many of them, now.
I find Genesis to be magnificent and true, but only when not under the obligation to interpret it through a Christian outlook. In fact, once interpretation is suspended, it reads completely differently, in the same way the verses of tao te ching say something different, each time they are re-read.

In the same vein, how different Christianity would be, if its magnificent old-world churches were a place of mostly silence, without the endless droning of the clergy, to ruin the ambiance.
Title: Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
Post by: username on April 27, 2013, 01:07:42 PM
Christianity cannot be understood throug the bible alone.

I think the bible has some holes. F.e. in WHY one should love ones neighbour, which is f.e. much clearer in Indian litterature.

Modern christianity is insane.

Real christianity must have the Greek-Roman spirit with it, besides of some non biblical wisdom.

My priest great-grandfather was asked by a man what to do : His wife had run off with some boy.

He thus said, you must go and beat that guy up, as the holy matrimony is unbreakable.

He then went and beat that guy and reclaimed his wife. And that was a very christian and moral thing to do.

Of course, no modern unbeliever prist would advise such, but rather advise to turn the other buttcheek.